At the end of the day we all love the same product and want it to be as good as it can be.
This news honestly took me by surprise. Imagining what would happen with this merger and the elimination of redundancies between FOX and Disney, I was imagining that a thousand or so production and studio jobs would be cut. Since FOX doesn't have parks, I thought no changes would happen there. I wasn't worried about them trying to bring in more of FOX's content to the parks either because my guess was that the acquisition was for streaming content and not to shake up their perfect curation of blockbusters and family-friendly branded entertainment content. Then this departmental merger was announced between dcp and parks and resorts, and I can't say I understand it.
My main criticism of the merger is that DCP isn't a content creation division and has never been focused on content creation. Filmmakers make content. Theme park designers make content. But when people who are used to selling toys that are supportive of another product or brand start messing with parks, they think about the appropriateness of content, ignoring that storytelling often has conflict. For example, Disney films have a ton of mature themes in them, but pirates is no longer treated as creative content, but instead as a product, and certain material deemed inappropriate for children is being removed. (there are obviously a ton of ways to interpret that change, but this is just one).
Parks were best when they were the priority and most innovative division of the company, and then when they answered to studio execs like Eisner. Once he had his heart attack, they answered creatively to operations rather than risktaking storytellers, and soon operations was flooded with leadership from DCP who were unfamiliar with operations, the medium, and content creation. Now, operations seems guided by execs from P+R, often from dcp, and above, who both push IP mandates. So now parks are influenced by content creators (film execs), but in an odd change of direction, executives have gone from encouraging risk taking in storytelling to becoming more risk-averse, following the culture of Hollywood blockbuster funding. Even though they ultimately create the content, they don't finance it, so forgotten in this process seems to be the imagineers. That's the subtext of this criticism, that imagineers should be more respected as content creators and given more creative freedom.
Can't predict the future and say whether this departmental merger will help or hurt the role of imagineers in theme park design, even though we've spent pages speculating on how it could do both and I've laid out all of my thoughts on how it might be harmful. But hey, if executives are historically entering parks and resorts leadership roles after training for decades at dcp, unfamiliar with the parks, maybe just maybe some young dcp mba getting an expanded level of exposure to the parks division after this merger will come to appreciate them and be more mindful if ever offered the job of leading parks and resorts? This is the same Iger who recognizes that DCA 1.0 was a failure and that DLP needs 2.5 billion dollars to save its studio park. So perhaps the creative culture is IP-driven late nineties + late 2010s capital expenditures to ensure quality? Hopeful that he sticks around long enough to ensure a smooth transition. If the merger doesn't work out, the departments can be split down the line. Nothing is forever. Disney's acquisition of ABC and whatever channel would become ABC family was a complete mess. Executive shakeups like the Trump White House. This coming merger will be much larger and obviously mistakes will be made along the way, which is why I'm skeptical and would stay the course with what is working to avoid costly mistakes.
Ultimately I want parks to be treated like content, as autonomous as the studios, and not like sterile merchandise or merchandising opportunities, which is why I fundamentally question this move. Parks are content (that happens to push consumer products), consumer products are not. Even if you argue that parks are a product because guests purchase access, film and streaming content are products also, no less than parks, that also push consumer products, but they aren't being merged with dcp. With everything synergistically interacting already, I see no reason whatsoever to merge the divisions. Parks aren't just a place to interact with brands we are already aware of, a supporting revenue stream for the higher priority, which is the film content; Parks and experiences in the parks have the potential to be their own IP, their own content, and require the capital expenditures and reap the profits worthy of that prioritization, respect, and autonomy. Even the film divisions are sequel-prone and IP heavy today, but they still are able to produce originals in feature animation, pixar, and walt disney studios. Some percentage of original content would be greatly appreciated.
.
