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

[Wendy Pleakley]

That's not what "IP" means.

Yes, PoTC was IP when it was created. Everything *that is created* is IP, by definition.

We're clearly discussing "IP" in the context of only building attractions based on existing movies and shows.

 

[Inspired Figment]

While this may be true folks, let me remind you that Disney’s flagship “franchises” and their sequels and extensions to said ones in their film & tv studios haven’t been doing too well as of late (not to mention remakes) due to the ‘lack’ of good talent & creativity as of late.. keep a close eye on that and see what happens as a result..

 

[MagicHappens1971]

The potential downside as I see it is they're not doing things to attract the people who don't live and breathe Disney.

I think this is a possibility, but I think this sect of people would be in the minority. Especially since I would say the majority of adults that come to the parks either come to the parks to bring their kids, or are "Disney Adults" (not a dirty word, I am one myself).

I think your Little Mermaid attraction is a good example, effective use of IP is the best way to give people that feeling that they take home with them, like Rise of the Resistance.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

Jaws, Kong, Spiderman, Superman the ride, all would like a word with you

Disney created an environment that was unique - but ultimately the idea of 'themed entertainment' (and not just rides) was copied in the 90s onward and surpasses Disney in many examples. Disney leans on their successful franchises to be part of their draw, and not just 'come see the world's most unique theme park ride system!'.

Guests remember the experience... and revisit based on their enjoyment... but their initial draw is the themes and reputation.

The center of mass of the market isn't moved by 'wanting to see the latest trackless vehicles' -- it's moved by wanting to visit a place like Carsland... or Hogwarts.

 

[BlakeW39]

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.

Yeah see I'm not sure this is accurate. The Wizarding World was definitely successful but it isn't some kind of definitive proof that single IP lands are preferred by general public, nor are the rest of those examples. Original attractions have proven time and time again to be popular as well. Guests didn't and never have overwhelmingly patronized single IP lands over others. It's just not true The WW didn't garner Universal more attendance than Disney, it gave them a bump but so did EE for DAK a couple years earlier. Smaller but, it was just one attraction.

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.

Well I would argue any mandate on art stating you can't come up with new ideas (intellectual 'properties') is a problem. ROTR is creative in many ways but I strongly believe that WDI could have come up with something that resonated with fans more if they weren't forced to use popular IP, in this case the sequel trilogy. These kinds of corporate mandates are inherently bad for art. Of any kind, really.

 

[flynnibus]

Yes, literally the very instant they were created.

Alexis, I'll take "Definitions no one is really using for $500"

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

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."

This is a strawman argument.

Nobody is saying Disney shouldn't build attractions based on existing IP.

There is however, a case to be made, that some degree of originality is beneficial and broadens the appeal of the theme parks.

This is supported by the fact that some of Disney's most beloved and enduring attractions aren't just rehashes of what has come before.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

While this many be true folks, let me remind you that Disney’s flagship “franchises” and their sequels and extensions to said ones in their film & tv studios haven’t been doing too well as of late (not to mention remakes) due to the ‘lack’ of good talent & creativity as of late.. keep a close eye on that and see what happens as a result..

Toy Story 4, Frozen 2, Ralph Breaks the Internet, Incredibles 2, were all big successes for the company. Aside from Ralph 2, the 3 others made a billion+.

They just announced a Zootopia sequel, a Frozen 3 and a Toy Story 5, a few months ago.

Which films/sequels are you specifically discussing?

 

[flynnibus]

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.

And not the context being used. So what's the point?

 

[Inspired Figment]

Jaws, Kong, Spiderman, Superman the ride, all would like a word with you

Disney created an environment that was unique - but ultimately the idea of 'themed entertainment' (and not just rides) was copied in the 90s onward and surpasses Disney in many examples. Disney leans on their successful franchises to be part of their draw, and not just 'come see the world's most unique theme park ride system!'.

Guests remember the experience... and revisit based on their enjoyment... but their initial draw is the themes and reputation.

The center of mass of the market isn't moved by 'wanting to see the latest trackless vehicles' -- it's moved by wanting to visit a place like Carsland... or Hogwarts.

You have once again missed the bigger picture. The thematic design & execution of the attraction absolutely matters and is the main draw. But that was never strictly because of its Film or TV tie in. Never was, that is the core misunderstanding by the industry & execs right now. If you really think people are pushing for the ride ‘system’ to be the biggest draw, like I said, you’re missing the larger picture here.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

That's why Disneyland Park opened in 1955 with Sleeping Beauty castle as an advertisement for a film to come out 4 years later?

Based on a fairy tale that was written 250 years earlier.

Sleeping Beauty wasn't just IP, it was acquired IP. No different than Avatar.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

We're clearly discussing "IP" in the context of only building attractions based on existing movies and shows.

The fact that all of you are using it incorrectly together doesn't magically make it correct.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Yeah see I'm not sure this is accurate. The Wizarding World was definitely successful but it isn't some kind of definitive proof that single IP lands are preferred by general public, nor are the rest of those examples. Original attractions have proven time and time again to be popular as well. Guests didn't and never have overwhelmingly patronized single IP lands over others. It's just not true The WW didn't garner Universal more attendance than Disney, it gave them a bump but so did EE for DAK a couple years earlier. Smaller but, it was just one attraction.

You're missing my point, also the Wizarding World gave Universal a much more competitive edge. But that's not the point here, these IP lands are uber-popular, and they generate more $$$ than original attractions. It's just simple. It's also a guaranteed success for Disney, to go back to my previous example, even though FEA kinda sucks as an attraction, is still pulls in huge waits because its Frozen.

Opening weekend of Wizarding World crowds for reference

 

[Inspired Figment]

That's why Disneyland Park opened in 1955 with Sleeping Beauty castle as an advertisement for a film to come out 4 years later?

Balance of offerings. And it was never the ‘focus’, it was an element of it, specifically for the entrance to Fantasyland. Big difference..

 

[flynnibus]

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)".

Then how do you explain Carsland - which OPENED years before WWoHP?

And synergy of merch and attractions predates all of this by a generation. I mean... 'exit through the gift shop' was essentially a phrase tagged to Disney. What WWoHP changed was the scale at which that merch and experience could be pushed... because in large part by the time WWoHP got to market, you already had a generation that had grown up with it, a franchise that appealed to both young and old. It was a franchise virtually born to scream immersion and role play. A merchant's dream.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Balance of offerings. And it was never the ‘focus’, it was an element of it. Big difference..

I was just refuting your exact words. I can understand the "balance of offerings", but again until something changes either in Hollywood, or attendance related to the IP push, nothing is changing.

The theme park division was never simply supposed to be a promotional arm to their film studio output.

Disney has used their theme parks as a promotional arm of their film studio since their inception.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Then how do you explain Carsland - which OPENED years before WWoHP?

WWoHP transformed the idea, like you discussed below. And Cars Land opened 2 years after WWoHP anyway... Since then we have seen mass construction of IP lands.
Pandora, Galaxy's Edge, Toy Story Land, Avengers Campus, Super Mario Land, etc

And synergy of merch and attractions predates all of this by a generation. I mean... 'exit through the gift shop' was essentially a phrase tagged to Disney. What WWoHP changed was the scale at which that merch and experience could be pushed... because in large part by the time WWoHP got to market, you already had a generation that had grown up with it, a franchise that appealed to both young and old. It was a franchise virtually born to scream immersion and role play. A merchant's dream.

One of my points was that the synergy and merch have existed since the inception of Disney parks, the "IP craze" has breathed new life into it, and created even more $$$ opportunities, especially now with streaming,

 

[drnilescrane]

Then how do you explain Carsland - which OPENED years before WWoHP?

WWoHP was 2010. Carsland was 2012.

 

[MR.Dis]

Jaws, Kong, Spiderman, Superman the ride, all would like a word with you

Disney created an environment that was unique - but ultimately the idea of 'themed entertainment' (and not just rides) was copied in the 90s onward and surpasses Disney in many examples. Disney leans on their successful franchises to be part of their draw, and not just 'come see the world's most unique theme park ride system!'.

Guests remember the experience... and revisit based on their enjoyment... but their initial draw is the themes and reputation.

The center of mass of the market isn't moved by 'wanting to see the latest trackless vehicles' -- it's moved by wanting to visit a place like Carsland... or Hogwarts.

Yes, and no. Universal was not high priority to visit prior to Harry Potter land. That literally put Universal on the map as must visit. I am a Disney first vacationer. But had to visit the Harry Potter in Universal Florida and was blown away on how well done it was. The rest of the parks were a disappointment. Which brings to mind a story that I heard many moons ago. When Universal first opened Harry Potter Florida, Disney was still developing Pandora in AK. Several Imagineers went to see what Universal had done. After the visit, they went to Iger and discussed what they saw. Iger immediately went back to the board and got approval to up the budget on Pandora to plus it. Competition is good for the industry.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Balance of offerings. And it was never the ‘focus’, it was an element of it, specifically for the entrance to Fantasyland. Big difference..

Are you joking? The VAST majority of Disneyland opening attractions were based on existing IP.

Casey Jr. Circus Train
King Arthur Carousel
Mad Tea Party
Mark Twain Riverboat
Mr. Toad's Wild Ride
Peter Pan's Flight
Snow White's Enchanted Wish
Storybook Land Canal Boats
Dumbo the Flying Elephant
Mickey Mouse Club Theater
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
Mike Fink Keelboats

Versus what, Jungle Cruise and Autopia?