Rumor Disney Parks not allowed to create original content???

[ZmBe13]

I am not sure if this is true or if anyone has any more info on this rumor that i have seen around the internet, but i have to say it makes sense with a lot of things ive seen happening at the parks. Basically, during the Eisner era, the parks were pumped up to the point they were during substantially better than the studios. Disney thought this looked bad for the company and its share holders and decided the parks could not create original content and could only create attractions from IP the studios had created first. If true, could this be what really killed the spirit of EPCOT?

 

[Bocabear]

Doubtful... Though they have decided to maximize existing IPs... It is not necessarily that which is killing the spirit of EPCOT...

 

[peter11435]

I am not sure if this is true or if anyone has any more info on this rumor that i have seen around the internet, but i have to say it makes sense with a lot of things ive seen happening at the parks. Basically, during the Eisner era, the parks were pumped up to the point they were during substantially better than the studios. Disney thought this looked bad for the company and its share holders and decided the parks could not create original content and could only create attractions from IP the studios had created first. If true, could this be what really killed the spirit of EPCOT?

It’s not true.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

It’s not true.

That said, when Iger became CEO, he did state future additions to the parks would be based on franchises. This has largely played out, with the exception of some originals in the Chinese parks.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I am not sure if this is true or if anyone has any more info on this rumor that i have seen around the internet, but i have to say it makes sense with a lot of things ive seen happening at the parks. Basically, during the Eisner era, the parks were pumped up to the point they were during substantially better than the studios. Disney thought this looked bad for the company and its share holders and decided the parks could not create original content and could only create attractions from IP the studios had created first. If true, could this be what really killed the spirit of EPCOT?

There have been public statements to this effect, but I doubt it's an absolute mandate, more just "best practice". Companies are risk averse, that's the issue.

I talk about it in an article from a few years ago: https://micechat.com/101023-tim-grassey-addicted-easy-money/

 

[MisterPenguin]

There was no constraint from shareholders, however, synergy has been present from day one, just in varying amounts. Right now, it's close to 100% and was even stated by Bob Chapek in describing capital improvements in Epcot as:

to stay true to Epcot’s original vision while making it more timeless, more relevant, more family, and more Disney.​

More Disney is more recognizably Disney, i.e., leveraging existing and successful properties.

And this is generally the case now for all the parks with a few exceptions here and there (Rivers of Light).

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

There was no constraint from shareholders, however, synergy has been present from day one, just in varying amounts. Right now, it's close to 100% and was even stated by Bob Chapek in describing capital improvements in Epcot as:

to stay true to Epcot’s original vision while making it more timeless, more relevant, more family, and more Disney.​

More Disney is more recognizably Disney, i.e., leveraging existing and successful properties.

And this is generally the case now for all the parks with a few exceptions here and there (Rivers of Light).

This always cracks me up. I want to see Chapek write down what he thinks that is. And no fair peeking at the dedication plaque.

 

[Tom P.]

I am not sure if this is true or if anyone has any more info on this rumor that i have seen around the internet, but i have to say it makes sense with a lot of things ive seen happening at the parks. Basically, during the Eisner era, the parks were pumped up to the point they were during substantially better than the studios. Disney thought this looked bad for the company and its share holders and decided the parks could not create original content and could only create attractions from IP the studios had created first. If true, could this be what really killed the spirit of EPCOT?

There is no question that the parks have followed a pattern of basing attractions on existing properties for some time now. No doubt. But that it happened because the company thought it "looked bad" for the parks to do better than the studios? No, I seriously doubt that.

More likely, it simply has to do with the fact that the company thinks using pre-existing properties that are known hits is a less risky way to develop park attractions than doing it from scratch with original content. Disney knows that if you slap the name "Frozen" on something, there is a certain built-in audience. Build something original, even if it's something as awesome as, say, Haunted Mansion, and you risk it being a flop.

The larger a company gets, the less willing it is to take risks. Which is a perverse reality because in almost every case, it is creativity and innovation that allows a small business to succeed and become a big business. And I think that's the core of what's happened at Disney. It's not that Iger wants to stifle creativity per se; it's that he only wants the company to undertake projects that are more or less guaranteed to be successful. Love him or hate him, Eisner was at least willing to take risks.

 

[No Name]

Bob Iger since day one has had a personal bias in favor of the studios. He views the theme parks (and video games, and books, etc.) as basically a tool for and extension of the studios in the same vein as merchandise, not understanding and taking advantage of the fact that themed entertainment is a storytelling medium by its very nature. He literally reorganized the company around his flawed perception. In Bob Iger's synergy chart, all arrows point outward from the studios, which is unhealthy for every other division.

Take Disney Infinity for example. It was plenty profitable, but the studio heads deemed it was hurting their integrity, and so they wanted to end it, and Bob Iger listened. The studio heads ended Jedi Mickey and gang, Star Wars Weekend elements, a Tiny Tower spinoff called Tiny Death Star, etc. too for the same reasons. Even though the video-game-related decisions basically killed the division, my point is not to criticize these decisions, rather it's to point out his clear bias.

Would Bob Iger ever allow the parks, or any non-studio entity, to get rid of something profitable if they deemed it was hurting their integrity?

 

[matt9112]

Bob Iger since day one has had a personal bias in favor of the studios. He views the theme parks (and video games, and books, etc.) as basically a tool for and extension of the studios in the same vein as merchandise, not understanding and taking advantage of the fact that themed entertainment is a storytelling medium by its very nature. He literally reorganized the company around his flawed perception. In Bob Iger's synergy chart, all arrows point outward from the studios, which is unhealthy for every other division.

Take Disney Infinity for example. It was plenty profitable, but the studio heads deemed it was hurting their integrity, and so they wanted to end it, and Bob Iger listened. The studio heads ended Jedi Mickey and gang, Star Wars Weekend elements, a Tiny Tower spinoff called Tiny Death Star, etc. too for the same reasons. Even though the video-game-related decisions basically killed the division, my point is not to criticize these decisions, rather it's to point out his clear bias.

Would Bob Iger ever allow the parks, or any non-studio entity, to get rid of something profitable if they deemed it was hurting their integrity?

than why didn't they stop the train wreck known as the last jedi....that was like a wrecking ball to integrity.

 

[Rodan75]

I realize this was not your primary point...

Take Disney Infinity for example. It was plenty profitable, but the studio heads deemed it was hurting their integrity, and so they wanted to end it, and Bob Iger listened. The studio heads ended Jedi Mickey and gang, Star Wars Weekend elements, a Tiny Tower spinoff called Tiny Death Star, etc. too for the same reasons. Even though the video-game-related decisions basically killed the division, my point is not to criticize these decisions, rather it's to point out his clear bias.

Disney Infinity died because the 2.0 version of the game produced too many toys at too high a price point, and didn't sell as well as expected. 3.0 corrected those issues, but the Toys to Life market was already quickly retracting. All remaining Toys to Life concepts are now out of the market. Disney Infinity died because of management mistakes, not because of the studios.

 

[Gitson Shiggles]

If true, could this be what really killed the spirit of EPCOT?

The role of sponsors also factor greatly into the current state of Epcot. Sponsorships ending have left attractions/pavillions floundering until they are shutdown and repurposed for non-attractions or Disney decides to use their Rolodex of movie IPs to overlay/replace the old attractions. Whether potential sponsors are uninterested or Disney isn’t interested in courting them is beyond my knowledge.

 

[Bocabear]

One would argue that although a nice boost to the bottom line, Disney can actually afford to build attractions without Sponsor dollars... They would just prefer having an extra bucketload of dollars...But they don't need to have the money.
The park is in the state it is in because they didn't want to spend the money...

 

[marni1971]

Not "not allowed" as such, but none IP would get a rough ride trying to survive the pitch. And the next pitch. And so on.

 

[larryz]

than why didn't they stop the train wreck known as the last jedi....that was like a wrecking ball to integrity.

Because movie.

 

[Mickey5150]

than why didn't they stop the train wreck known as the last jedi....that was like a wrecking ball to integrity.

That "trainwreck" that made $1.3 billion? Really should have stopped that. Plenty of people love it.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

That "trainwreck" that made $1.3 billion? Really should have stopped that. Plenty of people love it.

Disney apparently loved it so much they gave Rian Johnson his own stand-alone trilogy!

Hoenstly, the fan backlash against TLJ continues to baffle me.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Not "not allowed" as such, but none IP would get a rough ride trying to survive the pitch. And the next pitch. And so on.

I'd consider that arguably very close to being outright "not allowed". At the very least heavily discouraged and with an inherent severe handicap making it unlikely to be approved.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'd consider that arguably very close to being outright "not allowed". At the very least heavily discouraged and with an inherent severe handicap making it unlikely to be approved.

In a lot of ways this seems to be some sort of rationalization. If someone says “I am only interested in buying red cars.” that is not usually interpreted to mean that blue cars are still a possibility or that there is not a sole interest in red cars.

 

[RobotWolf]

And yet they can be so good at creating IP when they want: Figment, Dreamfinder, Henry Mystic, Albert, Chandu, those freaking Duffy Bears, The Ghost Host, The Auctioneer, Old Bill, the blinking octopus from Horizons, the Yeti (from Disneyland) and so many others not to even mention Disney TV and video.