TROR
Well-Known Member
Probably true. Nobody cared about Avatar until it opened.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney plus Imagineering
- Thread starter blocker.shane
- Start date
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
I'm with you on the larger point, but this is a poor argument. Everest is a better return on investment comparatively, because it was relatively speaking - cheaper. The application of IP doesn't actually make something more expensive, nor a higher quality. Especially since they own it all and don't license the IP externally. Your argument is more that WDI costs have escalated nonsensically.
In the heirarchy of what drives guest demand: quality wins out. Time and time again. Quality > IP.
What we know is that slathering an IP on a poor quality attraction doesn't typically do much. This is why Disney without IP was successful and amusement parks, despite having prominent IP, often paled in comparison.
What they (and we) have discovered though is that quality additions and IP don't have to be separate variables. For today's market, there can be a strange superadditive phenomenon when Quality and IP meet.
The messaging has been all wrong though, even if I'm convinced some people still understand within the company. The messaging should never be that what is missing is IP. What is missing is quality first and foremost. If they want to go back and focus on quality, with IP, more power to them. As long as the mandate doesn't miss what matters the most.
I’m willing to say Disney is less risk adverse to spending more on IP attractions since there’s a guaranteed audience. It’s much easier to sell tickets and merchandise. Non-IP attractions have to get over that hurdle with good marketing, which in the end could end up costing just as much as an IP attraction for quality. Imagineering just isn’t cheap.
With Everest, a virtual monopoly with theme parks and a “new” attraction was enough to drive clicks in turnstiles. Competition is much tougher today and Disney has gone full-on synergy and upsell.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
I will proudly own that I am quite possibly the sole fan of Mission Breakout.
Well, I'm pretty sure there are Dozens of us, DOZENS. But I prefer not to associate myself with those people. You lot are more fun.
I liked the episode, even if it rings more info-mercially for people. This was the era I obviously followed the closet and pretty much the projects I tracked quite closely.
I'm a fan of Shanghai Disneyland - Pandora - Galaxy's Edge and yes evenly lowly Mission Breakout. Even if they all have variable faults, they really have been great things to watch develop, be built and ultimately for me to experience.
Well, I'm pretty sure there are Dozens of us, DOZENS. But I prefer not to associate myself with those people. You lot are more fun.
I liked the episode, even if it rings more info-mercially for people. This was the era I obviously followed the closet and pretty much the projects I tracked quite closely.
I'm a fan of Shanghai Disneyland - Pandora - Galaxy's Edge and yes evenly lowly Mission Breakout. Even if they all have variable faults, they really have been great things to watch develop, be built and ultimately for me to experience.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Why costs have spiraled out of control and why there is a franchise mandate ultimately have the same answer, personal lack of interest and familiarity with the industry. The franchise mandate is not a pure business decision responding to guest demand or rising costs. Quality isn’t a factor and in places has popped up more because so much is ignored beyond the criteria of the mandate.
BasiltheBatLord
Well-Known Member
They talked about fan backlash to Mission Breakout. (and then turned around and said it "converted critics" after it opened, lol)
__r.jr
Well-Known Member
"This is an irreverent ride."
Joe Rohde
"The script writers harness the irreverent nature of the characters..."
Angela Bassett
Irreverent. A term Disney has ran to the ground just as the word immersive.
Irreverence. The very thing Disney was so synonymous and acclaimed for not being.
Joe Rohde
"The script writers harness the irreverent nature of the characters..."
Angela Bassett
Irreverent. A term Disney has ran to the ground just as the word immersive.
Irreverence. The very thing Disney was so synonymous and acclaimed for not being.
Last edited:
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
I mean... it actually did though...
Kram Sacul
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
The only critics that Mission: Blow Out converted were the ones that are easily swayed by a free churro. A fun ride but it is what it is: a cheap and fast overlay shoehorned into the wrong attraction.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
Yep. And even some of the ones who do enjoy the ride itself (as in the going up and down part) will still admit that it shouldn’t be there.
Travel Junkie
Well-Known Member
The theme park and film industry have gone along a similar path and it's not surprising since the biggest fish in the theme park pond are also film studios. As film production costs have risen, the studios have leaned on familiarity to minimize risk. Sequels and content based on previous work whether comics or otherwise have exploded. A new product based on a proven concept and familiarity do have a higher chance to succeed than an original idea as the original idea has an extra step to gain an audiences trust. Quality does win out, however the proven IP has less to overcome with an audience to gain its approval.
Theme parks have gone this same route. Building a roller coaster in the dark with no IP attached called Space Mountain requires more work on the marketing end to sell this idea to the public than to say we built a Star Wars coaster. To be successful, both ideas have to be a quality product. However, the Star Wars coaster has a built in audience that wants it to be good. What WDI then has to do is live up or exceed those expectations. The non IP roller coaster has the hurdle of getting the audience excited about it in the first place. It is easier from a business perspective to sell the IP over the non IP. The barrier of entry for guests to justify spending a lot of money to see a new attraction is less if they are familiar with and enjoy the IP the attraction is based on.
This is not to mention the ancillary reasons a company like Disney would choose to use an IP over non IP. Using Peter Pan as the IP about a dark ride over night time London has kept Peter Pan in the consciousness of guests for decades. Without the ride, Disney would have to reintroduce the IP to new generations. The ride keeps the idea alive even if many don't know much more than the name Peter Pan.
At the end of the day this is the guiding force behind the use of IP in the parks. The parks have become an advertising tool for the other aspects of the company. I understand why those of use that are parks people first maybe upset by this.
At the end of the day quality does win out, IP or non IP. I believe that is why Disney has maintained itself as the standard and the most popular parks. I do believe unlike others that popular IP brings in an audience. I've seen too much evidence of it in the parks and in talking with other people as to why they go to Disney parks more than others to think otherwise. Disney would be dumb to not leverage their popular IP to their advantage in the parks. It does help. What WDI has to do a better job of is use the IP as an inspiration rather than a crutch. I was encouraged that they decided to use Star Wars as an inspiration and created a land of their own instead of copy and paste. They took the harder way and took a giant swing. I like GE more than most, but acknowledge that WDI did not hit a home run with the land. What I hope is that they continue to take giant swings and use IP to further stories and create new ones while satisfying the directives given to them from above. Far too often WDI has failed to be creative within the constraints given to them.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
So according to the current President of WDI, the original Pirates of the Caribbean is boring for anyone with no nostalgia for it.
So the only thing keeping this attraction that has endured for decades in three different countries, in three different languages, going is...cultural osmosis? What about the children who were not alive in 1967 and didn't ride it for the first time until 1987, 1997 or 2007? Did they just fake their enjoyment to please their parents?
Or maybe anecdotal evidence from a handful of mainlanders with no knowledge of the Disney brand is not the best barometer for attraction quality?
So the only thing keeping this attraction that has endured for decades in three different countries, in three different languages, going is...cultural osmosis? What about the children who were not alive in 1967 and didn't ride it for the first time until 1987, 1997 or 2007? Did they just fake their enjoyment to please their parents?
Or maybe anecdotal evidence from a handful of mainlanders with no knowledge of the Disney brand is not the best barometer for attraction quality?
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Also a Disneyland without Americana is like a hamburger without a bun.
Yes, it still has the meat and the toppings, but without that bun it's not really a hamburger is it?
Yes, it still has the meat and the toppings, but without that bun it's not really a hamburger is it?
TROR
Well-Known Member
I'll go as far as to say a Disneyland without Americana is a hamburger without the burger.
brb1006
Well-Known Member
Don't forget Shanghai.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Or maybe despite all of their talk about cultural sensitivities, there seems to be a lot of stuff built around some rather negative Chinese stereotypes in Hong Kong and Shanghai...
Last edited:
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Well their first mistake was building rides, we know the Chinese don't like them!
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
Right?!? There were NO rides with absolutely massive waits at Shanghai Disneyland at all, and there absolutely were not rides that were almost out of FastPass 15 minutes into early entry. People stampeded in to stare at the flowers, and the Disney characters of the Zodiac. More people were taking selfies with the random Ox character than riding Tron!
Psh. Rides in a theme park. The lunacy.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Some more revisionist history:
The episode suggests the Imagineers had a choice between Marvel and Tron, but when the attraction line up was decided in 2010 it was before even the first Thor and Captain America movies had been released, let alone Avengers 1 and only 1 year after the Marvel acquisition. At that time, Marvel was never seriously considered for the parks. It was only AFTER Avengers (and Frozen) blew up that rushed, temporary attractions for those properties were added to Shanghai.
The episode suggests the Imagineers had a choice between Marvel and Tron, but when the attraction line up was decided in 2010 it was before even the first Thor and Captain America movies had been released, let alone Avengers 1 and only 1 year after the Marvel acquisition. At that time, Marvel was never seriously considered for the parks. It was only AFTER Avengers (and Frozen) blew up that rushed, temporary attractions for those properties were added to Shanghai.
BasiltheBatLord
Well-Known Member
O
Ding ding ding. This is the reason why the foreign parks are inherently not on the same level as the two American ones and never can be.