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

[Jenny72]

As others have pointed out, I think one of the issues is what these IP based attractions will look like in 20+ years. Sure, that list of movies might be familiar now (although my kids don't know most of them) but what if Disney had built attractions based on movies from 20 or 30 years ago that we've forgotten? Yay, let's go ride the Oliver & Company ride! No way, I want to see Rosanne Barr in Home on the Range!

The problem is that often you're supposed to know who it is before you get there, and often we don't, which already puts you off a little. If the ride introduces you to a character (like Figment), then you don't have to have watched anything beforehand to fully appreciate it. Hey, if Willy the Walrus is as fun and cleverly created as Figment, sign me up. I love just going into a ride and seeing what they've created, rather than going in with some preconceived stuff from movies. Or worse, feeling like it's an ad for some movie I don't have much interest in. It's just so narrow and ordinary.

Yes, of course it's possible to use IP well. Splash mountain was my favorite ride, and I didn't even know that it was based on a movie. As long as the IP doesn't get in the way too much, I'm ok with that. But a ride like Frozen doesn't stand on its own in the same way.

 

[Inspired Figment]

And you're just here saying "original IP"! like that has any meaning. My kids would love to experience Moana at the parks. Your thought is to ask WDI to invent something untested and put it in the parks hoping my kids will like it.

What is the better route?

And how do you know you and your kids wouldn’t like it without experiencing it for yourself? That’s an incredibly/overly close minded way of looking at things. You really mean to tell me the ‘only’ thing you guys enjoy are Fantasyland rides and things based off a movie characters/stories you already fully know and absolutely ‘nothing’ else?
But yeah, that’s the core thing… characters like Dreamfinder & Figment along with the original Journey Into Imagination for example were introduced to EPCOT to large success, merchandise sales, etc.
We’re not arguing that film IP shouldn’t be used. What we’re frustrated about is the lack of investing ‘at all’ in new, original IP that could ultimately become large, well known favorites and must-do attractions and characters to see in the parks. What ultimately matters is that creativity flourishes, talent is executed well, etc. The ‘quality’ is what ultimately matters, but to needlessly hamper potential creative opportunities and successes for the parks due to a weirdly narrow minded way of thinking is really dumb. To your argument, how would you feel if ‘every’ new Disney movie that came out was 99.9% ‘strictly’ remakes or sequels of pre-existing stories & characters already/made adapted by the same company and absolutely nothing new. Imagine had no new films been released in the last couple decades and so we ‘only’ got sequels and remakes of say, Tangled, Frozen, Wreck It Ralph, Zootopia, Moana etc.. and ‘nothing more’ going forward… now apply that thinking to theme parks. See the problem now?

 

[LittleBuford]

As others have pointed out, I think one of the issues is what these IP based attractions will look like in 20+ years. Sure, that list of movies might be familiar now (although my kids don't know most of them) but what if Disney had built attractions based on movies from 20 or 30 years ago that we've forgotten? Yay, let's go ride the Oliver & Company ride! No way, I want to see Rosanne Barr in Home on the Range!

But how is that different from going on a ride with new, totally unfamiliar characters?

 

[flynnibus]

FACT: all the truly classic, enduring WDW staples have been original attractions, except for TWO. and those two, Splash and TOT, basically ignore the IPs they're based on and have assumed their own identities? why is that?

And the two biggest rely on well known ideas/concepts. Spook houses and pirates. They both rely on existing stories/tales… they are just generic instead of referencing a specific existing character or specific setting. Space plays on the well established ’im on a rocket ship!’

The use of familiarity here is key. It uses established roles and conflict.
To be really original, you have to look at attractions like jungle cruise, imagination, or btmrr.

These classics you point to are far closer to ‘ip’ then you give them credit. They are just more a new story vs the book report format most of disney’s original dark rides took.

Attractions have a very short amount of time to shape the guest’s impression. The reuse of familiar aids that… in addition to the ‘curb appeal’ marketing with the property gets you.

I find it hard to view this in absolutes. Would btmrr be worse with donald as our conductor? Yes… because the frontierland we knew was more romanticized realism than comedy. The attraction as we know it would feel disjointed. But would space mountain be worse if it was space rangers from the start? I don’t know…

 

[Inspired Figment]

And the two biggest rely on well known ideas/concepts. Spook houses and pirates. They both rely on existing stories/tales… they are just generic instead of referencing a specific existing character or specific setting. Space plays on the well established ’im on a rocket ship!’

The use of familiarity here is key. It uses established roles and conflict.
To be really original, you have to look at attractions like jungle cruise, imagination, or btmrr.

These classics you point to are far closer to ‘ip’ then you give them credit. They are just more a new story vs the book report format most of disney’s original dark rides took.

Attractions have a very short amount of time to shape the guest’s impression. The reuse of familiar aids that… in addition to the ‘curb appeal’ marketing with the property gets you.

I find it hard to view this in absolutes. Would btmrr be worse with donald as our conductor? Yes… because the frontierland we knew was more romanticized realism than comedy. The attraction as we know it would feel disjointed. But would space mountain be worse if it was space rangers from the start? I don’t know…

You just answered your own question… Space Mountain too is romanticized realism in regards to space travel & discovery. Yet, look at how popular it is being its own unique identity rather than being tied to a film IP. There’s no reason to strictly go in one direction when you can have both, have more variety, and thus, please a larger audience of people.

 

[Inspired Figment]

If you really wanna be super technical. No idea is ever truly new. They’re just combined in unique ways to create a different end result in what ends up being something “new” yet it still is essential to discovery, opening new doors, bettering our lives, etc. This is the message/concept explained in the original 1983-98 version of Journey Into Imagination. Perhaps it’d benefit all of us if that ride, characters, and message was brought back with the tasteful tech & spfx enhancements it should’ve received before it was needlessly changed , eh? Sadly, the 02-current ride doesn’t showcase or explain this at all.. it mainly relies on references and tie-ins to Film IP like the Honey I Shrunk films, Flubber, Computer that wore tennis shoes, All the sci-fi college flicks and portrays Figment and imagination as an “upside down thinking interference” to a 5 senses (of all things) open house tour using charts & scientific tests that’s lazily shoehorned rather than as a bright eyed spirit of childlike curiosity & sincerity and as a genuine compliment to a quality that has amazing possibilities to using our creative abilities to their highest potential in realms/mediums that actually compliment them; like art, literature, theatre, science & technology, film, etc..) Sad..

 

[flynnibus]

You just answered your own question… Space Mountain too is romanticized realism in regards to space travel & discovery.

No - it’s abstract. Nothing realism in there at all… it’s lofty fantasy at best. It uses atmosphere and the tension of the unknown above all else.

Yet, look at how popular it is being its own unique identity rather than being tied to a film IP.

It’s popular because it’s an indoor roller coaster with a few thrown in effects. It’s not the poster child for “originality!!” - it’s the poster child for ‘a good unique ride conquers all’.

There’s no reason to strictly go in one direction when you can have both, have more variety, and thus, please a larger audience of people.

Would space be worse if it had a real story and characters?

 

[mysto]

I think one of the issues is what these IP based attractions will look like in 20+ years.

Np just re-theme it to Tiana.

Kidding, and I agree with you modern IP won't age well, but re-theming is cheaper than building so they are quick to do it.

 

[Jenny72]

A ride based on IP is often different than one that introduces a new character, because when you introduce a new character, everyone comes in fresh, so the ride does the work. Think of Dreamfinder creating Figment, or the ways that Haunted Mansion and Pirates draw you in very deliberately.

On the other hand, many IP rides assume knowledge of the character. Think of Anna and Elsa in the Frozen ride. It's a design difference based on the goals of the ride. Are we creating something new, where we have to slowly draw you in? Or are we reminding you of something you already know.

 

[JD80]

And how do you know you and your kids wouldn’t like it without experiencing it for yourself? That’s an incredibly/overly close minded way of looking at things. You really mean to tell me the ‘only’ thing you guys enjoy are Fantasyland rides and things based off a movie characters/stories and absolutely ‘nothing’ else?
But yeah, that’s the core thing… characters like Dreamfinder & Figment along with the original Journey Into Imagination for example were introduced to EPCOT to large success, merchandise sales, etc.
We’re not arguing that film IP shouldn’t be used. What we’re frustrated about is the lack of investing ‘at all’ in new, original IP that could ultimately become large, well known favorites and must-do attractions and characters to see in the parks. What ultimately matters is that creativity flourishes, talent is executed well, etc. The ‘quality’ is what ultimately matters, but to needlessly hamper potential creative opportunities and successes for the parks due to a weirdly narrow minded way of thinking is really dumb. To your argument, how would feel if ‘every’ new Disney movie that came out was almost ‘strictly’ remakes or sequels of pre-existing material and absolutely nothing new. Imagine had no new films been released in the last decade and so we ‘only’ got sequels and remakes of say, Tangled, Frozen, Wreck It Ralph, Moana etc.. and ‘nothing more’ going forward… now apply that thinking to theme parks. See the problem now?

I have no idea if my kids would like whatever mysterious original IP they could put in the parks. Maybe it would be great! Maybe it will be terrible! If we're talking future state - I'd much rather them invest in IP that I know my kid will love like Moana or Encanto. Especially if I'm spending $6k+ on a vacation.

TWDC is investing in new IP all the time, it's just not physical attractions at the parks.

 

[Inspired Figment]

I have no idea if my kids would like whatever mysterious original IP they could put in the parks. Maybe it would be great! Maybe it will be terrible! If we're talking future state - I'd much rather them invest in IP that I know my kid will love like Moana or Encanto. Especially if I'm spending $6k+ on a vacation.

TWDC is investing in new IP all the time, it's just not physical attractions at the parks.

And yet you can invest in & enjoy Disney Plus just fine with both new, original ‘and’ familiar IP/content.. so why should Disney ‘only’ invest in familiar & already done concepts and not new, original concepts park attractions? Seems really detrimental to the talent they have involved in the theme park side of things when they’ve demonstrated many many many times, that the same creativity & talent that helps create new film & television content, also can create wonderful new theme park attractions. Why can we ‘only’ have one and not the other/have ‘both’ options?

 

[BlakeW39]

Hate to break it to you but it's not 1971.

Currently right now you have to make an argument for making some original IP attractions instead of investing in the following IP at WDW:

• Wreck-it-Ralph
• Zootopia
• Moana
• Coco
• Brave
• Big Hero 6
• Inside Out
• Cars
• Tangled
• Mary Poppins
• Incredibles
• Encanto
• Luca
• Raya
• Cruella
• Soul
• Mulan
• Maleficent
• Aladdin (well it has a spinner)
• Beauty and the Beast (if you don't count shows and just count attractions)
• Cinderella
• Monsters Univ (If you don't count Laugh Floor)

These are just movies from the last decade (Monsters Univ being 2013) that don't have rides at the park. That's just movies, I didn't even add any cartoons that would be incredibly popular too.

You have to make an argument that an original IP that would only exist as an attraction would be a better idea than using any of those characters from those stories that are well established in pop culture. If you're TWDC what are you investing $100M in?

And you're just here saying "original IP"! like that has any meaning. My kids would love to experience Moana at the parks. Your thought is to ask WDI to invent something untested and put it in the parks hoping my kids will like it.

What is the better route?

I know movie IP is popular, and I'm not even saying it isn't worthwhile to invest it in the parks. But what's popular now is fleeting. Your kids might like Bluey and Moana, but what about your kids' kids? This is why I bring up Captain EO and The Imagination Institute. Some IP that is popular now will endure for a long time. But some of it won't. That's just the way of things. What's good for the long term success of the parks isn't trying to capitalize on what's specifically popular right this moment. It's building things that will stand the test of time... things that are popular now, were in the past, and will be in the future.

If I'm TWDC....I invest in both popular IP and original attractions. I do what works best creatively for the parks. If that has IP, so be it. But if it requires using our imaginations and creating something new... well that's fine as well. But I wouldn't be blindly obsessing over movie IP almost as quickly as it's created. I wouldn't even touch IP that hadn't been popular for at least a decade, maybe more.

This is already a financially proven strategy....it's the strategy TWDC had always used prior to Iger and it worked the whole time, as the world changed around it.

 

[JD80]

And yet you can invest in & enjoy Disney Plus just fine with both new, original ‘and’ familiar IP/content.. so why should Disney ‘only’ invest in familiar & already done concepts and not new, original concepts park attractions? Seems really detrimental to the talent they have involved in the theme park side of things when they’ve demonstrated numerous times, that the same creativity & talent that helps create new film & television content, also can create wonderful new theme park attractions. Why can we ‘only’ have one and not the other?

You know things cost money right? Compare the timeline and cost of developing a new D+ cartoon show vs. the timeline and cost a new attraction at the parks. The theme park part of the business is thrilled to help bring movies and shows to life in the parks that millions of people love. It's not detrimental.

 

[Inspired Figment]

You know things cost money right? Compare the timeline and cost of developing a new D+ cartoon show vs. the timeline and cost a new attraction at the parks. The theme park part of the business is thrilled to help bring movies and shows to life in the parks that millions of people love. It's not detrimental.

To innovation & creativity in the parks that once flourished just as much as films & tv did? Yeah it is detrimental to the folks developing stuff there.

 

[Inspired Figment]

It fails to create an environment of creativity & innovation that was once there that cultivated up & coming talent (much like the animation studios cultivate) that was once there. And hampers them by forcing them into a box of things people in the past already have made or adapted within the same company.

 

[BlakeW39]

And the two biggest rely on well known ideas/concepts. Spook houses and pirates. They both rely on existing stories/tales… they are just generic instead of referencing a specific existing character or specific setting. Space plays on the well established ’im on a rocket ship!’

The use of familiarity here is key. It uses established roles and conflict.
To be really original, you have to look at attractions like jungle cruise, imagination, or btmrr.

These classics you point to are far closer to ‘ip’ then you give them credit. They are just more a new story vs the book report format most of disney’s original dark rides took.

Attractions have a very short amount of time to shape the guest’s impression. The reuse of familiar aids that… in addition to the ‘curb appeal’ marketing with the property gets you.

I find it hard to view this in absolutes. Would btmrr be worse with donald as our conductor? Yes… because the frontierland we knew was more romanticized realism than comedy. The attraction as we know it would feel disjointed. But would space mountain be worse if it was space rangers from the start? I don’t know…

Thing is...I agree with like 99% of this.

But the reasons for which I believe the IP mandate stifles creativity still stand. All rides having to be based on movie franchises prevents the parks from standing on their own and having their own identities. Furthermore, it compromises the parks' core themes in order to fit in whatever IP is popular at the moment. instead of doing what creatively works (which may or may not be based on IP) they're just trying to capture the hype of whatever Disney 'brand' is popular at the moment.

 

[JD80]

I know movie IP is popular, and I'm not even saying it isn't worthwhile to invest it in the parks. But what's popular now is fleeting. Your kids might like Bluey and Moana, but what about your kids' kids? This is why I bring up Captain EO and The Imagination Institute. Some IP that is popular now will endure for a long time. But some of it won't. That's just the way of things. What's good for the long term success of the parks isn't trying to capitalize on what's specifically popular right this moment. It's building things that will stand the test of time... things that are popular now, were in the past, and will be in the future.

If I'm TWDC....I invest in both popular IP and original attractions. I do what works best creatively for the parks. If that has IP, so be it. But if it requires using our imaginations and creating something new... well that's fine as well. But I wouldn't be blindly obsessing over movie IP almost as quickly as it's created. I wouldn't even touch IP that hadn't been popular for at least a decade, maybe more.

This is already a financially proven strategy....it's the strategy TWDC had always used prior to Iger and it worked the whole time, as the world changed around it.

I'm all for brand new IP for the parks that would be amazing and fun. I would welcome it with open arms if they can do it. But the parks is a business and new lands/rides are an incredible investment. A bad movie you can suck up the losses and bury the movie and move on, a bad attraction you have to live with for 30 years while maintaining it.

So sitting in a meeting room somewhere. For the next few attractions that will be built in WDW, do you invest in the bevy of proven popular IP like Moana and Encanto? Or do you invest in Moana and something else when that something else is risky and unknown?

This whole argument about "what's popular now but might not be in 30 years" is meaningless because that could be said about any attraction regardless of the story that is being told.

 

[Inspired Figment]

A bad movie you can suck up the losses and bury the movie and move on, a bad attraction you have to live with for 30 years while maintaining it.

Except you ‘don’t’ have to live with it for 30 years. It’s simply neglect, arrogance, and ignorance on management’s part that makes that happen. Like they don’t have enough other business ventures and attractions to make up costs & losses? Don’t you see the real issue here?

 

[JD80]

It fails to create an environment of creativity & innovation that was once there that cultivated up & coming talent (much like the animation studios cultivate) that was once there. And hampers them by forcing them into a box of things people in the past already have made.

That's bullcrap. You think there wasn't any amount of creativity and innovation that went into Rise of the Resistance just because it was Star Wars?

 

[Inspired Figment]

That's bullcrap. You think there wasn't any amount of creativity and innovation that went into Rise of the Resistance just because it was Star Wars?

There’s some, but not the same amount as WED/WDI in the past, that’s for sure. To put it in another perspective. Imagine if the animation studio could ‘only’ make sequels and no new original films going forward. Sure you can use creativity to come up with ways to continue the story and add more development to the characters? But does it allow for new, popular characters and stories to spring up and bring in new up and coming talent & ways to bring in profit? No, it doesn’t