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

[GoofGoof]

Is it practical as well? You act as if selling the brand (as Walt himself always put first) is a bad thing to do. The bottom line is that you can't swing a cat around your head at any Disney park without hitting some form of IP. And there's nothing wrong with that. Mickey balloon anyone?

You are missing the point. I'm not saying ban Mickey or characters from the parks. There's a big difference between having Woody and Jessie meet guests in Frontier Land outside of Splash Mountain or Mickey meet guests in EPCOT and having a Harry Potter Land that mirrors locations from the movies/books. AK is a perfect example. There are plenty of opportunity to integrate characters and merchandise while still having a unique theme with lands and rides not directly tied to IPs.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Obviously you are outnumbered..but we could always put it to a vote since it is a democracy. Approx 4 people will vote it is based on an IP, and millions others will say it wasn't. Maybe they need to count the absentee ballots.

Don't forget to count the hanging chads as a yes for your side.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Could the new Mickey Mouse ride reuse the DLP Ratatouille ride mechanicals? Would that be cool?

As far as the Chinese Theater facade, I grew up next to Hollywood and my wife in Hollywood. I vote to tear it down (the facade, not Hollywood), and build an icon of similar stature as the other 3 parks. The hat was a better icon than the facade! It needs to be big enough to grab everyone's attention while they are still walking to the bag check area in front of the park. Since it's for Mickey Mouse, it better be totally awesome.

That would be because it never was the Icon. It was just the tie in for old Hollywood. The only Icon when the park opened was the Earfull tower. The damn hat never even made an appearance until 2001.

 

[Goofyernmost]

My thought about this Dinosaur silliness is.... Who gives a tiny rats butt! There is nothing on this planet more unimportant then this ridiculous discussion.

 

[Phil12]

You are missing the point. I'm not saying ban Mickey or characters from the parks. There's a big difference between having Woody and Jessie meet guests in Frontier Land outside of Splash Mountain or Mickey meet guests in EPCOT and having a Harry Potter Land that mirrors locations from the movies/books. AK is a perfect example. There are plenty of opportunity to integrate characters and merchandise while still having a unique theme with lands and rides not directly tied to IPs.

I think we're talking about two entirely different things. Let me explain my interpretation of the matter.

In the old days, Disney had lots of corporate sponsors and many of those sponsors were not really good corporate citizens. However, Disney didn't care as long as the companies paid them their money. And I had no quibble with Disney about taking money from Monsanto or General Electric even though those companies are not highly regarded and known for their unscrupulous business practices. After all, it was part of Disney's job to cast a nice light on their sponsors and Disney did a great job in that regard.

EPCOT was sponsorship city back in the day with EXXON, GM, AT&T, United Technologies, MET Life and others throwing money at Disney to help those companies polish up their images. There's nothing wrong with that.

However, in recent years the big pool of corporate sponsorship has been drying up and that has reduced the income level to the parks.

So I think it makes perfect sense for Disney to look for another source of income for their attractions. If corporate sponsors can't or won't carry the load then I think it's only logical for Disney to rely more and more upon IP integration to help offset the costs.

What's the difference between having World of Motion do a 20 minute commercial for GM or having the characters from FROZEN revive an old commercial for Norway? Do you think that people were once so naive that they didn't realize that WoM was a corporate sales pitch to make people feel good about GM?

 

[brb1006]

I think the part I bolded is the problem. When people hear "Hollywood" in 2016, they don't think about Frank Capra and Ingrid Bergman. They think about Kim Kardashian and Gwyneth Paltrow. To many folks in middle America (i.e. Disney's target audience), Hollywood is an elitist enclave of detestable heiresses, not the romanticized birthplace of American cinema. "Hollywood" doesn't elicit nostalgia and romance, it elicits resentment and class-based hostilities. It's the left-coast version of Wall Street.

Today most of the baby boomers still have fond memories of old Hollywood.

 

[Matt_Black]

I think we're talking about two entirely different things. Let me explain my interpretation of the matter.

In the old days, Disney had lots of corporate sponsors and many of those sponsors were not really good corporate citizens. However, Disney didn't care as long as the companies paid them their money. And I had no quibble with Disney about taking money from Monsanto or General Electric even though those companies are not highly regarded and known for their unscrupulous business practices. After all, it was part of Disney's job to cast a nice light on their sponsors and Disney did a great job in that regard.

EPCOT was sponsorship city back in the day with EXXON, GM, AT&T, United Technologies, MET Life and others throwing money at Disney to help those companies polish up their images. There's nothing wrong with that.

However, in recent years the big pool of corporate sponsorship has been drying up and that has reduced the income level to the parks.

So I think it makes perfect sense for Disney to look for another source of income for their attractions. If corporate sponsors can't or won't carry the load then I think it's only logical for Disney to rely more and more upon IP integration to help offset the costs.

What's the difference between having World of Motion do a 20 minute commercial for GM or having the characters from FROZEN revive an old commercial for Norway? Do you think that people were once so naive that they didn't realize that WoM was a corporate sales pitch to make people feel good about GM?

Trust me, I made similar arguments before, to no avail.

World Showcase was NOT about showing guests the world, it was about showing guests enough of the sponsor country that they'd want to go and visit and spend money in that country.

 

[GoofGoof]

I think we're talking about two entirely different things. Let me explain my interpretation of the matter.

In the old days, Disney had lots of corporate sponsors and many of those sponsors were not really good corporate citizens. However, Disney didn't care as long as the companies paid them their money. And I had no quibble with Disney about taking money from Monsanto or General Electric even though those companies are not highly regarded and known for their unscrupulous business practices. After all, it was part of Disney's job to cast a nice light on their sponsors and Disney did a great job in that regard.

EPCOT was sponsorship city back in the day with EXXON, GM, AT&T, United Technologies, MET Life and others throwing money at Disney to help those companies polish up their images. There's nothing wrong with that.

However, in recent years the big pool of corporate sponsorship has been drying up and that has reduced the income level to the parks.

So I think it makes perfect sense for Disney to look for another source of income for their attractions. If corporate sponsors can't or won't carry the load then I think it's only logical for Disney to rely more and more upon IP integration to help offset the costs.

What's the difference between having World of Motion do a 20 minute commercial for GM or having the characters from FROZEN revive an old commercial for Norway? Do you think that people were once so naive that they didn't realize that WoM was a corporate sales pitch to make people feel good about GM?

We are talking about 2 different things. I'll give you my 2 cents on your points above. Corporate/national sponsorships were the foundation of EPCOT. It was a means to at least partially finance the parks. They are not as lucrative as they once were. I can see how using IPs is a way to cross promote products, but I'm not sure it's the same thing as the old corporate sponsorships. In your example above they are not using Frozen characters to tell a story about the history or culture of Norway, they are just telling a story about Frozen. Where I disagree is that the corporate sponsorships somehow took something away from the attractions. The rides were somewhat independent of the corporate sales pitch that was typically more a part of the post-ride exhibition space. By replacing Energy and possibly Wonders of Life with Guardians attractions the entire essence of the ride(s) will be based on the IP. It's not like they are looking to just replace Ellen with Groot and still have an energy based ride. It's going to be a Guradians mini-land in EPCOT.

What I was talking about with the AK examples was simply that a high quality park can still be made based on original ride ideas and not just lands based on IPs. It's more about the will to be more creative and take a few risks over taking the easier and less risky road.

 

[Mike S]

The key word in the title is "sponsorship". What it boils down to is that if an outside sponsor is willing to pay the costs of a ride, Disney will build them most anything. If Disney has to build it on their own, they want to get some return via IP integration. Some people either just fail to see the connection or refuse to accept the practice as being legitimate.

It applies not only to the GMR but to every other attraction.

Two of the most popular rides to open at WDW recently are Soarin' and Expedition Everest and neither of them were based on pre-existing IP.

Chew on that.

 

[GoofGoof]

My thought about this Dinosaur silliness is.... Who gives a tiny rats butt! There is nothing on this planet more unimportant then this ridiculous discussion.

I can think of a plenty of things less important: how about anything related to the Kardashians, or maybe that Pokemon game. Actually, that's about all I can think of

Unfortunately, as is often the case here, the broader context of a discussion was missed by a few people looking to nitpick facts and that resulted in a pointless debate.

 

[GoofGoof]

Two of the most popular rides to open at WDW recently are Soarin' and Expedition Everest and neither of them were based on pre-existing IP.

Chew on that.

The question is would either get green-lit today? Probably not.

 

[Mike S]

The question is would either get green-lit today? Probably not.

And people wouldn't know what they're missing.

I can only imagine what has been shut down due to lack of IP to sell.

 

[Crazydisneyfanluke]

And they'll add a few pictures of Mickey in there and the whole ride will suddenly be based on Mickey.

Mickey could be the host as a AA in the front of the vehicle. and bam new mickey ride. (All they did was add a AA to the cars)

 

[brb1006]

I came across this image relevant to the announcement.

 

[RobidaFlats]

I can think of a plenty of things less important: how about anything related to the Kardashians, or maybe that Pokemon game. Actually, that's about all I can think of

Unfortunately, as is often the case here, the broader context of a discussion was missed by a few people looking to nitpick facts and that resulted in a pointless debate.

Those meaningless, pesky facts...

And for the record, that "pointless debate" produced new (to me and a few others at least) information regarding the developmental relationship between an attraction and a movie, as well as alerting me to an interesting book I hadn't heard of before.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

The key word in the title is "sponsorship". What it boils down to is that if an outside sponsor is willing to pay the costs of a ride, Disney will build them most anything. If Disney has to build it on their own, they want to get some return via IP integration. Some people either just fail to see the connection or refuse to accept the practice as being legitimate.

It applies not only to the GMR but to every other attraction.

TCM just started sponsoring GMR early last year, I don't think it had a sponsor before that.
Edit: Coca-Cola sponsored GMR from 1989 - 1998.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I can think of a plenty of things less important: how about anything related to the Kardashians, or maybe that Pokemon game. Actually, that's about all I can think of

Unfortunately, as is often the case here, the broader context of a discussion was missed by a few people looking to nitpick facts and that resulted in a pointless debate.

I stand corrected, you did manage to come up with two things less important being the Kardashians and Pokemon. I am so ashamed that I didn't think about that. The Dinosaur discussion must be a strong third though.

 

[TeriofTerror]

I like your question. 'Is this ride gonna be good or just based off MM shorts?"

Unfortunately, the new crop of Imagineers are going, "How on earth are gonna base a ride on these!?!"

Darn it. I was going to say that I based a cake on those shorts so why couldn't they base a ride, and then realized I never took a picture.

 

[Brer Panther]

And let's not forget the old Tarzan roller blade show

And the Jungle Book show that it replaced.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Two of the most popular rides to open at WDW recently are Soarin' and Expedition Everest and neither of them were based on pre-existing IP.

Chew on that.

Unless one believes that people loved Soarin' Over California just to see Tinkerbelle...