News Disney to reveal more about the future of Epcot at D23 Expo 2019

[cjkeating]

Since we expect more IP everywhere in Epcot, I thought this would be a interesting quote for this thread:


Some parks would rely on IP because that was the only way to be noticed while Disney stood out and did it's own thing while bringing in customers. If you can't beat them, join them. Or if you want to beat them into a pulp, then join them anyways.

Oh jeez. This man.

 

[monothingie]

That man is an idiot.

Chapek is grabbing the low hanging fruit of IP Synergy to boost his standing in TWDC through earnings numbers. IP is not necessarily a bad thing provided it's used properly. P&R has done both a very good job and also a very bad job with this. Unfortunately it's the bad ones that stick in peoples minds the most. (and rightfully so)

 

[Mac Tonight]

He's grabbing the low hanging fruit of IP Synergy to boost his standing in TWDC through earnings numbers. IP is not necessarily a bad thing provided it's used properly. P&R has done both a very good job and also a very bad job with this. Unfortunately it's the bad ones that stick in peoples minds the most. (and rightfully so)

I'm honestly not against IP as a whole, just in how he's shoehorning it into everything, as if some of the
world's most infamous attractions haven't existed for 50+ years without it. But he can't see beyond the dollar signs
in his own eyes.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Edutainment. Sponsored or not.

And what Pixar/marvel movie is that from?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Since we expect more IP everywhere in Epcot, I thought this would be a interesting quote for this thread:


Some parks would rely on IP because that was the only way to be noticed while Disney stood out and did it's own thing while bringing in customers. If you can't beat them, join them. Or if you want to beat them into a pulp, then join them anyways.

This is exactly what happened. Other parks, trying replicate Disney without understanding and listening to those who criticized Disney for being a negative force in the world, dove head first into movie branding. Disney has removed the barrier to entry. Disneyland and EPCOT Center are cultural icons in a way that Universal would love to be, and it has nothing to do with movie franchises.

 

[*Q*]

Some could argue that the replacement of Communicore with Innoventions was also a step backwards. I'm on the fence on that. At least initially there was a lot to do in Innoventions.

I think that’s a pretty common sentiment. Innoventions was pretty much just the same thing as CommuniCore, just less organized and a lot less pleasant of an environment.

 

[jt04]

Actually Walt included his reimagined IP in Disneyland from the start. And he would have done more but was still creating new IP. The reason he said the park would always be changing is because he knew there would be a continuous stream of new content to draw from.

The competition fears Disney IP. They should simply improve their product.

 

[Indy_UK]

Not saying I agree with every decision they are making about IP but aren't Iger and Chapek responsible for 15% increase in attendance and record profits for their shareholders which is exactly what they are there for?

Just watched the link above and Chapek is brutal lol

 

[doctornick]

7. Mission:Space: Revamp the ride itself. The restaurant is a step in the right direction and screams "opening day Epcot" to me.

I think the ride is pretty good as is. Yes, many cannot ride it, but it's not for a lack of aspiration in the ride development or fit for FW. What I'd like to see is an expansion of the pavilion to have more "space exploration" stuff, ideally another (smaller) attraction if possible. M:S could be the first step to "enter" the pavilion but you could bypass it is desired.

I think the original plans for it as a Space pavilion are similar to that and it could work.

 

[britain]

There are plenty of really good reasons you could use to make an "All IP, All the time" argument.

But this "We have to blow up the convicts' ferry before they blow up our ferry first" logic isn't what I'd use.

 

[LittleGiants'16]

Which could be handled with a stockholder vote

Well, yeah, but roughly 2/3rds of DIS shares are owned by institutional investors. And just a hunch, but I'm willing to wager that they care much more about returns than how Epcot is defined.

As much as we here may question the approach regarding Parks and Resorts, Wall Street has validated Iger's leadership time and again. DIS is up ~450% since Iger took over (for context, the S&P 500 is only up around 130%).

I'm not sure I'd vote aye on Iger if given the choice, but he's been good for shareholder profits. And, unfortunately, maximizing shareholder profits is the name of today's game.

 

[ChrisFL]

Disney and Iger are as much a Hollywood Movie/TV company as a theme park company, and they're treating theme parks like Hollywood....go for the safe, familiar, "sure" thing. That's reboots, sequels, prequels, spinoffs, of franchises everybody knows. Unknown entities are met with risks, and investors don't like that.

For movies, Disney still experiments with smaller, unknown movies, and many times they don't do very well. In theme parks, though, many seem to expect every new attraction to be E-ticket caliber. So if you're Disney, do you invest $100 million in a new attraction based on that "risky", unknown entity, or something proven to be popular?

I'm not saying Disney is right, I'm just explaining the possible mindset.

 

[LittleGiants'16]

Disney and Iger are as much a Hollywood Movie/TV company as a theme park company, and they're treating theme parks like Hollywood....go for the safe, familiar, "sure" thing. That's reboots, sequels, prequels, spinoffs, of franchises everybody knows. Unknown entities are met with risks, and investors don't like that.

For movies, Disney still experiments with smaller, unknown movies, and many times they don't do very well. In theme parks, though, many seem to expect every new attraction to be E-ticket caliber. So if you're Disney, do you invest $100 million in a new attraction based on that "risky", unknown entity, or something proven to be popular?

I'm not saying Disney is right, I'm just explaining the possible mindset.

Yeah. Don't blame Iger. Blame Milton Friedman.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Well, yeah, but roughly 2/3rds of DIS shares are owned by institutional investors. And just a hunch, but I'm willing to wager that they care much more about returns than how Epcot is defined.

As much as we here may question the approach regarding Parks and Resorts, Wall Street has validated Iger's leadership time and again. DIS is up ~450% since Iger took over (for context, the S&P 500 is only up around 130%).

I'm not sure I'd vote aye on Iger if given the choice, but he's been good for shareholder profits. And, unfortunately, maximizing shareholder profits is the name of today's game.

I’m not commenting on any of that...just saying no CEO has a lifetime mandate...they could be removed hypothetically.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Disney and Iger are as much a Hollywood Movie/TV company as a theme park company, and they're treating theme parks like Hollywood....go for the safe, familiar, "sure" thing. That's reboots, sequels, prequels, spinoffs, of franchises everybody knows. Unknown entities are met with risks, and investors don't like that.

For movies, Disney still experiments with smaller, unknown movies, and many times they don't do very well. In theme parks, though, many seem to expect every new attraction to be E-ticket caliber. So if you're Disney, do you invest $100 million in a new attraction based on that "risky", unknown entity, or something proven to be popular?

I'm not saying Disney is right, I'm just explaining the possible mindset.

No dispute

Yeah. Don't blame Iger. Blame Milton Friedman.

No dispute...one of the worst people ever

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Not saying I agree with every decision they are making about IP but aren't Iger and Chapek responsible for 15% increase in attendance and record profits for their shareholders which is exactly what they are there for?

Just watched the link above and Chapek is brutal lol

Short term return is never an indication of longterm goals and health. I’ll let you know when that changes...but it never will

 

[JohnD]

Maybe like this! Made this edit last year adding on GOTG, just imagine the emblem in the same circle-y shape...
View attachment 377484

Nice, although similar to the Sesame Street game, GOTG is not like the others.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Actually Walt included his reimagined IP in Disneyland from the start. And he would have done more but was still creating new IP. The reason he said the park would always be changing is because he knew there would be a continuous stream of new content to draw from.

The competition fears Disney IP. They should simply improve their product.

And there it is.


You are completely wrong about the construction of Disneyland in regards to IP. That wasn’t what happened at all. It was 100% about financing for procuring additional funding, sponsorship and money to stay in business.

The real “core” attractions are non-IP based were built when the park proved it would succeed and were installed 1959-1969.

Installing IP laden rides in all parks makes them no longer “themeparks”...because the theme has to be consistent with the design of the park. IP is not.

So if you want movie rides and IP in Epcot and DAK...instead of where they belong thematically...the parks are actually regressing towards amusement parks. WDW would be a very expensive cluster of 4.

 

[JohnD]

I'm hoping that the rumors about the Land and the Seas pavilion going away are just that - fake news to fill a podcast. They could do so much with those two pavilions to update them. I'd hate an Epcot without Living With the Land.

So let me get this straight. They go to the trouble to replace the Circle of Life movie then tear down the pavilion, um okay. I'm not buying it.

 

[ChrisFL]

So let me get this straight. They go to the trouble to replace the Circle of Life movie then tear down the pavilion, um okay. I'm not buying it.

While I give the rumor almost no credence whatsoever, I have seen this kind of thing happen before, different departments making decisions. Also, replacing the movie with a different one and some small refurb of the existing theater isn't exactly a huge budget issue.