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

[MagicHappens1971]

Most guests love the recent additions to the parks.

If you ask the “guests” on here, they HATE IP, and they hate everything Disney has built in recent years because it’s unoriginal & IP!!!!!!

I think they represent a very small minority but that’s neither here nor there

 

[erasure fan1]

If you ask the “guests” on here, they HATE IP, and they hate everything Disney has built in recent years because it’s unoriginal & IP!!!!!!

I think they represent a very small minority but that’s neither here nor there

What forum are you on? You might need to open your mind a bit to what others are saying. Ip is expected in the parks, no one is saying it shouldn't be there. They are also not saying they should never use it. The issue is the all or nothing approach Disney has with it. There's a big difference between I HATE ALL IP AND DISNEY SHOULDN'T USE IT. And, what the actual argument of, they should have balance between when and where Ip is used and original content.

 

[Poseidon Quest]

If you ask the “guests” on here, they HATE IP, and they hate everything Disney has built in recent years because it’s unoriginal & IP!!!!!!

I think they represent a very small minority but that’s neither here nor there

I've learned that quite a few people are creatively disinterested in what Disney has been doing. The issue is that it's not easy to articulate because of how complex creative engagement can be, but there's definitely a lot of negative sentiment out there.

I like to compare it to Disney's take on Star Wars. The Force Awakens had ridiculous praise thrown at it and I think a lot of people were willing to excuse its heavy re-treading of similar elements from the older films because they were excited for what came next. However, after the let down of The Last Jedi, too many people felt creatively disinterested in the franchise and instead of focusing addressing it, Lucasfilm wrote off criticism as invalid because of a racist and sexist minority that wanted to use the film as a platform to express their hate. I think the box office for Solo, which I thought was a decent film that didn't deserve to bomb, reveals what happens when your audience becomes creatively disinterested.

In many ways, I think that people are becoming disillusioned with Disney parks in the same way. It's easy to point to things like price hikes, reservations, Genie, etc., but there's also very much a problem of a lot of new and expensive attractions feeling like "one and dones" to many. It's telling that in Disneyland, Galaxy's Edge is often considered the quiet area of the park and Runaway Railway isn't nearly as popular as other attractions like Space Mountain.

 

[SamusAranX]

If you ask the “guests” on here, they HATE IP, and they hate everything Disney has built in recent years because it’s unoriginal & IP!!!!!!

I think they represent a very small minority but that’s neither here nor there

It’s not we necessarily hate the additions, in my case it’s not enough.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

It’s not we necessarily hate the additions, in my case it’s not enough.

Are you saying that they haven’t built enough? I agree that the parks are criminally under-built, but I’ve even see people say they’d rather Disney just not build a Zootopia-land.

 

[Jrb1979]

Are you saying that they haven’t built enough? I agree that the parks are criminally under-built, but I’ve even see people say they’d rather Disney just not build a Zootopia-land.

What it is, its not that they don't want a Zootopia land it's they don't want it in AK. Same with putting Guardians in Epcot. It's not they hate the IP, it's the placement of it. At one point each park felt different to each other. Now it's feeling like they are all similar, an extension of MK.

Is it really that much to ask they fit IP into the theme of the park?

 

[erasure fan1]

Are you saying that they haven’t built enough? I agree that the parks are criminally under-built, but I’ve even see people say they’d rather Disney just not build a Zootopia-land.

Yes, I've seen people say they would rather Disney not build a Zootopia land as well. But I also saw it was not because they "hate" ip. The pushback was with placement and age of the property. The big argument I saw was just because, movie with talking animals, doesn't mean it belongs in the animal kingdom.

 

[SamusAranX]

Are you saying that they haven’t built enough? I agree that the parks are criminally under-built, but I’ve even see people say they’d rather Disney just not build a Zootopia-land.

Correct; I also don’t want Zootopia in AK. Put it in magic kingdom. But stop messing up the theming of the parks.

 

[JD80]

If you ask the “guests” on here, they HATE IP, and they hate everything Disney has built in recent years because it’s unoriginal & IP!!!!!!

I think they represent a very small minority but that’s neither here nor there

"very small" is probably the wrong term. I would have used miniscule.

 

[BlakeW39]

If you ask the “guests” on here, they HATE IP, and they hate everything Disney has built in recent years because it’s unoriginal & IP!!!!!!

I think they represent a very small minority but that’s neither here nor there

nah.... I stongly disagree.

1. what is the evidence that the average guest just LOVES Disney's new attractions? and why is that baseless claim always used as an excuse for Disney to design objectively mediocre rides? Average Joe will like anything that's new.... because IPger failed to give them anything 'new' for a decade.

2. the general public and the people on this forum are not as wildly separate as you seem to think man, all due respect. The people on here may be superfans, but their opinions are not wildly opposite of every other person who goes to the parks... I have heard people complain about IP outside of this forum, and if you really ask the average person on the street, 75% of the time they will say they prefer original ideas like dinosaurs to IP like Zootopia. Oiginal ideas based on themes and tropes have broader appeal than just specific, individual IP, outside of maybe hyper popular franchises like Marvel or Star Wars, and even then, it's just a maybe. But liking original attractions and not wanting EVERYTHING to be based on IP isn't some fringe take....lol.

 

[BlakeW39]

"very small" is probably the wrong term. I would have used miniscule.

And you'd be hilariously wrong for using that term.

People who like original attractions more than IP are not some fringe demographic found only in the wdwmagic bubble. Original attractions have, *gasp* always been, and always will be popular. What's more popular among general audiences, dinosaurs, or the 2016 film Zootopia? You can't seriously believe it's the latter.

 

[erasure fan1]

Correct; I also don’t want Zootopia in AK. Put it in magic kingdom. But stop messing up the theming of the parks.

Exactly! This isn't about zero IP, it never was. It boils down to thematic integrity. If an iP makes sense, great! If a new original concept would work better, great! If you just want toy story in the parks so you say, I got it! Woodys mine train will replace thunder mountain. No thanks.

 

[Frank the Tank]

Exactly! This isn't about zero IP, it never was. It boils down to thematic integrity. If an iP makes sense, great! If a new original concept would work better, great! If you just want toy story in the parks so you say, I got it! Woodys mine train will replace thunder mountain. No thanks.

I get the criticism, but *realistically*, if the conclusion is that essentially very few or no IP-based attractions work thematically in Animal Kingdom or Epcot and they instead invariably all need to be in the Magic Kingdom to keep thematic integrity, then that isn’t helping move toward the overall goal of getting more attractions into parks *other* than the Magic Kingdom.

So, while it’s fair to critique Disney for a knee-jerk reaction that everything must be based upon pre-existing IP, a lot of fans similarly have a counter knee-jerk reaction that certain IPs automatically can’t work thematically in places like Animal Kingdom and Epcot. Ultimately, thematic integrity comes with how well a new attraction or land is integrated with a park itself. Frankly, I think Zootopia on a surface level has a lot more thematic connection to Animal Kingdom than Pandora, but the way that Pandora was designed really does feel integrated into the park. At the end of the day, will a Zootopia land look like Pandora where the transition from other parts of the park feel natural… or is it going to look like Toy Story Land where it sticks out in a jarring way? The execution and implementation of that land is more relevant to me than whether a park built around animals should have a land based on a movie where animals walk around and talk and interact as a reflection of human behavior (which would describe a large segment of Disney movies).

Thematic *integrity* suggests that there are IPs that straight up *can’t* be in certain parks, which is realistically going to be too restrictive of a definition where people are simply rejecting ideas carte blanche solely based on the story of the source material. The focus should be on thematic *integration* on whether the design and goals of the attraction/land fit well into the park overall. Just saying “Put the IP in the Magic Kingdom!” isn’t going to get us anywhere (as the choice for Disney at that point is to simply build nothing new at all).

 

[JD80]

nah.... I stongly disagree.

1. what is the evidence that the average guest just LOVES Disney's new attractions? and why is that baseless claim always used as an excuse for Disney to design objectively mediocre rides? Average Joe will like anything that's new.... because IPger failed to give them anything 'new' for a decade.

2. the general public and the people on this forum are not as wildly separate as you seem to think man, all due respect. The people on here may be superfans, but their opinions are not wildly opposite of every other person who goes to the parks... I have heard people complain about IP outside of this forum, and if you really ask the average person on the street, 75% of the time they will say they prefer original ideas like dinosaurs to IP like Zootopia. Oiginal ideas based on themes and tropes have broader appeal than just specific, individual IP, outside of maybe hyper popular franchises like Marvel or Star Wars, and even then, it's just a maybe. But liking original attractions and not wanting EVERYTHING to be based on IP isn't some fringe take....lol.

lol

 

[BlakeW39]

lol

best counterargument you've come up with on this thread^^

 

[RSoxNo1]

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 $$$.

"If any of our competitors had our intellectual property guess what they'd be doing? Exactly what we're doing" - Bob Chapek

"As we spend money at the parks on new attractions that are based on known intellectual property and brands, the likelihood of their success is greater. So when we increase Toy Story’s presence or other Pixar presence, when we put Frozen in the parks, when we grow Star Wars presence, which we will do significantly, when we do it with Princess, for instance, you’re going to see, I think, basically better bets being made that pay off, that are more likely to pay off for us than some of the bets that were made in the past." – Bob Iger

Old Bob same as the new Bob same as the old Bob.

 

[RSoxNo1]

What it is, its not that they don't want a Zootopia land it's they don't want it in AK. Same with putting Guardians in Epcot. It's not they hate the IP, it's the placement of it. At one point each park felt different to each other. Now it's feeling like they are all similar, an extension of MK.

Is it really that much to ask they fit IP into the theme of the park?

Kind of.

There are treatments for both IPs that kind of work. Zootopia is definitely more of a stretch for DAK than Guardians is for EPCOT. The issue isn't that IP based attractions are bad, the issue (at least for me) is theme dilution. Animal Kingdom and EPCOT, more than DHS and MK have themes that are harder to address. Any time there's an addition, they run the risk of further diluting these themes.

Over the years, Animal Kingdom has been able to keep their underlying themes in check because they've had a creative champion overseeing the park. That is no longer the case.

Over the years, EPCOT has waivered because it hasn't had a creative champion overseeing the park and many of the changes were done without any degree of future proofing.

I'm going to quote from an article I wrote 8 years ago that I cite on these forums every few months.

"I welcome intellectual property based attractions, but the Disney parks need both."

 

[BlakeW39]

"If any of our competitors had our intellectual property guess what they'd be doing? Exactly what we're doing" - Bob Chapek

"As we spend money at the parks on new attractions that are based on known intellectual property and brands, the likelihood of their success is greater. So when we increase Toy Story’s presence or other Pixar presence, when we put Frozen in the parks, when we grow Star Wars presence, which we will do significantly, when we do it with Princess, for instance, you’re going to see, I think, basically better bets being made that pay off, that are more likely to pay off for us than some of the bets that were made in the past." – Bob Iger

Old Bob same as the new Bob same as the old Bob.

wdwmagic needs a 'vomit' react.

What a braindead comment by Original Bob. His implication that IP makes attractions more likely to succeed is not supported by the information we have on the Disney Parks. The Disney parks were founded and have built most of their brand loyalty on original attractions, imagination and creativity. Did known IP make Journey into Imagination more successful at EPCOT? Is IP-based TRON going to be more successful than 'previous investments' like Space Mountain? What about Expedition Everest, was it a stupid investment that would have done better if it was based on Frozen or something? This comment is just so utterly misguided.

This is reason #1 I want to see Bob out of this company ASAP. This line of thinking is so anti-creative it actually hurts. But funny enough, it's completely in line with what I've said about Bob and his 'IP mandate.' Tremendously stupid and short-sighted.

 

[GimpYancIent]

The use of I.P. is questionable (does not follow good reasoning) a small example would be the Jedi Academy experience. The kids loved it, great photo op and the kids would spread the word about the fun they had. It was not a prolonged experience and actually simple but for the kids a lot of fun and also for the parents / grandparents to see the kids have fun. People with kids in tow would crowd rope drop and race to get their kids registered for the experience. Ahhhhh but post COVID it never returned, just one example of poor use of an I.P. without regard for the guests interests.

 

[el_super]

What a braindead comment by Original Bob. His implication that IP makes attractions more likely to succeed is not supported by the information we have on the Disney Parks.

What information is that?