What is your evidence that the average guest doesn't? It's not a baseless claim, your claim is actually baseless. Disney is a multi-million $$$ corporation, if they didn't have the data that proves IP = $$$, which we already know, they wouldn't continue to push it.
All respect, but in a logical debate, the burden of proof doesn't fall on me to prove your claim false. It falls on you to provide evidence for it in the first place. Right now there is no evidence to suggest park goers either like or dislike Disney's newest attractions, outside of anecdotes like "my friends liked Rat" or "my family didn't like MMRR." Until we have some way to gauge how much the average guest 'likes' the new WDW attractions, this claim will unfortunately remain baseless. As for my claim... I already provided evidence to substantiate it. All new attractions built during the 21st century have increased park attendance the year they opened. Thus, all new attractions are favored by guests, not just the ones that have IP. Novelty is the main draw, not intellectual property or brand power.
They are though. I don't think you even really pay attention to this forum if you truly feely that way. The general public don't even know what "IP" is, especially in this context.
Semi agreed. You are correct that the general public has no clue what IP is. They probably don't have complex opinions on what IP goes where and whrn it's best to just come up with a new idea. But the people on this forum are
definitionally not any different from the general public because they are
a part of the general public. The opinions of people on this board simply reflect the opinions of the parts of the general population that know and care about theme parks the most. Hence why the opinions on this forum are diverse, just like those of the public......even though most obviously dislike the IP mandate (as fans of theme parks as an artistic medium... that's absolutely 100% to be expected).
I respectfully disagree here. The "ride the movie" & "enter the world" mantra(s) have really been engrained in the theme park industry in the past decade. People are more likely to buy a Judy Hopps plush after getting off Dinosaur, rather than a Dinosaur.
(This is anecdotal, and I have no proof of this, like you have no proof of your basis)
Yes, the 'ride the movies' premise is popular.... but that's because it's only premise being used, not because guests evidently prefer it. Again, we have ample evidence suggesting that "riding the movies" isn't the main draw of going to a theme park and is not more popular than other, non-movie-based concepts, like Space Mountain or the Haunted Mansion.
Attendance @ DAK jumped from 10.8M to 12.5M in 2017 when Pandora opened.
Comparing rethemes like FEA and Sea's with Nemo & Friends to a brand new attraction like Everest really isn't fair.
True, it's not fair to compare a new E-ticket like Everest to a D or C ticket retheme like Frozen or Nemo. But that wasn't my point. My point was that new attractions are usually successful regardless of IP, to the point where Disney's most successful new attraction (in terms of driving ticket sales, as far as I can tell) was not tied to any IP/franchise. Thus we can conclude IP isn't the decisive factor in how well a new attraction performs, but rather, other draws come in to play.
However, just as it isn't fair to compare Everest to Frozen, it's also unfair to compare Everest to the entirety of Pandora.
I'll revisit the point I made earlier in this post, the theme park industry isn't just attendance, it's merch, F&B sales, etc. IP drives sales, it's just simple. People flock to the overpriced colored popcorn in Batuu because it's "Star Wars", same goes for the Coke bottles.
What evidence is there that the IP mandate actually increases merchandise and F&B sales? I hear this parroted often, but never have I seen it actually proven. F&B sales I would not imagine have anything to do with IP, outside a couple individual instances like speciality milk/butter beer. But that is hardly proof that IP must be mandated to every new attraction or otherwise you lose money in F&B. And as for merch. Most merch is not attraction specific, it's just generic these days, so again I fail to see how IP attractions increase merch sales until I see data that proves it.
Are you making the statement that Everest is their most successful "original" attraction? Also Mystic Manor opened in this decade, and that's not an IP-based attraction.
I'm making the statement that Everest is their most "successful" (in terms or attendance, at least) attraction during the 21st century, and also happens to be the only original attraction they've built during the 21st century (at WDW).
You mention it later in your post, but Everest is probably the most "thrilling" attraction @ WDW (RnRc aside), that's a huge draw for families that have "tweens" and those looking for more of a thrill. That was probably it's biggest draw.
I will agree with you here, but it's a pretty much sure way to draw guests and make money.
My point is that there can be many different draws for a new attraction. IP is one. A popular theme or idea, like dinosaurs or pirates, is another. One would be thrill level. This means there are other ways to make a theme park attraction successful, other than just IP. Which makes the IP
mandate unnecessary.
I agree with you here, and I have stated that I disagree with Zootopia going into DAK. I keep seeing Guardians as an argument of recent IP integration that breaks thematic integrity, can someone tell me what the "theme" of Epcot is?
Well without going too deep, EPCOT primarily focuses on futurism and the humanities, just as DAK focuses on wildlife & conservation.
Combining Consumer Products with Disney Parks was another driving force into this IP integration.
100% agree
See this, I don't understand... Their goal isn't to better utilize capacity long-term, if that was true, they would've demoed Malestrom and rebuilt a purpose-built Frozen attraction or built it somewhere else. That's just one example. To Disney (and every other entertainment company on the planet) knows IP (Franchises) = $$$. Hence the Fast X, Transformers, Scream 6, etc, that just came out.
We have insider confirmation that the primary goal behind the rethemes is to fully utilize an attraction's capacity. Not to increase park attendance. Although as I have proven, you don't need IP to do either.
Disney spends upwards of $200M on new theme park attractions, and they'd rather know that it's going to be a hit because of the IP.
Yeah.... few of their new attractions have ever actually failed, and the ones that have, have often been IP. So the idea that IP lets them 'know' something will be a hit is unsubstantiated imo. Most everything they build is a hit. And the times it isn't....again, who has endured longer? Figment or Honey I Shrunk the Audience?
I want to buy into this argument, but I can't.
- Snow White's Scary Adventures
- Peter Pan's Flight
- Mad Tea Party
- Alice in Wonderland
Are just a few examples of "specific IPs from modern pop-culture" that have stood the test of time, since 1955. I see no reason as to why these new attractions can't do the same.
No doubt the WDAS classics are enduring. But the majority of WDW's enduring, classic attractions have been original concepts, not based on movies/IP. Small World, Pirates, Kilimanjaro, HM, Space, BTMR, SSE, EE, JC, HoP, CoP, Imagination... I could go on. Figment endured, but Honey I Shrunk the Kids didn't. IP is a product of its time. Captain EO. Some of it will endure, some of it won't. But concepts like cowboys or sci-fi will always endure, because they already have endured. More than any IP in existence
