News Disney Not Renewing Great Movie Ride Sponsorship Deal with TCM ; Attraction to Close

[RoysCabin]

You have some very ridged rules you like to follow. Fortunately the rest of the world is not restricted by your rules. May I point out to you that the Haunted Mansion is located in four different lands in various Disney parks. It could also be located in AK or DHS (ToT is close to the same concept).

What you have done is limit yourself with your line of thinking. Contrary to your order of thought, every concept can fit anywhere with some creativity and imagination. For example, the Jungle Cruise which was once a "serious" ride, was turned into a corny joke ride. That was done out of necessity to improve attendance. And let's not forget the Tiki Room Under New Management. The parks change with the times and attractions have to change as their attendance diminishes.

You just can't limit Stitch to Tomorrowland. I'd like to see Stitch Elvis take over the Swiss Family Robinson tree house. It would be a perfect fit!

I'm afraid I'm not seeing your point.

My argument is to remove limitations, while acknowledging that the very act of creating a themed environment involves some level of limitation in the service of your choice of theme (e.g. it's not likely in your interests to place a ride focused on, say, knights and dragons in an area such as Tomorrowland). By latching onto and making an entire area exclusive to a single IP, one may run the risk of stifling creativity due to the limited range of inspirations that groups like WDI can take to create new attractions, as a Star Wars Land must include Star Wars inspired attractions, Toy Story Land must include Toy Story attractions, etc.

By keeping your themes broad, you remove limits and hard and fast rules. "Adventure" is a broad theme, which is why Indiana Jones manages to fit in nicely in Disneyland's Adventureland. If instead the entire area became "Indiana Jones Land", then the only attractions you'd be getting would be derived from Indiana Jones concepts and properties.

 

[Phil12]

I'm afraid I'm not seeing your point.

My argument is to remove limitations, while acknowledging that the very act of creating a themed environment involves some level of limitation in the service of your choice of theme (e.g. it's not likely in your interests to place a ride focused on, say, knights and dragons in an area such as Tomorrowland). By latching onto and making an entire area exclusive to a single IP, one may run the risk of stifling creativity due to the limited range of inspirations that groups like WDI can take to create new attractions, as a Star Wars Land must include Star Wars inspired attractions, Toy Story Land must include Toy Story attractions, etc.

By keeping your themes broad, you remove limits and hard and fast rules. "Adventure" is a broad theme, which is why Indiana Jones manages to fit in nicely in Disneyland's Adventureland. If instead the entire area became "Indiana Jones Land", then the only attractions you'd be getting would be derived from Indiana Jones concepts and properties.

There you go again, putting unnecessary restrictions on creativity and imagination. The themes can be as narrow as you want yet you can still fit Stitch into the mix. Or Davy Crockett for that matter. A writer can tell any story they wish no matter the artificial boundaries that you desire to impose.

 

[CanadianGordon]

So wouldn't it be great if Disney added a showcase of old animatronics and old attractions in it's own place on property?

 

[lazyboy97o]

So wouldn't it be great if Disney added a showcase of old animatronics and old attractions in it's own place on property?

The whole point of a themed experience is that there is a larger story bring experience. Attractions sitting in isolation remove them from that larger context. Such a collection would be in direct opposition to the whole notion of themed entertainment and the theme park construct.

 

[whiterhino42]

I just wish we would get new things right now without closing everything. They have room!

 

[Phil12]

I mean, it sure sounded like it . . .


Either way, there is no character in Fantasyland whose status in the Public Domain is an issue for Disney, and no need to "make sure they reap all the profits they can from their IP's". They're good.

You don't understand the licensing agreements. Let me give you an example.

If I am running a day care center and I want to paint Mickey Mouse on my business front door, I need permission from Disney to do that. I will have to pay a licensing fee to Disney for the privilege of using Mickey and any of his friends on my business. Disney is extremely strict about the control and use of their IP.

As for the Seven Dwarfs, as long as I don't use the Disney names (i.e. Happy, Dopey, etc.) or use the Disney cartoon drawings of the dwarfs, then I can use either my own depictions of the dwarfs or the drawings from the Brothers Grimm.

For your information the clock is ticking on Mickey because his copyright is running out. That's the major reason why Mickey is the trademark of TWDC. As long as they use Mickey as a trademark he's protected.

And contrary to your assertion that "no character in Fantasyland whose status in the Public Domain is an issue for Disney", you have overlooked the fact that Disney has a huge legal department that spends a lot of time and money on protecting their IP. Here a recent article concerning "Disney's Snow White": http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...nd-rights-as-snow-white-appears-at-wanda-park

And the clock is ticking on "Disney's Snow White" as well, as opposed to "Public Domain Snow White". The bottom line is that it's up to the courts to decide what is and is not copyright infringement. Disney IP is the heart and soul of the company which is the reason why they lobbied so hard to have The Mickey Mouse Protection Act passed by Congress.

 

[Phil12]

So what was the Horizons IP? A so loose it's unbelievable Man in Space?

Space Mountain?

Big Thunder?

Mansion?

Kitchen Kabaret?

Twist it all you like. It makes a huge difference. Balance is the key. Once that's tipping the wrong way.

Everything has a genre. Corporate cross promotion and synergy pushes genre into IPs that don't belong.

I don't share your opinion and neither does Disney!

 

[Matt_Black]

You don't understand the licensing agreements. Let me give you an example.

If I am running a day care center and I want to paint Mickey Mouse on my business front door, I need permission from Disney to do that. I will have to pay a licensing fee to Disney for the privilege of using Mickey and any of his friends on my business. Disney is extremely strict about the control and use of their IP.

As for the Seven Dwarfs, as long as I don't use the Disney names (i.e. Happy, Dopey, etc.) or use the Disney cartoon drawings of the dwarfs, then I can use either my own depictions of the dwarfs or the drawings from the Brothers Grimm.

For your information the clock is ticking on Mickey because his copyright is running out. That's the major reason why Mickey is the trademark of TWDC. As long as they use Mickey as a trademark he's protected.

And contrary to your assertion that "no character in Fantasyland whose status in the Public Domain is an issue for Disney", you have overlooked the fact that Disney has a huge legal department that spends a lot of time and money on protecting their IP. Here a recent article concerning "Disney's Snow White": http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...nd-rights-as-snow-white-appears-at-wanda-park

And the clock is ticking on "Disney's Snow White" as well, as opposed to "Public Domain Snow White". The bottom line is that it's up to the courts to decide what is and is not copyright infringement. Disney IP is the heart and soul of the company which is the reason why they lobbied so hard to have The Mickey Mouse Protection Act passed by Congress.

Disney's relationship with Public Domain is funny. On the one hand there's stuff they'd love to see lapse into it (Zorro, looking at you). On the other hand, aside from the noted examples, they're one of the companies that managed to convince the government to pull many pieces OUT of the public domain, like Rhapsody in Blue.

 

[CanadianGordon]

The whole point of a themed experience is that there is a larger story bring experience. Attractions sitting in isolation remove them from that larger context. Such a collection would be in direct opposition to the whole notion of themed entertainment and the theme park construct.

I think a lot of us here love Museums.... Maybe a traveling exhibit?

 

[RoysCabin]

There you go again, putting unnecessary restrictions on creativity and imagination. The themes can be as narrow as you want yet you can still fit Stitch into the mix. Or Davy Crockett for that matter. A writer can tell any story they wish no matter the artificial boundaries that you desire to impose.

...You're not making one iota of sense.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

You don't understand the licensing agreements. Let me give you an example.

If I am running a day care center and I want to paint Mickey Mouse on my business front door, I need permission from Disney to do that. I will have to pay a licensing fee to Disney for the privilege of using Mickey and any of his friends on my business. Disney is extremely strict about the control and use of their IP.

As for the Seven Dwarfs, as long as I don't use the Disney names (i.e. Happy, Dopey, etc.) or use the Disney cartoon drawings of the dwarfs, then I can use either my own depictions of the dwarfs or the drawings from the Brothers Grimm.

For your information the clock is ticking on Mickey because his copyright is running out. That's the major reason why Mickey is the trademark of TWDC. As long as they use Mickey as a trademark he's protected.

And contrary to your assertion that "no character in Fantasyland whose status in the Public Domain is an issue for Disney", you have overlooked the fact that Disney has a huge legal department that spends a lot of time and money on protecting their IP. Here a recent article concerning "Disney's Snow White": http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...nd-rights-as-snow-white-appears-at-wanda-park

And the clock is ticking on "Disney's Snow White" as well, as opposed to "Public Domain Snow White". The bottom line is that it's up to the courts to decide what is and is not copyright infringement. Disney IP is the heart and soul of the company which is the reason why they lobbied so hard to have The Mickey Mouse Protection Act passed by Congress.

I'm plenty familiar with Mickey's copyright, as well as the other licensing agreements.

Perhaps I should have been more clear -- BECAUSE of Disney's huge legal department which serves to protect their IP, there is no character in Fantasyland whose status in the Public Domain is an issue for Disney. The non-Disney Seven Dwarfs may as well not even be The Seven Dwarfs to them -- they have the rights to both their names and their images, which is all they care about. They ensure that no one else uses those iterations without proper licensing. The public domain characters? They could almost certainly not care less. They have no rights there. That is all I meant. They make money from their versions of the characters, they make no money from the public domain versions that inspired them, and nary the two shall meet.

But, since your responses to me and everyone else seem to indicate you are more interested in talking down to people than having an open discussion . . . maybe we can jump back on topic.

 

[Mike S]

 

[CanadianGordon]

Can we PLEASE get back on topic?

Where can I buy a Munchkin? I wanna freak out my cats.

 

[Castle Cake Apologist]

Man, I swear I've said that out loud at least ten times reading through the last few pages of this thread. I really don't understand why people argue with him.

 

[Magenta Panther]

So wouldn't it be great if Disney added a showcase of old animatronics and old attractions in it's own place on property?

They've kind of done that in the One Man's Dream exhibit. It's got one of the original Tiki Birds, and the original Mr. Lincoln. Go see them while you can, before TDO rips out the exhibit for good in favor of a meet-and-greet with Jar Jar Binks.

 

[ford91exploder]

But Disney didt exactly "take a chance" with Avatar. It was a decision born of desperation when Universal handed them their hat when Potter opened so Iger decided he wanted what Uni had and he made a knee jerk reaction. Thats not a creative process. Thats just flat out copying someone elses idea. Iger is the kid in the sand box who didnt want the toy shovel until aother kid picked it up and had fun with it.

Are they taking a chance with Toy Story? Nope. A spinner and Barnstormer 2.0. Nothing risky. Nothing creative. Its minimal. The whole "being shrunk down" aspect is nothing new either. Honey I Shrunk the Kids playground already did that.

Yet the sad thing is WDW is getting a 'Value Engineered' version of a already underwhelming TSL (in its current locations) if WDW actually cared about experience as they once did perhaps they could have plussed it instead of value engineered it. I hope there is sufficient budget for fake shrubs to cover the tires on the ride system.

 

[wdisney9000]

Tell you what... you invest that much money in a single area and a single theme and tell me that you aren't taking a chance on something. The common argument is that Pandora isn't based on a currently popular property. Potter was and still is. That wasn't a gamble. Pandora is a big time gamble.

Pandora is less of a gamble because they are using what Uni did with Potter as a guidemap. USO took the biggest gamble of all regardless of Potter being an established and popular IP. They set out to do something on a grand scale, you know, the way Disney once did.

The fact that Pandora hasnt established itself as a property with shelf life only shows how short sighted the decision was by Disney. But they are also basing most (please note I said most, not all) of Pandora off what we saw in the first movie and will probly add more if the next installments are a success. Now, Disney is trying to over do it by building 3 IP Lands instead one really really AMAZING one. And that is another example of the ridiculous mindframe Disney has with WDW. Building more than USO did doesnt exactly make it "better".

It feels like Disney just doesnt have any confidence to do something unique and actually take a gamble in WDW. Id love to know why they think that slamming IP's into every park is the best decision when they have attractions like Soarin, TT, HM, POTC SM, BTMRR, etc that are extremely popular and timeless. Its as if they abandoned a system that works and are now lost and confused as to which way to go. Obviously, its all to cash in on merchandising, but considering what they have to spend to buy all these IP's, they could save a ton and build something that doesnt require them spending $2 billion to buy an IP

 

[Goofyernmost]

Pandora is less of a gamble because they are using what Uni did with Potter as a guidemap. USO took the biggest gamble of all regardless of Potter being an established and popular IP. They set out to do something on a grand scale, you know, the way Disney once did.

The fact that Pandora hasnt established itself as a property with shelf life only shows how short sighted the decision was by Disney. But they are also basing most (please note I said most, not all) of Pandora off what we saw in the first movie and will probly add more if the next installments are a success. Now, Disney is trying to over do it by building 3 IP Lands instead one really really AMAZING one. And that is another example of the ridiculous mindframe Disney has with WDW. Building more than USO did doesnt exactly make it "better".

It feels like Disney just doesnt have any confidence to do something unique and actually take a gamble in WDW. Id love to know why they think that slamming IP's into every park is the best decision when they have attractions like Soarin, TT, HM, POTC SM, BTMRR, etc that are extremely popular and timeless. Its as if they abandoned a system that works and are now lost and confused as to which way to go. Obviously, its all to cash in on merchandising, but considering what they have to spend to buy all these IP's, they could save a ton and build something that doesnt require them spending $2 billion to buy an IP

To me the question is not who did what first, because we were talking about taking chances, something that Disney past was never afraid to do, with an IP that maybe hasn't completely captured the publics imagination, but, even though I thought the movie, or the parts of it that I have seen, is awful the possible visual effects are mind boggling and with or without a popular story line can be a tremendous attraction.

To say that it is less a gamble because UNI built something big out of a popular IP, is something that I cannot understand at all. If done well, and I just have a suspicion that it will be, it will be the talk of the theme park world. However, it could fall on it's face because it isn't a currently popular franchise. Much more risk then thinking that Potter would be a success. Let's just hope that the engineering is a little more precise then a certain Yeti that I will not mention. That also sounded great on paper.

 

[CanadianGordon]

They've kind of done that in the One Man's Dream exhibit. It's got one of the original Tiki Birds, and the original Mr. Lincoln. Go see them while you can, before TDO rips out the exhibit for good in favor of a meet-and-greet with Jar Jar Binks.

That really blows. I missed seeing that when I was there last year. I also listened to my friend who said don't bother with giving any time to Epcot other than the rides, so we missed out on seeing ANY of the World Showcase other than what was on the outside....

My time will be better planned next time.

 

[Mike S]

That really blows. I missed seeing that when I was there last year. I also listened to my friend who said don't bother with giving any time to Epcot other than the rides, so we missed out on seeing ANY of the World Showcase other than what was on the outside....

My time will be better planned next time.

If I were you I would ditch that friend.