I also agree with this. I think I've summarized my opinion enough but basically my reaction to this is "Shrug. Makes sense from a business perspective. Now show me what you've got". Many things people are wringing their hands over in this thread are long gone anyway. So make your future IP rides good ones, that's what I really care about.
And to add to it, WWoHP was announced in May of 2007, opened in June of 2010. Cars Land was announced in October of 2007, and opened in 2012.
This is the second time in the last hour you've claimed that to someone.. you might want to slow down.
You mean like where I said?
You need Eywa.
Matterhorn is based on an IP too and Submarine Voyage wasn't an opening day attraction.
Even if you were refuting my ‘exact words’. I said never “strictly” used as a promo arm for the film studio. It was originally focused to be an extension of talent as I stated earlier. So ultimately, Disney management is dilluted as to what ‘actually’ made the parks successful all these years. It was the talent & quality of their studio’s talent which was also involved in theme park design. Not ‘strictly’ IPs or output of said studio. And just because Universal is successful with it, that’s always been their schtick. Wasn’t Disney’s, and Disney used to be the leader in the industry. They just can’t figure out ‘why’ they were. I can tell you this much though, it’s not strictly film IPs. Cause if that were the case, why haven’t Disney’s latest offerings (which are largely film IP based, mind you) all that successful?
good point, but Jungle Cruise & Autopia were & are Infact still very successful attractions, Jungle Cruise later becoming a successful film ‘after’ the successful ride, but considering, if that very very beginning output was so successful, why then did it only become a bigger success when Walt & his team started plussing to Jungle Cruise and adding / larger variety of offerings like the Tiki Room and other things offered at the NY World’s Fair (Small World, Carousel of Progress, Magic Skyway (which would later have it’s core elements added to the Disneyland Railroad) , Lincoln, etc.) to bring them to Disneyland? Clearly they didn’t stay stuck in their film & tv IP offering phase for that long. That obviously wasn’t the core of what kept people interested or coming. That there is my point as to why they need more balance.
Explaining what worked 60+ years ago is not a sound argument for the extreme change in the theme park industry
No kidding, but then why would he have grabbed Marc to begin with if his contributions to those attractions didn’t matter? Because he saw how his talent complimented his overall vision no? This is why the ‘talent’ (along with overall vision) matters. Walt had a vision. Iger & Chapek simply don’t and have not.
I don't see the connection you are trying to draw. I think the biggest change you can attach to the examples you mention is the size of the property being incorporated into the parks. What do things like Star Wars, Marvel, Toy Story, Mario, etc all share? BIG LIST OF CHARACTERS and Settings.
Matterhorn & Submarine Voyage were loosely (and I mean loosely) inspired by elements of those films. Not directly tied into them. And on that note, atleast in regards to Matterhorn’s case. Sure seems to be a far more successful attraction being ‘loosely inspired’ by the film rather than directly tied or featuring elements of Third Man on the Mountain, no? I’d again argue, film IP tie-ins were not what made these attractions successful long term or were necessary. (Hence why the mandate is useless and only a self-defeating crutch at this point). thematic Balance & variety of offerings is good, strict focus on film & tv IPs is not.
You're not making sense at this point. None of this ties to what you said "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"
Yes, I caught that myself and just corrected
Had the DCA 2.0 announcement on my brain. Edited to correct
What on earth?? How does that not make sense? Of course it does. It relates to how the ‘talent’ behind the theme park attractions was the most important part and not any focus on familiar film & tv IP tied into it.
Because you’re making zero sense. Disneyland was built because Walt wanted a places where children of all ages can learn and play together. He hated taking his kids to the those crappy state fairs and such. It wasn’t built to give creatives an outlet, he pulled people from within the company who he trusted to help start up the new division. MaPo, because that’s where the money came from, the film division. It’s all they had at the time.
Sorry to say, you’re the one not making any sense here. You really think the creativity & talent behind the parks & how that formed everything presented there isn’t at all what contributed to Disneyland’s success besides it being clean & well run?? My argument is why originally the talent, thematic vision, & grander vision for/of the company mattered and should still matter compared to now. My argument was why the current film IP mandate is useless and only stifles the Parks’ creative output. When they should go back to the way they were before in regards to focus on ‘talent’ & ‘creativity/innovation’ rather than strictly film/tv IP tie-ins/familiarity.
In my opinion it wasn't making the land original that was/is the issue. It's the locking it in the sequels. If we had Vader, Maul, Yoda... It wouldn't be an issue. It took them how many years from announcement to opening to complete? They could have easily gone to black spire in force awakens, rogue one, solo.... Giving people a reason to care. They just mishandled the whole thing.
I'm pretty sure the majority of this site is meaningless. It's a discussion forum. In my opinion actions speak louder than words as they say. Did they say IP mandate? Maybe not that exactly. But what I see is the last original concept for rides in the U.S. parks were Everest in 06, and mission space in 03 I believe. So while they've never said we are never, the actions make it pretty clear they have no intentions of original concepts.
Yes, a well executed ride, ip or not, that fits the theme of the land where it sits is not a real issue. I don't believe anyone thinks any different. People, like myself, just want better balance. It doesn't all have to be ip for the sake of ip.
Yes. It's been acknowledged that IP can work and does work. That's not really the problem people have. Rise as it sits, not a problem. If it was built in tomorrow land? Now we have issues.
