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

[Matt_Black]

With that being said, its also hard to argue that the main reason DIS purchased Star Wars was because of the other things rather than the IP. I mean, look at what all they've done with Star Wars since they purchased it. Multiple new movies and massive theme park expansions for this IP alone.

Yes, and as you'll note, I did say that was a HUGE consideration. I doubt it was the sole consideration, however.

 

[Mike S]

Well, first, I don't think the Lucasfilm buy was solely for the IPs. That was a huge consideration, to be sure, but the buy also included ILM and Skywalker Sound. You can see why a company that makes movies would like to have those two under the umbrella, yes?

Furthermore, all 3 of the above mentioned companies had previous working relationships with Disney. In the case of Lucasfilm, this was more of like finally putting a ring on it after dating for 20 years as opposed to a one night stand followed by a Vegas wedding chapel.

Isn't ILM available for any studio to use? I know that's how it worked before the purchase.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yes, and as you'll note, I did say that was a HUGE consideration. I doubt it was the sole consideration, however.

Disney said setting a price and purchasing Lucasfilm was based on Star Wars.

 

[Buried20KLeague]

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!

Clearly you haven't seen Tokyo Disney's Tiki Room.

 

[SorcererMC]

In an effort to get this thread back on-topic....
perhaps putting a Mickey ride into DHS is a sign that they are re-focusing on creative content 'original' to Disney? It is THE original after all and I could see why they would want it to be a centerpiece of DHS. Wanna bet that they include the 'it was all started by a mouse' quote?

 

[Phil12]

Clearly you haven't seen Tokyo Disney's Tiki Room.

As I said, Stitch is a perfect fit!

 

[marni1971]

As I said, Stitch is a perfect fit!

Thankfully they got it wrong then with plans to put him in WDWs Tiki Room.

 

[Ripken10]

I loved Zootopia, and I have no kids. I just thought it was great. I would love to see that in Animal Kingdom somehow.

As so many have said...Zootopia would be a BAD fit for the Animal Kingdom.

 

[devoy1701]

Really. Then what do you call Wreck-It Ralph, Frozen, or Zootopia?

someone else's ideas?

 

[csmat99]

I can guarantee you the park's new name will not be Disney's Hollywood Adventure. They will likely axe any Hollywood reference from the park's name. Its main two lands, Toy Story and Star Wars, are movies produced by non-Hollywood film companies. It just wouldn't work or make sense. I am thinking Disney's Cinematic Adventure.

It has nothing to do with fact that they weren't produced by Hollywood film companies. When people hear Hollywood they think movies period. Now I agree probably makes sense to take Hollywood out of the name since the park is moving away from the movie/studio theme. Most people also don't know majority of all the movies are funded by sources outside the movie studios.

 

[doctornick]

I mean, this is valid, look at what has been purchased under Iger; Pixar, Marval, and Lucas. those 3 studios are pumping out hits.

Its completely fair to say the focus has been on acquiring additional IP more so than creating new.

So, are you saying that something like Brave or Inside Out doesn't "count" as a new IP because Disney bought Pixar? If so, that's an absurd line of reasoning.

 

[ChipNDale79]

So, are you saying that something like Brave or Inside Out doesn't "count" as a new IP because Disney bought Pixar? If so, that's an absurd line of reasoning.

No, thats not what I'm saying at all. IP like Toy Story, Spider man, and Star Wars are acquired IP, there's really no debate about that, they purchased them.

Things like Brave and Inside out were created after the acquisition, so that's not acquired IP, its developed.

 

[doctornick]

No, thats not what I'm saying at all. IP like Toy Story, Spider man, and Star Wars are acquired IP, there's really no debate about that, they purchased them.

Things like Brave and Inside out were created after the acquisition, so that's not acquired IP, its developed.

Well, if a studio is purchased and it "pumps out hits", isn't that a sign of Disney developing new products? Pixar, Lucasfilm, and Marvel are all part of Disney so anything new they create -- even if it has it's basis on previously established concepts -- is being developed by Disney.

I mean, the world of Star Wars is an established IP, but Rey and Finn and the cast of Rebels, etc. are all new Disney creations.

To me, saying that Disney is just purchasing IP and not developing would be something like just releasing new toys based on the existing Star Wars movies. But they aren't just doing that -- they are taking existing brands and creating new content. In a sense, it's not that different that Walt Disney taking existing fairy tales or other works and putting a new, unique spin on them.

 

[RobidaFlats]

So, are you saying that something like Brave or Inside Out doesn't "count" as a new IP because Disney bought Pixar? If so, that's an absurd line of reasoning.

Honest question: How many of the current creative staff at Pixar were hired before the acquisition?

 

[ChipNDale79]

Well, if a studio is purchased and it "pumps out hits", isn't that a sign of Disney developing new products? Pixar, Lucasfilm, and Marvel are all part of Disney so anything new they create -- even if it has it's basis on previously established concepts -- is being developed by Disney.

I mean, the world of Star Wars is an established IP, but Rey and Finn and the cast of Rebels, etc. are all new Disney creations.

To me, saying that Disney is just purchasing IP and not developing would be something like just releasing new toys based on the existing Star Wars movies. But they aren't just doing that -- they are taking existing brands and creating new content. In a sense, it's not that different that Walt Disney taking existing fairy tales or other works and putting a new, unique spin on them.

It's a mixture of the both. While they are developing those IPs and extending them, they did not create them. To me that's a part of the development, someone had to have an idea to create the original story and characters.

I can see we just aren't going to agree on this one.

 

[doctornick]

Honest question: How many of the current creative staff at Pixar were hired before the acquisition?

I don't know, but what does it matter if John Lasseter or Kevin Feige became a Disney employee due to the purchasing of their current employer versus tossing a bunch of money directly at them to hire them away? Are you saying that Alan Horn is "Disney" because he was hired directly but John Lasseter is not because he came along with Pixar?

Either way, it's just Disney using their money to acquire assets (yes, talented employees are still assets).

 

[doctornick]

It's a mixture of the both. While they are developing those IPs and extending them, they did not create them. To me that's a part of the development, someone had to have an idea to create the original story and characters.

The first animated Disney film based on an original idea was either Lady and the Tramp or The Lion King (both of which are debatable as being solely original ideas). It's not like Walk Disney or his crew came up with the ideas of Snow White, Pinocchio or Dumbo, etc.

 

[RobidaFlats]

In a sense, it's not that different that Walt Disney taking existing fairy tales or other works and putting a new, unique spin on them.

This keeps being asserted but I think it is grossly oversimplified. When Disney made Snow White, there was no soundtrack, no existing aesthetic, no existing sets, etc.

When Disney released Episode VII, there was an established soundtrack (Yes, John Williams wrote new pieces, but he had already developed "the feel"), established costume themes, established ship and uniform styles, and even some of the actual cast from previous movies.

Without being too snarky, aside from Budget and the actual ownership rights, Disney's contribution to the Star Wars universe is creatively equivalent to fan fiction. Not that that is a bad thing. It just isn't the same as taking a purely written fairy tale and creating a visual and aural universe out of it.

 

[RobidaFlats]

I don't know, but what does it matter if John Lasseter or Kevin Feige became a Disney employee due to the purchasing of their current employer versus tossing a bunch of money directly at them to hire them away? Are you saying that Alan Horn is "Disney" because he was hired directly but John Lasseter is not because he came along with Pixar?

Either way, it's just Disney using their money to acquire assets (yes, talented employees are still assets).

No, that is not what I am saying. In fact, all I did was ask a question.

However, in response to your comment, I would suggest that there is a distinction between hiring employees and hiring a team. Anyone who has managed a team can tell you that the assembly of a creative team is in and of itself a creative endeavor.

 

[ChipNDale79]

The first animated Disney film based on an original idea was either Lady and the Tramp or The Lion King (both of which are debatable as being solely original ideas). It's not like Walk Disney or his crew came up with the ideas of Snow White, Pinocchio or Dumbo, etc.

No, you're right, if you go back and look at a lot of the disney classics they are old fairy tales that were not "created" by disney. However he took them, and expanded upon them and made them what people from the modern world know about those fairy tales. Thats now how people remember those stories, because of Walt Disney. Its not like there was a Snow White movie out before Walt did it, then he turned around and made Snow White 2 or anything like that.

Look, I really don't care about the IP thing, I'm just making a point there is a difference in acquiring IP or creating/developing it. Disney is able to build new theme park attractions based off of acquired IP. I don't have a problem with that, some people do though.