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

[yensidtlaw1969]

Mr. Toad at Disneyland is basically too small a building to do anything else worthwhile with. It's low capacity and not particularly impressive, but it is absolutely charming, zany fun, inexpensive to run, a rare and revered opening day attraction, and has its own strange subset of fans. Of which I gladly am one.

Being nestled in between (and somewhat underneath) two other perpetually popular attractions helps as well. You couldn't fit any more ride, show, or people into that building than they already do, and even if you could there's no queue space for anything with any higher demand.

Killing Toad at Disneyland would be basically all downside at this point. Not that they haven't thought about it.

 

[cookiee_munster]

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

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

www.wdwmagic.com

Sad times indeed. It's no surprise though, It really is about merchandising and selling a "product" and capitalising on something that's incredibly popular among a widespread audience.
Gone are the days of real unique parks like Tokyo DisneySea. Although even that's to have it's little injection of overload IP via Fantasy Springs. Something i was always a bit ambivalent towards.

So here we go. Expect Zootopia shoehorned into Animal Kingdom next.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Doesn't really seem like news to me - seems obvious the would use public input for determining which IP resonate the most.

And I think seeing this already - Moana is consistently one of the most downloaded/viewed movies on D+ and seeing integrating that Up more into the parks (and is also one that seems to always gets a huge reaction when featured in night time shows)

In the end will come down to how the specific IP is integrated into the parks - and that is the main thing no matter if picked via input from D+ or not

 

[FutureCEO]

Doesn't really seem like news to me - seems obvious the would use public input for determining which IP resonate the most.

And I think seeing this already - Moana is consistently one of the most downloaded/viewed movies on D+ and seeing integrating that Up more into the parks (and is also one that seems to always gets a huge reaction when featured in night time shows)

In the end will come down to how the specific IP is integrated into the parks - and that is the main thing no matter if picked via input from D+ or not

I know I'm in the minority but I just think Up is a horrible movie but it's a great movie if you compare it to some of the newer films.

 

[einlanzer]

Just my take, but, Josh was so full of promise.

Strangely, I re-read the old thread from when he was promoted at the weekend when I was searching for something else. Everyone was genuinely excited. The feeling that someone was finally going to be in charge that actually 'got it'.

I think that feeling continued initially through the closures. As he seemed to connect to fans. And CMs at DLR, and WDW were big cheerleaders.

Alas, as time has worn on he has proven himself to be a continuation of the Iger/Chapek school of thinking. Doubling down on unpopular initiatives such as park reservations, and Genie + (defending them in interviews etc). I don't think his D23 presentation did him any favors.

He has repeatedly said that good things will come to the parks under his watch, turns out he thinks good things is Zootopia at DAK.

It's been 2 years of disappointment.

The shiny self promotion (A1 PR game, I'll certainly give him that), that worked so well for him at the beginning seems shallow, even a bit slimy now. Say one thing with my fingers crossed behind my back and then, do another.

It's a shame. I was one of the people that was hopeful.

I've always had the opinion that D'amaro was immensely overrated and likely the true player behind a lot of the terrible park changes that are taking the whole company backwards.

I don't really get why he's popular among fans.

 

[Tha Realest]

I know I'm in the minority but I just think Up is a horrible movie but it's a great movie if you compare it to some of the newer films.

This post has something that will enrage everyone in its own way.

 

[Tha Realest]

I've always had the opinion that D'amaro was immensely overrated and likely the true player behind a lot of the terrible park changes that are taking the whole company backwards.

I don't really get why he's popular among fans.

He played good, empathetic, telegenic cop against a perceived villain from central casting.

So much for the notion he was the lone voice advocating for CMs and “the guests” behind the scenes, and was only reluctantly carrying out orders.

 

[networkpro]

It's not like people have stopped going to science museums, children's museums, aquariums, zoos, and even stuff like tech expos -- if anything, some of that is more popular today than ever -- so the Internet/smart phone argument doesn't really have any good evidence to support it. The better argument is that Disney was never going to commit to the regular, necessary updates for stuff like Communicore/Innoventions (and some of the attractions too).

That said, it's kind of irrelevant to the overall issue. Old school EPCOT offered more to do than current EPCOT, and what was offered was also generally of a higher quality than the replacements. The park has gotten significantly worse regardless of any edutainment argument.

Their support model for maintaining was based on sponsorships, not admission, retail, and food sales.

 

[monothingie]

Doesn't really seem like news to me - seems obvious the would use public input for determining which IP resonate the most.

And I think seeing this already - Moana is consistently one of the most downloaded/viewed movies on D+ and seeing integrating that Up more into the parks (and is also one that seems to always gets a huge reaction when featured in night time shows)

In the end will come down to how the specific IP is integrated into the parks - and that is the main thing no matter if picked via input from D+ or not

So the target demo of Epcot is now going to be girls age 4-12?

 

[BlakeW39]

So the target demo of Epcot is now going to be girls age 4-12?

And the target group for Animal Kingdom is furries!

 

[aladdin2007]

Mr. Toad at Disneyland is basically too small a building to do anything else worthwhile with. It's low capacity and not particularly impressive, but it is absolutely charming, zany fun, inexpensive to run, a rare and revered opening day attraction, and has its own strange subset of fans. Of which I gladly am one.

Being nestled in between (and somewhat underneath) two other perpetually popular attractions helps as well. You couldn't fit any more ride, show, or people into that building than they already do, and even if you could there's no queue space for anything with any higher demand.

Killing Toad at Disneyland would be basically all downside at this point. Not that they haven't thought about it.

agree, and I think toad has a little bit of a safety net there as does Alice being one of Walt's original attractions, Disneylanders would picket and riot and rightly so. Not that management cares (maybe they do there a little more) but I think Disneyland will always have some things they just can't touch or if they do very carefully. At WDW nothing is safe...

 

[TheMaxRebo]

So the target demo of Epcot is now going to be girls age 4-12?

The target will be everyone - part of which is girls 4-12 and they want stuff for them, absolutely

 

[WaltsTreasureChest]

That's likely why Splash Mountain lasted as long as it did, Song of the South theming notwithstanding. This makes me wonder if the Paul Rudish incarnation of Mickey Mouse will continue to be the theme for Runaway Railway within the next decade or be changed to the "classic" Mickey we all know.

I've always been somewhat concerned Mr. Toad's Wild Ride in DL will be given the axe considering it already happened in WDW, people aren't as familiar with The Wind in the Willows as they were when the ride initially opened (and this probably explains why its wait times are never as long as its contemporaries).

God I hate the new “Mickey”

 

[zombiebbq]

Yep, originality is what made Disney the entertainment behemoth it is today, beyond just the theme parks.

Disney created a market for animated feature films. There were no stats saying that cartoons are popular now therefore make cartoons.

Disney redefined what a theme park could be. There was no data to say people want coasters that are also a mountain therefore you should build that.

Disney is what it is because they took risks and created unique offerings to build an audience. To expand a market of entertainment offerings people would pay for.

It's sad that one of the great creative companies of our lifetime would base their new offerings on a stats driven exercise of spoon feeding people more of what they already know and like.

It's a business decision though. I honestly can't understand opinions like yours, even if I loved the non-IP attractions Disney has had and still has. They have the IP, so it's going in their parks.

 

[BlakeW39]

It's a business decision though. I honestly can't understand opinions like yours, even if I loved the non-IP attractions Disney has had and still has. They have the IP, so it's going in their parks.

.....

What is so difficult for you to understand? Just because Disney 'has the IP,' doesn't mean they should use it indescriminitantly or uniformly. Yes we are aware that it's a "business decision," but that doesn't mean it's the right one. It deserves criticism, especially because it's coming at the cost of good theme park design and creativity in the industry.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

It's a business decision though. I honestly can't understand opinions like yours, even if I loved the non-IP attractions Disney has had and still has. They have the IP, so it's going in their parks.

Of course they're going to have IP in the parks. No one is suggesting otherwise.

My concern is that they're only doing IP, and I don't see that as a good business decision.

Some of Disney's most popular and beloved attractions are not based on any IP. I don't understand how anyone can look at the consistent popularity of things like Haunted Mansion and Pirates, and not realize that original attractions contribute to what makes Disney parks so special.

 

[einlanzer]

It's a business decision though. I honestly can't understand opinions like yours, even if I loved the non-IP attractions Disney has had and still has. They have the IP, so it's going in their parks.

I don't understand how you don't understand, because it's very easy to understand. Creativity surrounding broader, cohesive theming, i.e. "world building" is what made the magic that made the parks so successful. Not shallow, random IP plugs all over the place. Of course IP will be present, but it has become far too front-and-center, which in the long run just makes the parks feel like overpriced six flags experiences. It also leads to attractions lacking a sense of timelessness that they should want them to have.

Megacorporate culture when combined with a myopic overfocus on data and shareholder appeasement is what takes things backward, not forward. And this is what happens when finance people are empowered to make all major decisions. They are near-universally talentless hacks and destroy more than they create.

 

[BlakeW39]

Of course they're going to have IP in the parks. No one is suggesting otherwise.

My concern is that they're only doing IP, and I don't see that as a good business decision.

Some of Disney's most popular and beloved attractions are not based on any IP. I don't understand how anyone can look at the consistent popularity of things like Haunted Mansion and Pirates, and not realize that original attractions contribute to what makes Disney parks so special.

Exactly. There are two main problems with the IP mandate:

1. IP is used indiscriminately, in places where it doesn't belong and where it contradicts the themes of the park that it's in.

2. Disney only wants to use IP and therefore doesn't allow any original or creative attractions to be built.

Of course there's nothing wrong with having IP in the parks, but it's the way they do it (i.e. indiscriminately) and the frequency with which they do it (i.e. only and always) that presents a problem.

 

[Tha Realest]

If the “must utilized all available IP for everything” dictate prevailed during Walt’s day, we could have easily seen how POTC would’ve been Treasure Island themed (massively popular and significant Disney film). Maybe it would’ve been fine. Who knows? But we wouldn’t have gotten Pirates as we now know it.

 

[ChrisFL]

I'm not sure what thing on Disney+ isn't "IP" in this sense? Unless it's a show specifically about like a documentary, or existing Disney attractions, pretty much every other show could be considered "IP".

So basically what Disney purists are saying they want is what ISN'T on Disney+ aka TV/Movies which is fine, but it's also not what shareholders want to hear.

It's the same as "hollywood" in general. Bet on the familiar, popular IP vs the unknown one that no one has heard of before....it's all about appealing to shareholders and what is easy to sell to them to keep investing in you, especially when you're in a company rebuilding phase like Disney is doing right now (and with what seems to be also the forced acquisition of Hulu around the corner)