MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
Under this "mandate" Disney built Rise of the Resistance, one of the most "creative" attractions ever built.
This is the real problem with the IP mandate.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Disney CFO Christine McCarthy says Disney will continue to focus on existing intellectual property for new park investments
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Inspired Figment
Well-Known Member
@drnilescrane You’re missing a very fundamental, crucial point here. Folks didn’t simply visit Disney to see their favorite characters or their favorite movies. They visited because it was ‘Disney’ and that they were associated with high quality entertainment as a whole. Ask yourself this question, why do you think so many fell in love with Disney’s unique theme park exclusive attraction concepts? Oh yeah, that’s right, because it was high quality entertainment provided by Disney’s world class talent and they were trusted to deliver on that. Even ‘if’ you were to use the argument that familiar film or tv IP characters and such lured them in, that never stopped those same people from discovering the attractions/characters/concepts they ‘didn’t’ already know from a pre-existing film, tv show, or game and possibly fall in love much deeper with those unique, original concepts & attractions than anything directly tied to something they already knew.
The point people are making is that they should be focusing on what makes them ‘different’ from the competition rather than the latter. Almost every company has film based attractions or lands that are more or less very similar these days. The thing the competition doesn’t have? The unique attractions you discovered that stuck with you and serve a very important part in theme park design & Disney theme park history.
The point people are making is that they should be focusing on what makes them ‘different’ from the competition rather than the latter. Almost every company has film based attractions or lands that are more or less very similar these days. The thing the competition doesn’t have? The unique attractions you discovered that stuck with you and serve a very important part in theme park design & Disney theme park history.
Last edited:
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean are IP.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
While I agree that the original, non-IP attractions play a big role in distinguishing the Disney parks from the competition, so do all the Disney characters and themes we know and love. The iconic castles epitomise this.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Not when first created.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
The reason they are doing "only IP" is because it is a good business decision.
Examples of the "Synergy" Disney is banking on:
Kid rides Frozen Ever After, wants to buy Frozen plush on the way out of the gift shop, then comes home and watches Frozen on Disney+
Kid watches Encanto on Disney+, comes to the parks and says "where is Mirabel", kid waits in line to meet Mirabel and buys a toy afterwards, had they also had a Encanto attraction + dining, same family could be in for a Mirabel/Encanto character meal just to see "Mirabel".
I could go on and on, Disney is using data they have to drive guests to the parks, and create new draws for all guests.
While only 3 in 10 guests may only be coming to just see the new Beyond Big Thunder expansion because they want to see Coco/Encanto, 10 out of 10 guests will enjoy the new lands as its something new.
There's no bad business here.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
Yes, literally the very instant they were created.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
The castle is the epitome of it, I discussed it either here or on another thread, the Disney IP is one of the driving factors of the "Disney Difference".
You can ride rollercoasters anywhere, you can only meet Mickey at a Disney park.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
Thank you.
This is what I can't understand, IP is not a dirty word. This post is my IP, anything a company produces is their IP.
Haunted Mansion, Pirates, Big Thunder Mountain, the Country Bear Jamboree, etc all became "IPs" the moment they were created.
Inspired Figment
Well-Known Member
I think the core problem here is the definition of IP. Of course we know it means intellectual property, but also Disney’s unique theme park exclusive attractions, characters, concepts could ‘technically’ be considered as such from a legal standpoint. I think folks need to insinuate/specify they’re talking about ‘film/tv IP’ when it comes to the “IP mandate”. But you’d be pretty ignorant or obtuse to say that the grand focus of new attractions & investments haven’t almost wholly & strictly been tied to familiar film & tv based IPs and not original, homegrown IPs created originally at/specifically for the parks by Imagineering .
The truth is there should be a balance like there was before. There genuinely isn’t much of a risk considering that if the attraction is a big success, that can later be expanded & be successful in other mediums possibly. Regardless of what it is, people would come because it’s Disney and most associate Disney with high quality entertainment (just like in the past)… though granted we could argue now their film & tv IP output has been very hit or miss as of late. Which, in turn actually ‘should’ give them more motivation to invest more heavily in ‘new’ ‘theme park’ content since ‘that’ is the sector making more of a profit now.. but yeah… I dunno.. time will tell ultimately
The truth is there should be a balance like there was before. There genuinely isn’t much of a risk considering that if the attraction is a big success, that can later be expanded & be successful in other mediums possibly. Regardless of what it is, people would come because it’s Disney and most associate Disney with high quality entertainment (just like in the past)… though granted we could argue now their film & tv IP output has been very hit or miss as of late. Which, in turn actually ‘should’ give them more motivation to invest more heavily in ‘new’ ‘theme park’ content since ‘that’ is the sector making more of a profit now.. but yeah… I dunno.. time will tell ultimately
Ayla
Well-Known Member
PoTC wasn't IP when it was created. An IP was built around it.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
As we've all already discussed at nauseam, this whole IP mandate is a result of Potter. This turned guests towards wanting an immersive land where they can be "in the movie (in the IP)".
It also made Disney realize (imo) that the synergy along with the basically guaranteed success of using IPs for their attractions was a really good idea. Not that it was news to them.
In short, we can all go back and forth and back and forth on here, but nothing is changing in the near future unless something changes in Hollywood.
Franchises are all the rage, Mamma Mia 3 was just announced, rebooting the Shrek franchise, another Scream movie just came out, Fast 10 is coming out this summer, another Transformers film, etc.
Until something big changes in Hollywood, Disney is going to keep infusing and pushing IP into the parks, it's making them boatloads of money and it makes zero sense as to why they wouldn't continue to do it.
It also made Disney realize (imo) that the synergy along with the basically guaranteed success of using IPs for their attractions was a really good idea. Not that it was news to them.
In short, we can all go back and forth and back and forth on here, but nothing is changing in the near future unless something changes in Hollywood.
Franchises are all the rage, Mamma Mia 3 was just announced, rebooting the Shrek franchise, another Scream movie just came out, Fast 10 is coming out this summer, another Transformers film, etc.
Until something big changes in Hollywood, Disney is going to keep infusing and pushing IP into the parks, it's making them boatloads of money and it makes zero sense as to why they wouldn't continue to do it.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
That's not what "IP" means.
Yes, PoTC was IP when it was created. Everything *that is created* is IP, by definition.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
The argument basically boils down to people screeching "Disney shouldn't build things that people know and like, they should build things that nobody has ever heard of."
Wendy Pleakley
Well-Known Member
The potential downside as I see it is they're not doing things to attract the people who don't live and breathe Disney.
As @yensidtlaw1969 said it's about "originality, exclusivity, and surprise" which I think is a good balance.
I want to walk out of Disney saying, wow, I experienced original things I never imagined I would. If I walk out saying, I got to ride in a clam shell past scenes from a movie I've seen a dozen times and it was fun, it doesn't have that same impact for me.
For some people, nothing but attractions based on movies is fine. For others, we want more. You're not going to alienate the IP fans by having a few non-IP attractions. You might just appeal to a broader audience though.
Maybe Dad agrees to the Disney trip because the kids love Disney. Great. Maybe he isn't keen on going back because it was nothing but characters and merchandise that aren't his thing. However, maybe he experienced things like Spaceship Earth and Everest, and is more willing to go back because there's things that appeal to a broad range of interests.
BrerFoxesBayouAdventure
Well-Known Member
I love the new incarnation of Mickey, yet I can completely understand why people dislike it. It's a refreshing breath of life into a character that previously was just a mascot figure and nothing more.
Inspired Figment
Well-Known Member
Actually something that’s continued to baffle me more & more now also, is you’d see through history.. and even in Disney’s own original synergy chart from the 50s & 60s that the core thing that was made the point of success was the ‘talent’ of the studio… not familiar IPs or familiar output, meaning how, for example, say, Marc Davis started out at animation and then later would be co-hired by Imagineering to be heavily involved with the creation of their upcoming attractions. You’d think somebody up in management would get a clue that the ‘talent’ is the most crucial part and that said talent should ‘also’ be involved in crafting ‘new’ theme park content alongside both old & new Imagineering hires. The theme park division was never simply supposed to be a promotional arm to their film studio output. It was extension of the ‘talent’ captivated at the studio as a whole to new entertainment mediums/grounds. Hope that makes sense.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
Exactly. I am not saying that people aren't entitled to their opinions, it just doesn't make sense why people think they would make not as "smart" business decisions, by creating attractions that are based on things no one has ever heard of.
It's just not happening anytime soon, no matter how much people kick and scream on here.
All that's rumored to be in the pipeline for WDW:
Coco, Encanto & Villains Land(s) for Magic Kingdom
Moana & Zootopia Land (s) for Animal Kingdom
Some of the things coming to the international parks at the moment:
Fantasy Springs (Tangled, Peter Pan, Frozen lands) at Tokyo Disneysea
World of Frozen at Hong Kong Disneyland
Avengers Campus just opened at Walt Disney Studios Paris
drnilescrane
Well-Known Member
Right, and don't forget the exact same phenomenon is happening in movie theaters and on streaming services.
The business has evolved. People are voting with their wallets.
People in this thread disagree with that, but it's naive to believe it isn't happening.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
That's why Disneyland Park opened in 1955 with Sleeping Beauty castle as an advertisement for a film to come out 4 years later?