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

[flynnibus]

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.

Plenty of people are 'ride or die' on the 'no IP' wagon. It's why it's guaranteed to be part of the discussion long before anyone actually knows if an attraction is actually any good.

 

[BlakeW39]

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. View attachment 717178
Opening weekend of Wizarding World crowds for reference

This is all really anecdotal. What logistic evidence do you have that single IP lands are more economically lucrative than lands based on themes or concepts? I have evidence suggesting that, to the contrary, the decisive factor in determining whether a land or attraction is successful is the quality of that land/attraction, not the IP it is based upon. Comparing the years before and after EE's opening, DAK's attendance increased by almost 16%. When we get statistics for 2023, we'll know whether EPCOT's GOTG was much more successful than that. But Hagrid increased attendencd for IOA less than EE did DAK based on what I can tell, although 2020 happened so I had less to go on. 8.2% increase at DAK from 2005 to 2006, whereas IOA experienced only a 7% increase in attendence with Hagrid's opening in 2019.

 

[Inspired Figment]

Plenty of people are 'ride or die' on the 'no IP' wagon. It's why it's guaranteed to be part of the discussion long before anyone actually knows if an attraction is actually any good.

Partly because it’s a threat to the classic attractions still operating and the cohesive theming of the park & areas they’re placed in. Many could easily argue (with the exception of Pandora really) that the issue has been, there hasn’t been any real attention to detail or focus on the theming and how the IP fits in, since then. Which puts A very large lack of faith in the future of DisneyParks & WDI.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Pointing this out is just pedantic.

Hi, I'm Cap, nice to meet you.

 

[BlakeW39]

Partly because it’s a threat to the classic attractions still operating and the cohesive theming of the park & areas they’re placed in. Many could easily argue (with the exception of Pandora really) that the issue has been, there hasn’t been any real attention to detail or focus on the theming and how the IP fits in, since then. Which puts A very large lack of faith in the future of DisneyParks & WDI.

Preach, man. I don't get it. How can one seriously argue that it's okay for a major entertainment conglomerate to tell its creatives across an entire medium of ART that they aren't allowed to come up with any new ideas or concepts. That's not okay. There may or may not be economic reasons for their decision, we don't have access to the hard data on that one. But artistically, no the IP mandate is an inherently bad thing. IP is not a bad thing....but the IP mandate is.

 

[flynnibus]

Preach, man. I don't get it. How can one seriously argue that it's okay for a major entertainment conglomerate to tell its creatives across an entire medium of ART that they aren't allowed to come up with any new ideas or concepts.

"They aren't allowed to come up with" -- You continue to make these hyperboylic assertions with no basis. These aren't 'gotcha' momments... they are stop making #$%^ up.

 

[erasure fan1]

Plenty of people are 'ride or die' on the 'no IP' wagon. It's why it's guaranteed to be part of the discussion long before anyone actually knows if an attraction is actually any good.

I get that, but I tend to look at the, why are people like that. And in my opinion it's because of Disneys "ride or die" attitude on ip. Again, it comes down to balance. What best fits what is trying to be accomplished? That is the question that needs to be asked. Not, how can we make xyz ip fit into the parks. The last non ip ride was 06, just about 17yrs ago. So right or wrong, a lot of people just think, here we go again, more ip being shoved into the parks.

 

[Inspired Figment]

"They aren't allowed to come up with" -- You continue to make these hyperboylic assertions with no basis. These aren't 'gotcha' momments... they are stop making #$%^ up.

No they aren’t. Evidence of 99.9% of new attractions prove this statement to be true. If it weren’t, I’d be willing to bet there’s be far more original/unique output not directly tied into film IPs going into the parks, and on top of it, Journey Into Imagination at EPCOT would’ve been fixed properly by now rather than the bizarre insistence and proposals to put things like Inside Out there instead. Despite the fact, not only did unneccesary/intrusive Film IP tie ins (the Honey, I Shrunk/Medfield College universe of science based Disney flicks IP tie in) ruin a once perfectly beloved & popular attraction to begin with but Figment (the park original character mind you) merch sells like wildfire, meaning that whole change was useless and the ‘strict’ “ride or die” focus on only film & tv IP additions only hinders the creative output of WDI rather than improves it. Everyone loves & has fond memories of the non-IP Creative Process/Realms of Imagination theming with Figment & Dreamfinder, but the film IP tie in Institute version, hardly anyone likes it.

 

[BlakeW39]

"They aren't allowed to come up with" -- You continue to make these hyperboylic assertions with no basis. These aren't 'gotcha' momments... they are stop making #$%^ up.

And again, with the strawman arguments. THIS isn't a gotcha moment, hence why I haven't called it one. But I'm not making things up lmao. Neither Bob has ever greenlit an original attraction over almost 20 years in any domestic theme park. We have considerable evidence that they decline non-IP attractions on the basis of them not being tied to an IP. Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean it isn't true. I'm not exaggerating. TWDC currently doesn't allow WDI to create new IP.

 

[flynnibus]

I get that, but I tend to look at the, why are people like that. And in my opinion it's because of Disneys "ride or die" attitude on ip. Again, it comes down to balance. What best fits what is trying to be accomplished? That is the question that needs to be asked. Not, how can we make xyz ip fit into the parks. The last non ip ride was 06, just about 17yrs ago. So right or wrong, a lot of people just think, here we go again, more ip being shoved into the parks.

Do you really think Disney cares in the long run when comparing attractions if one is original vs in-house franchise? What value does this 'balance' you describe bring to the company? Are you arguing for an academic/emotional value or one that actually is materially significant to the company?

Disney should be focusing on the longevity and success of their parks -- something that rides on the effectiveness of their attractions over long periods, not on the genesis of their design. Rise is mentioned here and I think it's a great example of how much CREATIVITY is still possible even when working with an existing franchise. Would DHS have been better off if instead of Star Wars they kept the original concept of the Stunt Show? You know... to keep balance?

I don't think anyone needs to worry about a scorecard of balance - they should just be focused on delivering the best entertainment they can dream up.

The 'original vs franchise' debate is not unique to Disney... you see it in a lot of industries. Truth is, consumers make it incredibly hard for businesses to ignore the built-in value that franchises bring.

We have met the enemy - and it is us.

 

[flynnibus]

And again, with the strawman arguments. THIS isn't a gotcha moment, hence why I haven't called it one. But I'm not making things up lmao. Neither Bob has ever greenlit an original attraction over almost 20 years in any domestic theme park.

What they ultimately decide on building is not the same thing as dictating what they can design or propose. This is why your hyperbolic claims are just over the top and revolting.

We have considerable evidence that decline non-IP attractions on the basis of them not being based on an IP. Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean it isn't true. I'm not exaggerating. TWDC currently doesn't allow WDI to create new IP.

If I buy vanilla everytime... that's not the same thing as saying chocolate is banned in the building.

 

[Jrb1979]

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.

WDI talent is still important, and they’re not IP people, they’re creatives hired to implement Disneys IP push.

IMO that's what's wrong Imagineering today. They look at IP first then come up with an attraction for it. IMO it should be the other way around. Create the attraction, then find a way to incorporate the IP. They need stop with the overlays. They are cheap way to do things.

 

[BlakeW39]

I get that, but I tend to look at the, why are people like that. And in my opinion it's because of Disneys "ride or die" attitude on ip. Again, it comes down to balance. What best fits what is trying to be accomplished? That is the question that needs to be asked. Not, how can we make xyz ip fit into the parks. The last non ip ride was 06, just about 17yrs ago. So right or wrong, a lot of people just think, here we go again, more ip being shoved into the parks.

This is a very mature take on the issue and perfectly describes my reaction to essentially any IP-based attraction Disney puts in the parks now. My 'ride or die' attitude regarding IP in the parks is a direct response to Disney's 'ride or die' attitude to IP in the parks. So yeah, when I hear about any new IP addition I don't get excited, I just think..."great...more IP " and go on about my day.

 

[erasure fan1]

Do you really think Disney cares in the long run when comparing attractions if one is original vs in-house franchise? What value does this 'balance' you describe bring to the company? Are you arguing for an academic/emotional value or one that actually is materially significant to the company?

I don't think Disney cares, that's part of the issue.

I don't think anyone needs to worry about a scorecard of balance - they should just be focused on delivering the best entertainment they can dream up.

What you are saying here, is exactly my point. Like I said

What best fits what is trying to be accomplished? That is the question that needs to be asked. Not, how can we make xyz ip fit into the parks.

But you can't focus 100% on delivering the best entertainment you can dream up, if you are only looking at one side of the equation. I'm only looking at it from the standpoint of my own fandom. Disney is going to Disney no matter what you or I think.

 

[Jrb1979]

Plenty of people are 'ride or die' on the 'no IP' wagon. It's why it's guaranteed to be part of the discussion long before anyone actually knows if an attraction is actually any good.

It's cause lately they haven't that good. IMO the park down the road has started to surpass them in quality attractions.

 

[BlakeW39]

What they ultimately decide on building is not the same thing as dictating what they can design or propose. This is why your hyperbolic claims are just over the top and revolting.



If I buy vanilla everytime... that's not the same thing as saying chocolate is banned in the building.

Lol, "revolting?" You're so down with this giant conglomerate that my criticisms literally disgust you? That's pretty ridiculous.

Anyways. You're still pushing a very semantic argument. My point isn't that they they don't allow new ideas "in the building"... but from what we have heard, TWDC doesn't entertain the notion of a ride not based on IP. And they certainly don't allow new IP to be created, because new IP has been pitched before and shot down every single time. For going on 20 years.

So to tie this to your analogy, it's less like they buy vanilla everytime, and never chocolate. It's more like they run an ice cream parlor and only allow their employees to scoop vanilla. And when an employee asks if it's okay to give a customer a chocolate scoop, TWDC says no. Every single time. So while they haven't formally "banned chocolate from the building," they are also not allowing chocolate to be scooped. And are mandating vanilla to be scooped instead every time. Which is all I have ever been saying.

 

[UNCgolf]

"They aren't allowed to come up with" -- You continue to make these hyperboylic assertions with no basis. These aren't 'gotcha' momments... they are stop making #$%^ up.

Haven't multiple insiders said that the use of pre-existing (and popular) IP is a requirement to have any new project approved?

That would mean that while people could develop other ideas, it would be a waste of their time if they know it's DOA.

 

[LittleBuford]

Yes, literally the very instant they were created.

I agree with you that these attractions (along with characters such as Figment and the Country Bears) became IPs the moment they were created, but this doesn't undermine what those opposed to the use of preexisting IPs are saying. On the contrary, it supports their argument that original ideas developed for the parks take on a life and significance of their own, greatly contributing to what makes WDW (and the other Disney resorts) special and distinctive.

I personally think of these "park IPs" (if I can call them that) as foundational, by which I mean they are essential to the parks but also sufficiently present as a sort of underpinning that the addition of preexisting IPs is not in itself detrimental. For my part, I enjoy seeing the films and characters I love brought to life, but then I've always been clear about the fact that I'm more of a Disney person than I am a theme-park person.

 

[LittleBuford]

My issue with this whole mandate is not the IP part but that its making them lazy. Outside of Rise the majority of the new attractions have been "meh". The last amazing attractions were Tower of Terror and Everest.

I personally love Mickey & Minnie's Runaway Railway and think it exemplifies how well and creatively IP integration can be done.

 

[Jrb1979]

I personally love Mickey & Minnie's Runaway Railway and think it exemplifies how well and creatively IP integration can be done.

That's a good one too. Every new attraction should be done that good and it isn't.