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

[BlakeW39]

Well considering they had the perfect opportunity to integrate fox into the great movie ride, and they decided shuttering it was the better plan. That tells me all I need to know when it comes to the fox IPs. Lol

I can't see Disney using anything other than Avatar.

Yeah see that's what I mean. I honestly think Disney's library of intellectual properties is overhyped when it comes to the parks. I mean besides animation the pickings seem kinda slim.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

There are many different things that make a great attraction. The main three are the vehicle and track (dark ride, thrill ride, whatever) and the story. What you're moving in, how you're moving around and why you're moving around. For example:

Flight of Passage:

• What: Riding a banshee, feeling the wind, the banshee breathing under you etc.
• How: 3D glasses, screen and the giant flight mechanism that moves you.
• Why: Having fun, running from a big banshee.

For all the great attractions in WDW you can usually answer each question is a positive light. When @Jrb1979 says "It's cause lately they haven't that good." is completely wrong, at least two the vast majority of park goers. I know he's been trashing the World for a long time so I'm not sure when he last forked over too much money to be in the parks, but here's what come to the park since FoP:

• Slinky Dog Dash
• Alien Swirling Saucers
• Rise of the Resistance
• Millennium Falcon Smugglers Run
• Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway
• Ratatouille
• Tron
• Guardians of the Galaxy

Each of these attractions has been a smash hit. If JRB wants to say GoG is not good, well ok. I've never seen people laughing and dancing in their seats while being on a thrill ride before.

Now this whole question of IP is comical. There are people here bemoaning that WDI doesn't get to create characters for their rides. Isn't that what we're arguing about here? The lack of original characters in the parks? Does it really matter where the character was thought up? For each of the rides listed above, are any diminished because it's a talking rat and not a talking elephant? Do you think Rise would have been better if it wasn't Storm Troopers but random space soldier 5 in blue armor?

The answer is no, none of them are diminished. Many of them are elevated. For those who love Star Wars - how many people have raved about being immersed in a setting that they only dreamed about being in (except for those with $6000 to spare). The difference is having fun and being in awe.

What's the difference between Imagineers inventing Remy, then after the ride is successful they create a feature length film out of it and the opposite? As you're on an attraction are you really anguishing over which division of TWDC thought about a cooking rat first?

To stick with Remy's as an example, do you think the creativity of the ride just stopped at "rat that can cook"? Engineers had to create the track system, the rooms, screen integration, elevations, sight lines, art for the queue, integration within each of the lands it's in. They had to tell a story within a certain time. They were given characters and their backgrounds and a setting. The rest was up to them to create a fun attractions.

This whole argument is senseless. Post is already too long, so I'll leave it at that.

This is the same mischaracterization of the argument that Disney should do some original things in the theme parks.

Very few people would suggest doing a generic sci-fi land instead of Star Wars. Very few people would think that attractions based on one of, if not the, most popular franchises of all time would be a bad idea.

What some of us are saying, is give us some surprises. Give us an original experience we never would have dreamed of and wow us that way. Rise of the Resistance wows guests to be fair, but no one is going to be surprised at a Star Wars attraction that takes guests through a Star Destroyer.

Imagine going on Pirates for the first time and being delighted by prisoners trying to coax a jail cell key from a dog. That's hilarious, original, and surprising. As opposed to, hey it's the Sea Witch from the cartoon singing the song I know.

As far as things like Remy, there's also ways to do an IP tie-in but still have some originality. Indiana Jones Adventure evokes what people love and remember about those films without just recreating Temple of Doom or something.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Indiana Jones Adventure evokes what people love and remember about those films without just recreating Temple of Doom or something.

an even better comparison is the OG Star Tours - another Tony Baxter masterpiece. It told a new story but had elements from the films that we loved. Just like Indy.

Compare star tours to the falcon which seems completely soul-less.

At Disneyland where you can compare them back to back, I think Indy easily wins out over Rise. (I do enjoy Rise… they got close).

 

[BlakeW39]

This is the same mischaracterization of the argument that Disney should do some original things in the theme parks.

Very few people would suggest doing a generic sci-fi land instead of Star Wars. Very few people would think that attractions based on one of, if not the, most popular franchises of all time would be a bad idea.

What some of us are saying, is give us some surprises. Give us an original experience we never would have dreamed of and wow us that way. Rise of the Resistance wows guests to be fair, but no one is going to be surprised at a Star Wars attraction that takes guests through a Star Destroyer.

Imagine going on Pirates for the first time and being delighted by prisoners trying to coax a jail cell key from a dog. That's hilarious, original, and surprising. As opposed to, hey it's the Sea Witch from the cartoon singing the song I know.

As far as things like Remy, there's also ways to do an IP tie-in but still have some originality. Indiana Jones Adventure evokes what people love and remember about those films without just recreating Temple of Doom or something.

For sure, and for me it's also just about doing what's best for the parks creatively. Any kind of mandate on art stating you aren't allowed to create new things or go in new directions is a problem. I don't get how any fan of theme parks as an artistic medium... can be okay with an IP mandate. It's literally the reason the parks are moving away from themes and towards just being random collections of attractions. Instead of making a coaster exploring the unexplorable reaches of outer space...that actually fits EPCOT...nope, gotta have the 'Guardians of the Galaxy'

 

[spacemt354]

an even better comparison is the OG Star Tours - another Tony Baxter masterpiece. It told a new story but had elements from the films that we loved. Just like Indy.

Compare star tours to the falcon which seems completely soul-less.

At Disneyland where you can compare them back to back, I think Indy easily wins out over Rise. (I do enjoy Rise… they got close).

Falcon does feel soul-less but attempted to do the same thing the original Star Tours did, tell a new story with elements from the films. It's just not a great story.

For sure, and for me it's also just about doing what's best for the parks creatively. Any kind of mandate on art stating you aren't allowed to create new things or go in new directions is a problem. I don't get how any fan of theme parks as an artistic medium... can be okay with an IP mandate. It's literally the reason the parks are moving away from themes and towards just being random collections of attractions. Instead of making a coaster exploring the unexplorable reaches of outer space...that actually fits EPCOT...nope, gotta have the 'Guardians of the Galaxy'

Asking for more original content is fine if the product is another Haunted Mansion or Expedition Everest. But you need the Tony Baxters, the Bob Gurrs, the Joe Rohdes of the world etc with visions in order to see those through. The space coaster you're suggesting already exists with Space Mountain. I get your intention, but at the same time it's harder to sell an unknown space exploration vs Guardians of the Galaxy or Star Wars which you bought and own, especially when your competition is cranking out Nintendo and Harry Potter lands.

It's possible there is creative talent that is not given the opportunity to create original concepts, but in my view some of the worst new additions to the parks have been things based on IPs yet try to be as convolutedly original as possible. Those that embrace the IP and have proper placement I've enjoyed much more.

 

[celluloid]

Universal is building two original lands(one is technically an entrance plaza, but even Disney can't do a Main Street USA anymore without just making it a Disney Springs generic theme compared to what they originally were)

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Universal is building two original lands(one is technically an entrance plaza, but even Disney can't do a Main Street USA anymore without just making it a Disney Springs generic theme compared to what they originally were)

One is yes the “central spine”, but what is the other original land you claim their building?

 

[celluloid]

Yeah see that's what I mean. I honestly think Disney's library of intellectual properties is overhyped when it comes to the parks. I mean besides animation the pickings seem kinda slim.

For sure. There is a reason Haunted mansion is being attempted again and we had a random take on The Jungle Cruise.

Their theatrical release studio in the last decade and a half is just as desperate.

it's not the 50s or 90s anymore.

If Elemental and wish cant alter course. It will. E rough sailing as well even in Animation.

 

[JoeCamel]

One is yes the “central spine”, but what is the other original land you claim their building?

Monsters

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Monsters

It’s literally “Universal Monsters”, it’s an IP. If Disney were to build a Villains Land, you all would call that original?

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

It’s literally “Universal Monsters”, it’s an IP. If Disney were to build a Villains Land, you all would call that original?

Fantasyland is filled with IP’s. Cars Land only has one. That’s the difference.

(I actually love Cars Land but would have preferred the original Car Land concept).

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Fantasyland is filled with IP’s. Cars Land only has one. That’s the difference.

(I actually love Cars Land but would have preferred the original Car Land concept).

So to revisit my previous question, are you all going to say Disneys Villain Land is original?

Universal markets and uses the Monsters in the same way as Disneys Villains.

 

[Casper Gutman]

So to revisit my previous question, are you all going to say Disneys Villain Land is original?

Universal markets and uses the Monsters in the same way as Disneys Villains.

Not at all, really. A Disney Villains land would feature, say, a Jafar based very directly on the one in the animated film. It would be full of locations such as Bald Mountain, lifted from the film. Uni’s Dark Universe land is based much more on the general concept of the monsters and, in a more general sense, the studio’s association with the horror genre - the Dracula in the land is unlikely to be the Lugosi Dracula, for instance. The setting is also meant to be evocative of a mood rather then a specific film location. It’s much more akin to Disney opening a “Cartoon Animal Land.”

Is Jungle Cruise an IP ride because it was directly inspired by The African Queen? Is Frontierland an IP land because it is based on countless westerns, many of which Disney produced?

 

[BlakeW39]

Falcon does feel soul-less but attempted to do the same thing the original Star Tours did, tell a new story with elements from the films. It's just not a great story.


Asking for more original content is fine if the product is another Haunted Mansion or Expedition Everest. But you need the Tony Baxters, the Bob Gurrs, the Joe Rohdes of the world etc with visions in order to see those through. The space coaster you're suggesting already exists with Space Mountain. I get your intention, but at the same time it's harder to sell an unknown space exploration vs Guardians of the Galaxy or Star Wars which you bought and own, especially when your competition is cranking out Nintendo and Harry Potter lands.

It's possible there is creative talent that is not given the opportunity to create original concepts, but in my view some of the worst new additions to the parks have been things based on IPs yet try to be as convolutedly original as possible. Those that embrace the IP and have proper placement I've enjoyed much more.

The space exploration rollercoaster I suggested for EPCOT wouldn't be similar to Space Mountain. I'm suggesting a ride actually exploring different aspects of outer space, the formation of new galaxies, black holes, supernovas, etc, not just flying around aimlessly amongst the stars. But it was just an example, anyways. My point is that if it weren't for Bob's movie IP mandate, we could have gotten a fun attraction that actually fit into the framework of EPCOT. Instead, we got a fun attraction that is still very much a blight on the park as a whole.

 

[BlakeW39]

Not at all, really. A Disney Villains land would feature, say, a Jafar based very directly on the one in the animated film. It would be full of locations such as Bald Mountain, lifted from the film. Uni’s Dark Universe land is based much more on the general concept of the monsters and, in a more general sense, the studio’s association with the horror genre - the Dracula in the land is unlikely to be the Lugosi Dracula, for instance. The setting is also meant to be evocative of a mood rather then a specific film location. It’s much more akin to Disney opening a “Cartoon Animal Land.”

Is Jungle Cruise an IP ride because it was directly inspired by The African Queen? Is Frontierland an IP land because it is based on countless westerns, many of which Disney produced?

Agreed with all of this, and even though the horror genre doesn't really appeal to me I'm actually more excited for the Universal Monsters land than I am for any other land in the park. I like WWoHP, but I am well past being tired of this overwhelming trend in the industry towards "immersive" single IP lands. Having an attraction or even a land based on an IP is one thing. But every new addition to every park being a 1:1 copy of something from a movie has just gotten really tiresome for me. 'Ride the movies' never really appealed to me as a concept, DHS was always my least favorite WDW park... and now that's the direction of allll theme parks. It's just...ugh.

 

[JoeCamel]

It’s literally “Universal Monsters”, it’s an IP. If Disney were to build a Villains Land, you all would call that original?

I would call Frankie or Drac an IP but mash them all together and it is original

 

[SpectroMagician]

hmm so the are doubling down on the strategy that got them into this mess of falling attendance customer dissatisfaction. It's a bold move cotton.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

hmm so the are doubling down on the strategy that got them into this mess of falling attendance customer dissatisfaction. It's a bold move cotton.

This is not the strategy that for them info this “mess of falling attendance & customer dissatisfaction”.

That strategy was insane price hikes across the board, nickel & diming everything across the board, as well as a general decrease in service quality to save $$$.

 

[SamusAranX]

This is not the strategy that for them info this “mess of falling attendance & customer dissatisfaction”.

That strategy was insane price hikes across the board, nickel & diming everything across the board, as well as a general decrease in service quality to save $$$.

*and failing to increase capacity commensurate with attendance and using that monetize and nickel and dime even further

 

[ToTBellHop]

This is not the strategy that for them info this “mess of falling attendance & customer dissatisfaction”.

That strategy was insane price hikes across the board, nickel & diming everything across the board, as well as a general decrease in service quality to save $$$.

You forgot their self-induced vacation planning debacle between park passes, hopping restrictions, and G+.

Most guests love the recent additions to the parks.