News Disney CFO Christine McCarthy says Disney will continue to focus on existing intellectual property for new park investments

[UNCgolf]

Their support model for maintaining was based on sponsorships, not admission, retail, and food sales.

Right, but while sponsorship was necessary for Disney in the early 80s when EPCOT was developed, it certainly wasn't necessary for Disney to rely on sponsorships for maintenance/updates in the 90s and beyond. Disney was a very different company then.

 

[celluloid]

The same could be said for the Br'ers and look what happened to them.

Hence the last part of my post.

 

[flynnibus]

Exactly. There are two main problems with the IP mandate:

1. IP is used indiscriminately, in places where it doesn't belong and where it compromises the themes of the park that it's in.

2. Disney only wants to use IP and therefore doesn't allow any original or creative attractions to be built.

Where in the comments was there any statement of ONLY using IP or mandating that?

 

[erasure fan1]

1. IP is used indiscriminately, in places where it doesn't belong and where it compromises the themes of the park that it's in.

This is at the heart of my issue with IP. I expect, as I'm sure most do as well, my favorite IPs to be in the parks. But the absolute lazy, no care for thematic integrity is where the issue comes in. When something is needed for an area, if the mandate is, it has to be IP based, you immediately stifle creativity. Sure, sometimes it works out, but you greatly reduce your options.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I was wondering. When an IP is used in the parks, does the parks pay a licensing fee to another business unit in TWDC?

It's a good way take money from the cash cow (parks and resorts) and make the other business unit look like they make money.

I have no idea, just asking.

 

[BlakeW39]

Where in the comments was there any statement of ONLY using IP or mandating that?

Lol, well while she didn't technically say "we here at TWDC will only use existing IPs for our attractions. This is an IP mandate," she did say they would continue to focus on the existing intellectual properties that "really resonate with our consumers."

We know that both of the Bobs employed an IP mandate regarding any and all parks related investment. Christine then implied they would continue to focus on IP as they have been doing. Therefore we can assume going forward that they will continue to use IP for all new attractions, and not greenlight any original attractions, as has been the case across all their domestic theme parks for almost 20 years.

 

[BlakeW39]

This is at the heart of my issue with IP. I expect, as I'm sure most do as well, my favorite IPs to be in the parks. But the absolute lazy, no care for thematic integrity is where the issue comes in. When something is needed for an area, if the mandate is, it has to be IP based, you immediately stifle creativity. Sure, sometimes it works out, but you greatly reduce your options.

Precisely. And here comes Christine, saying things will not get any better. thank god they don't have the theme park rights to Marvel or Wakanda at DAK might be a seriously real possiblity.

 

[flynnibus]

Lol, well while she didn't technically say "we here at TWDC will only use existing IPs for our attractions. This is an IP mandate," she did say they would continue to focus on the existing intellectual properties that "really resonate with our consumers."

So you agree she didn't say what you keep repeating in this thread.

We know that both of the Bobs employed an IP mandate regarding any and all parks related investment.

We know that IP integration made attractions more attractive to management and far more likely to be approved.

I think it's foolish to not acknowledge that TWDC is a different beast then it was even back when DAK was built. It is now a media conglomerate. That's a lot more assets and venues people also want to see...

Focusing on IP or not is foolish IMO. What matters is when you put on a good show. IP can enhance or break that. It's presence isn't the metric that matters.

 

[The Colonel]

I look forward to Proud Family Treehouse

 

[BlakeW39]

So you agree she didn't say what you keep repeating in this thread.

No, I don't. Especially being that I never quoted her on that. And quite frankly your disingenuous "gotcha!" crap...which I've seen you post all over this website...really doesn't do it for me.

You can deny the IP mandate all you want based on semantic nitpicks. But I and others have laid out the reasons that the way Disney handles IP (or at least how Disney handles it?) is part of the problem here. For example, they can make whatever high quality Zootopia attraction they want but that won't make it any better in DAK as a park.

 

[flynnibus]

No, I don't. Especially being that I never quoted her on that. And quite frankly your disingenuous "gotcha!" crap...which I've seen you post all over this website...really doesn't do it for me.

You're stating it as fact based on her comments - Not a cite, not factual.

You can have your opinion, but don't leapfrog off this news as 'confirmation' or citing what 'they really meant' or something. You keep repeating these lines as if it's verbatim. It's not.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I was wondering. When an IP is used in the parks, does the parks pay a licensing fee to another business unit in TWDC?

It's a good way take money from the cash cow (parks and resorts) and make the other business unit look like they make money.

I have no idea, just asking.

I believe so. I've heard that when certain characters appear in a park to promote a movie, it's because the studio side paid for it as a promotional expense.

There could also be issues where people involved in a movie for example are entitled to additional compensation if their creation or likeness is used in another medium. Therefore, Disney has to "pay" market value to themselves to make an attraction based off a movie, for example, lest they be sued for not paying enough and therefore denying someone their fair share.

Chris Carter once sued Fox because they sold X-Files reruns to FX, their own secondary network. He alleged they sold the rights to themselves essentially at a huge discount and his cut of the profits was less than if they had sold it at fair market value.

That's just my layman understanding.

 

[Tha Realest]

You're stating it as fact based on her comments - Not a cite, not factual.

You can have your opinion, but don't leapfrog off this news as 'confirmation' or citing what 'they really meant' or something. You keep repeating these lines as if it's verbatim. It's not.

Other than Tarzan’s Treehouse -> S.E.A.* Treehouse, can you point to another new attraction or recent retheme that doesn’t involve existing Disney IP?

*S.E.A. series and film have been announced as in development for Disney+

 

[BlakeW39]

You're stating it as fact based on her comments - Not a cite, not factual.

Wrong, again, and a strawman. I never quoted Christine as referring to any kind of mandate, nor did I explicitly base my arguments solely on what she said here. I used IP-mandate as a shorthand for Disney only investing in their new attractions if there's an IP attached to it. But you knew that, you're just picking at semantics. And I'm not 'leapfrogging,' either.

 

[spacemt354]

But I and others have laid out the reasons that way Disney handles IP (or at least how Disney handles it?) is part of the problem here. For example, they can make whatever high quality Zootopia attraction they want but that won't make it any better in DAK as a park.

I do get the desire for more original attractions, but at the same time that change in philosophy that doesn't ensure something will be good.

For instance my main complaint with Galaxy's Edge is that there isn't 'enough' Star Wars. The decision to make the land more original to me was a misfire, as I found much of it to be inferior to the IP its based on.

People (even myself included) were thinking that Pandora wouldn't make DAK any better as a park before it was built, but it made DAK a more complete park as a whole. And the IP was integrated seamlessly into the park.

Their main competition in Orlando is also an almost exclusive IP theme park resort, so I'd rather see more attractions get approved by management than have to wait and hope for a lightning in a bottle original attraction.

 

[LittleBuford]

The quality of the attraction and the appropriateness of its theming are what matter to me. The IP debate is unnecessarily overwrought in my opinion.

 

[flynnibus]

Wrong, again, and a strawman.

Strawman? You mean like when you omit the following line addressing how I'm using the language?
"You keep repeating these lines as if it's verbatim. It's not."

 

[BlakeW39]

Strawman? You mean like when you omit the following line addressing how I'm using the language?
"You keep repeating these lines as if it's verbatim. It's not."

Nope, not like that actually. I'm quoting individual parts of your posts because the rest of them are devoid of any real counterarguments.

 

[flynnibus]

Other than Tarzan’s Treehouse -> S.E.A.* Treehouse, can you point to another new attraction or recent retheme that doesn’t involve existing Disney IP?

*S.E.A. series and film have been announced as in development for Disney+

Your net becomes basically infinite when you say "involve" IP.

In my opinion I still draw distinctions between INCLUDING IP and building something AROUND existing IP. I also view IP that aligns differently than IP inclusion that is contrite or forced. And it's presence alone isn't what should doom an attraction or not. That's why I feel these rants about IP are meaningless. Just like the rants when people critique attractions because all they only compare them to how it was done before (copycat design) -- instead of evaluating the effectiveness of the approach that was taken.

Was a Mary Poppins attraction lazy in England because it was IP? Or was I more disappointed in what the attraction itself was setting up to be. (Hint: the latter).

Personally I get more enjoyment out of Safari Mickey then I do out of Congo man in Africa.. but that's because I went to Disney world, not the African continent.

The issue is keeping things consistent with their intent and EXECUTING WELL - not if it's IP related or not. My .02c.

 

[drnilescrane]

Their main competition in Orlando is also an almost exclusive IP theme park resort, so I'd rather see more attractions get approved by management than have to wait and hope for a lightning in a bottle original attraction.

I think that's what people keep forgetting in this debate. The industry fundamentally changed when Universal became a viable competitor for themed entertainment. They invented the single IP immersive land and it turns out visitors really liked that and were overwhelmingly choosing to patronize it. It's the same thing with slapdash IP overlays of rides - it turns out guests *really* like those. Look at Tower of Terror or Paradise Pier at DLR, Frozen Ever After at Epcot.

When somebody can compete with you on an equal footing then you need to build a moat around the business. That moat is people's affinity for the Disney brand itself. I don't regularly visit Universal Orlando because the product is bad - and trust me, I remember how bad it was 15 years ago - but because I have an affinity for Disney and Universal's IPs bore me.

I do wish we could go back to the Eisner era, where Disney experiences are a gateway to the world around us. But I don't think it's realistic when all the places Disney recreated are so much more accessible independent of Disney.