Distinction between "theme park enthusiast" and "Disney Adult"

[JMcMahonEsq]

This clarification is not needed. We all know that, technically, anything Disney creates is "IP". But "IP" is used as shorthand for "attractions based on films or characters owned by Disney".

But that’s basically my point. If your going to be using something that is IP based, and your choices are 1) pay to create something new and hope it is marketable/people like it; 2) pay to license or use existing popular IP that you don’t own; or 3) use IP that you already own, that has a build in fan base, is identifiable to the public, and you can cross market with merchandise/tv/movies, the choice seems pretty easy to make.

 

[mysto]

But that’s basically my point. If your going to be using something that is IP based, and your choices are 1) pay to create something new and hope it is marketable/people like it; 2) pay to license or use existing popular IP that you don’t own; or 3) use IP that you already own, that has a build in fan base, is identifiable to the public, and you can cross market with merchandise/tv/movies, the choice seems pretty easy to make.

4) copy someone else's IP with enough small changes to technically avoid a violation

This won't please the 'Disney Adult" though, they aren't interested in a "Mary Potter" t shirt.

Whenever some genius says "let's not reinvent the wheel" my inner translator hears "let's plagiarize like I did in school". Corporate boards seem to be full of this brand of A student.

You want to meet Anna and Elsa and go to Arendeale? You are going to Disney. You want to be in Star Wars, you are going to Disney.

Well put.

 

[ppete1975]

IMO it should be a balance otherwise you end up where they are now and every park blends together.

Oh I agree, especially gift shops. It seems like in the 80s every gift shop had their own merch and each park certainly did. Now there are items you can get at any gift shop at any park. If I am at adventureland, I want everything to be adventure themed, and one of those big buttons that says the name of the land or the ride (which sadly died with pins, that people have to be within a foot of you to see what it is.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I remember in the early days reading that Epcot was not as popular, and it had a lot to do with the educational aspect.

I don’t think it’s only about not wanting to learn - I think it’s about not wanting to learn on vacation, and not wanting to invest vacation money to see science fair-type stuff they can do at home.

AK wouldn’t work if it was “a zoo” because people have zoos everywhere. It, too, was less popular in the beginning before they filled it out.

It’s also about expectations. Up to that point, there was only MK. People expected more MK in Epcot.

The first time I went (much later, as an adult) I remember going to Mexico and Norway and then being surprised the rest of the countries didn’t have rides. I had no interest in PBS-style movies I could watch on PBS (and now online.) Why would that be impressive and worth a trip to WDW? Because it’s on a big screen? Yawn. And I’m no slouch. I was a total honor roll nerd. But wait…I could be on Maelstrom right now instead of watching a movie about France?

Epcot is becoming what I thought it would have been back then.

I see you have a specific taste in music. I go to the France Pavilion to listen to the music in connection with the images on the screen. Believe me I am not an avid fan of the more Classical leaning music in general but, the selection for that movie is something that I can listen to and never get tired of it. Plus, and hear me out, I can sit enveloped in air conditioning.

 

[Jrb1979]

That's what we have in our local amusement parks - Busch Gardens and Kings Dominion. Most people go to Disney theme parks to also experience Disney IP in some fashion especially if they have kids that want to experience Frozen, Moana, and Encanto characters.

I'm not disagreeing with that. IMO if they want to add IP to World Showcase do it like Remy not how they did Frozen. That's my issue with what they are doing with Epcot. It's not so much the IP it's how it's integrated. They used to care about how the IP fit into the park. Now they shoehorn it in where ever

 

[Goofyernmost]

I'm not disagreeing with that. IMO if they want to add IP to World Showcase do it like Remy not how they did Frozen. That's my issue with what they are doing with Epcot. It's not so much the IP it's how it's integrated. They used to care about how the IP fit into the park. Now they shoehorn it in where ever

You know I always felt the same way and it ruined what was once my favorite park. What I did was finally acknowledge that the EPCOT I remember from the 80's is no longer. The mission and purpose has officially changed. It did that when they stopped capitalizing the name. It took me a few years to let go and admit the it wasn't coming back so concentrate on what good could I find with what remained and I was able to enjoy what was then offered and will even more if they find a way to use a couple of buildings that they seem to have trouble finding a theme for.

Perhaps they should ask all those really talented imagineers that they let go to spend more time with their families. Those guys had an imagination. Just with Tony and Joe they could let the rest of the crew go and be for the better. Not to say that the newer ones aren't somewhat worthy, but they don't hold a candle to those two.

 

[Jrb1979]

You know I always felt the same way and it ruined what was once my favorite park. What I did was finally acknowledge that the EPCOT I remember from the 80's is no longer. The mission and purpose has officially changed. It did that when they stopped capitalizing the name. It took me a few years to let go and admit the it wasn't coming back so concentrate on what good could I find with what remained and I was able to enjoy what was then offered and will even more if they find a way to use a couple of buildings that they seem to have trouble finding a theme for.

Perhaps they should ask all those really talented imagineers that they let go to spend more time with their families. Those guys had an imagination. Just with Tony and Joe they could let the rest of the crew go and be for the better. Not to say that the newer ones aren't somewhat worthy, but they don't hold a candle to those two.

I know Epcot isn't what it once was. As much as I don't think Remy is a good attraction it fits in with the France section. That's my point, I do get adding IP but make it work in the area its going in. Don't add it for the sake of adding it.

It's unfortunate that your average Disney guests care only about IP and less about how good the ride is. IMO the majority of new Disney attractions aren't impressive like they used to be.
Stories for the new attractions aren't good and the rides themselves aren't as good as they used to make. Take Tron, it's no where near as good as the motorbike coaster down the road.

This discussion goes back to the OP and what I posted earlier. Cause a lot of Disney Adults don't visit other parks they tend to be blown away by anything Disney does. If Epic Universe opens as advertised with the attractions that are rumored my hope is Disney Adults will visit and see that Disney is falling behind.

 

[LeighM]

I'm not disagreeing with that. IMO if they want to add IP to World Showcase do it like Remy not how they did Frozen. That's my issue with what they are doing with Epcot. It's not so much the IP it's how it's integrated. They used to care about how the IP fit into the park. Now they shoehorn it in where ever

I think Frozen does work with the Norway pavilion, in general. And aspects of the ride are fantastic but it doesn't 100% work. The first time I rode that attraction, I thought the queue was great. The beginning of the ride was fun and so was the end. But that black corridor in the middle with just snowflake projections or whatever was too jarring and negatively affected the experience too much. I can't help but wonder how many would be complaining about IP in Epcot, if they hadn't made that mistake with Frozen Because Maelstrom really wasn't that great of an attraction either.

 

[LeighM]

You know I always felt the same way and it ruined what was once my favorite park. What I did was finally acknowledge that the EPCOT I remember from the 80's is no longer. The mission and purpose has officially changed. It did that when they stopped capitalizing the name. It took me a few years to let go and admit the it wasn't coming back so concentrate on what good could I find with what remained and I was able to enjoy what was then offered and will even more if they find a way to use a couple of buildings that they seem to have trouble finding a theme for.

Perhaps they should ask all those really talented imagineers that they let go to spend more time with their families. Those guys had an imagination. Just with Tony and Joe they could let the rest of the crew go and be for the better. Not to say that the newer ones aren't somewhat worthy, but they don't hold a candle to those two.

Losing Tony and Joe really did hurt WDW. But I think Imagineering was critically damaged before that by others in corporate that were too focused on the $$$. Most of the great ones have either retired or moved on to other companies. My dream is to go to DisneySea and see just what Imagineering can do with the proper support.

 

[Jrb1979]

I think Frozen does work with the Norway pavilion, in general. And aspects of the ride are fantastic but it doesn't 100% work. The first time I rode that attraction, I thought the queue was great. The beginning of the ride was fun and so was the end. But that black corridor in the middle with just snowflake projections or whatever was too jarring and negatively affected the experience too much. I can't help but wonder how many would be complaining about IP in Epcot, if they hadn't made that mistake with Frozen Because Maelstrom really wasn't that great of an attraction either.

I agree that Maelstrom wasn't a great attraction I don't think Frozen is any better. It's a cheap overlay. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Frozen isn't a great ride at all but guests love it for the IP. That's how it is for a lot of the new attractions. Most aren't impressive at all.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I think Frozen does work with the Norway pavilion, in general. And aspects of the ride are fantastic but it doesn't 100% work. The first time I rode that attraction, I thought the queue was great. The beginning of the ride was fun and so was the end. But that black corridor in the middle with just snowflake projections or whatever was too jarring and negatively affected the experience too much. I can't help but wonder how many would be complaining about IP in Epcot, if they hadn't made that mistake with Frozen Because Maelstrom really wasn't that great of an attraction either.

Let me briefly explain how I feel about that. First Maelstrom was not great, it was boring and left me with the impression that Norway was nothing more then Polar Bears and Oil Rigs. There was nothing, not a thing, that said to me... "hey, I'll bet Norway would be a great place to visit". So even if it did "fit" better, it was one of the worse dark rides in the place in my opinion. Now Frozen is there but Frozen is a cartoon. It is fantasy and as a fantasy it can be anything, anywhere, any time. It doesn't have to actually exist, it only has to say it exists and then we as the observer have to exercise our ability to suspend disbelief, which is the concept that the Disney Parks were built on.

So, the place the cartoon is actually located in doesn't exist and it could just as well be in Norway as anyplace. They could have located it in Sweden, Denmark, Finland or Iceland, if they wanted too. It is much ado about nothing. It improved the overall Norway Pavilion, it enhanced Norway's image and saved an actual display of Norway in the pavilion that Norway no longer supports. It brought more families into Epcot which was the reason for the investment made. Based on Epcot and World Showcases new purpose it fits fine.

 

[Jrb1979]

Let me briefly explain how I feel about that. First Maelstrom was not great, it was boring and left me with the impression that Norway was nothing more then Polar Bears and Oil Rigs. There was nothing, not a thing, that said to me... "hey, I'll bet Norway would be a great place to visit". So even if it did "fit" better, it was one of the worse dark rides in the place in my opinion. Now Frozen is there but Frozen is a cartoon. It is fantasy and as a fantasy it can be anything, anywhere, any time. It doesn't have to actually exist, it only has to say it exists and then we as the observer have to exercise our ability to suspend disbelief, which is the concept that the Disney Parks were built on.

So, the place the cartoon is actually located in doesn't exist and it could just as well be in Norway as anyplace. They could have located it in Sweden, Denmark, Finland or Iceland, if they wanted too. It is much ado about nothing. It improved the overall Norway Pavilion, it enhanced Norway's image and saved an actual display of Norway in the pavilion that Norway no longer supports. It brought more families into Epcot which was the reason for the investment made. Based on Epcot and World Showcases new purpose it fits fine.

I do understand where you're coming from in that the theme of the parks is not important now. Adding IP to draw guests in is the focus now. In that sense Frozen works and did what I was supposed to do.

IMO the ride like so many new attractions aren't impressive at all. That's the one I truly miss from days past. The attractions were far more impressive and had way better story telling. Its the one thing I don't get. Why every one is so enamoured with the new attractions? Remy has too many screens and not impressive at all. Yet people love it cause of the IP. It's why I say Disney guests aren't ride people.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Let me briefly explain how I feel about that. First Maelstrom was not great, it was boring and left me with the impression that Norway was nothing more then Polar Bears and Oil Rigs. There was nothing, not a thing, that said to me... "hey, I'll bet Norway would be a great place to visit". So even if it did "fit" better, it was one of the worse dark rides in the place in my opinion. Now Frozen is there but Frozen is a cartoon. It is fantasy and as a fantasy it can be anything, anywhere, any time. It doesn't have to actually exist, it only has to say it exists and then we as the observer have to exercise our ability to suspend disbelief, which is the concept that the Disney Parks were built on.

So, the place the cartoon is actually located in doesn't exist and it could just as well be in Norway as anyplace. They could have located it in Sweden, Denmark, Finland or Iceland, if they wanted too. It is much ado about nothing. It improved the overall Norway Pavilion, it enhanced Norway's image and saved an actual display of Norway in the pavilion that Norway no longer supports. It brought more families into Epcot which was the reason for the investment made. Based on Epcot and World Showcases new purpose it fits fine.

Actually, Norway was heavily researched. It’s in Norway. The name of the town is off by a few letters for whatever reason, but we get the point.

When Arkanstone is mentioned in The Flintstones, we know they’re not referencing California or Alabama.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

I know Epcot isn't what it once was. As much as I don't think Remy is a good attraction it fits in with the France section. That's my point, I do get adding IP but make it work in the area its going in. Don't add it for the sake of adding it.

It's unfortunate that your average Disney guests care only about IP and less about how good the ride is. IMO the majority of new Disney attractions aren't impressive like they used to be.
Stories for the new attractions aren't good and the rides themselves aren't as good as they used to make. Take Tron, it's no where near as good as the motorbike coaster down the road.

This discussion goes back to the OP and what I posted earlier. Cause a lot of Disney Adults don't visit other parks they tend to be blown away by anything Disney does. If Epic Universe opens as advertised with the attractions that are rumored my hope is Disney Adults will visit and see that Disney is falling behind.

I honestly don't get your arguments here.

On one hand you are arguing against using IP, that it's the IP that ruins things. But then go on to complain you don't like the ride itself. One really doesn't have anything to do with the other. If you don't like rides that utilize screens (your comment about Rat) then the IP really doesn't matter. Its the ride system you don't like.

As for not liking the new rides, that's simply a subjective opinion. I would put RotR and FoP up against any ride in the country and be very happy with them. I didn't ride GotG personally, but the rest of my family did and had similar comments for it. And this is where the difference in IP comes in to play. I have heard nothing but good things about Velocicoaster. I don't ride roller coasters but everyone i know who does, and has ridden it loved it. BUT no one made their decision to go to universal to ride that coaster. Those people (at least in my area) can ride roller coasters of better, or at least relatively equal quality (subjective of couse) at Hersey Park, Six Flags, Bush Gardens, Old Dominion, ect. Everyone i know who rode Velocoaster were down at Universal to see Harry Potter.

As for Epic Universe/Universal, they are following the same plan as Disney. The new park is leveraging established IP, either Nintendo or Harry Potter in the same way that WDW is using Frozen/Star Wars/ect. As for when EP opens, I will say having done both Nintendo rides in Japan, I don' think they are a big challenge to anything Disney has. I mean sure Yoshi's ride was ok once as I got to say hey I remember insert character here from the games I played as a kid, but that was basically it. I don't think I would ride it again and again, the same way I would haunted mansion for example. And while Mario Kart was OK, I don't think i would go beyond that. The people who was with who had no connection to the old Mario brothers games didn't find them to be anything special.

Which is really the whole point everything being equal IP drives your customers base. You like Harry Potter, your going to Universal. You like Frozen, your going to Disney. And by offering rides on that model you have a competitive advantage that no one else can beat. And for those that just want rides and thrill, they can go to [insert local regional amusement park here].

 

[Jrb1979]

I honestly don't get your arguments here.

On one hand you are arguing against using IP, that it's the IP that ruins things. But then go on to complain you don't like the ride itself. One really doesn't have anything to do with the other. If you don't like rides that utilize screens (your comment about Rat) then the IP really doesn't matter. Its the ride system you don't like.

As for not liking the new rides, that's simply a subjective opinion. I would put RotR and FoP up against any ride in the country and be very happy with them. I didn't ride GotG personally, but the rest of my family did and had similar comments for it. And this is where the difference in IP comes in to play. I have heard nothing but good things about Velocicoaster. I don't ride roller coasters but everyone i know who does, and has ridden it loved it. BUT no one made their decision to go to universal to ride that coaster. Those people (at least in my area) can ride roller coasters of better, or at least relatively equal quality (subjective of couse) at Hersey Park, Six Flags, Bush Gardens, Old Dominion, ect. Everyone i know who rode Velocoaster were down at Universal to see Harry Potter.

As for Epic Universe/Universal, they are following the same plan as Disney. The new park is leveraging established IP, either Nintendo or Harry Potter in the same way that WDW is using Frozen/Star Wars/ect. As for when EP opens, I will say having done both Nintendo rides in Japan, I don' think they are a big challenge to anything Disney has. I mean sure Yoshi's ride was ok once as I got to say hey I remember insert character here from the games I played as a kid, but that was basically it. I don't think I would ride it again and again, the same way I would haunted mansion for example. And while Mario Kart was OK, I don't think i would go beyond that. The people who was with who had no connection to the old Mario brothers games didn't find them to be anything special.

Which is really the whole point everything being equal IP drives your customers base. You like Harry Potter, your going to Universal. You like Frozen, your going to Disney. And by offering rides on that model you have a competitive advantage that no one else can beat. And for those that just want rides and thrill, they can go to [insert local regional amusement park here].

I'm not against IP, I've never been one to accept putting in Epcot. It's what made Epcot different. My whole argument is that each park felt different from one another and not just cause of the rides. The theming of each park was different and now they are all just a mishmash of IP. They all are the same.

I don't have an issue so much with IP if it being used in a good way. I know IP is what makes people go to the parks and I am not disagreeing with that. My issue with the way Disney is using the IP is not impressive. It feels like instead of making impressive attractions incorporating IP, it's how can we get this IP in the parks. That's where I find Universal is doing a better job lately. Velocicoaster and Hagrids are more impressive ride wise and IP wise, and it has nothing to do with them being coasters, then a lot of what Disney has added lately.

IMO that's what separated Disney from everyone else. They were the best at integrating IP to fit into the parks. Now it's slap it in where they can and don't worry if it fits or not.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I honestly don't get your arguments here.

On one hand you are arguing against using IP, that it's the IP that ruins things. But then go on to complain you don't like the ride itself. One really doesn't have anything to do with the other. If you don't like rides that utilize screens (your comment about Rat) then the IP really doesn't matter. Its the ride system you don't like....

As for Epic Universe/Universal, they are following the same plan as Disney. The new park is leveraging established IP, either Nintendo or Harry Potter in the same way that WDW is using Frozen/Star Wars/ect...

Between you and me, I think it's someone casting around for an argument to try and convince Disney fans on a Disney forum why they should go to other parks instead of Disney. IP seems to do whatever is the opposite of sparking joy on the forums, so that's currently the tact taken.

It doesn't make sense, though, to argue that you should go to Epic Universe (when it opens) rather than Epcot because there is too much IP in Epcot as Epic Universe is pure, unadulterated IP.

 

[Jrb1979]

Between you and me, I think it's someone casting around for an argument to try and convince Disney fans on a Disney forum why they should go to other parks instead of Disney. IP seems to do whatever is the opposite of sparking joy on the forums, so that's currently the tact taken.

It doesn't make sense, though, to argue that you should go to Epic Universe (when it opens) rather than Epcot because there is too much IP in Epcot as Epic Universe is pure, unadulterated IP.

That's my plan . If you read my response you would see how I feel about IP. It p****** me off how ya'll think my goal is to push people to other parks.

It has nothing to do with too much IP in Epcot or whatever Mouse property you come up with. It's how its integrated. Disney has done a poor job of it lately by plopping IP where ever they see fit, even if it doesn't fit. There is no rhyme or reason for where it goes, its all about getting the IP into the parks. At least Universal does its best to integrate the IP into places it belongs.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Actually, Norway was heavily researched. It’s in Norway. The name of the town is off by a few letters for whatever reason, but we get the point.

When Arkanstone is mentioned in The Flintstones, we know they’re not referencing California or Alabama.

It is still a fanasy story made up for entertainment and no other message other then personal things. Therefore, use whatever name anybody wants it is still the same thing. A creation of imagination, with maybe a resemblance of another I.P. years ago but can be anywhere that it's cold and it fits. Probably wouldn't work if the name of the town were Orlandale.

 

[OrlandoRising]

I'm not disagreeing with that. IMO if they want to add IP to World Showcase do it like Remy not how they did Frozen. That's my issue with what they are doing with Epcot. It's not so much the IP it's how it's integrated. They used to care about how the IP fit into the park. Now they shoehorn it in where ever

Frozen opened in 2016, and you're not going to get much argument from me that it wasn't shoehorned in.

But Guardians of the Galaxy, makes a big efforts to explain why it's in Epcot. No one seems to be arguing how Remy doesn't fit. I think people whining about those really just need to come out and admit there's no IP integration into Epcot that would accept.

There used to be a balance. There no longer is. That is bad.

Epcot in particular - even lowercase Epcot - used to be better than this.

There are 11 ride-through attractions in Epcot. Five of the 11 have Disney-owned characters that came from outside the theme parks, which is usually what this board considers IP -- Guardians, Remy, Frozen, Gran Fiesta Tour, and The Seas with Nemo. 5 of 11. That seems pretty balanced to me.

have heard nothing but good things about Velocicoaster. I don't ride roller coasters but everyone i know who does, and has ridden it loved it. BUT no one made their decision to go to universal to ride that coaster. Those people (at least in my area) can ride roller coasters of better, or at least relatively equal quality (subjective of couse) at Hersey Park, Six Flags, Bush Gardens, Old Dominion, ect. Everyone i know who rode Velocoaster were down at Universal to see Harry Potter.

Then you're talking to the wrong people.. There were absolutely guests who were motivated to come to Universal primarily for VelociCoaster. It's one of the biggest selling points at the moment.

Roller coasters are still draws and can't be dismissed simply because regional parks also rely upon them. Disney diehards may not understand that when they're so stuck in the Disney bubble.

And while Mario Kart was OK, I don't think i would go beyond that. The people who was with who had no connection to the old Mario brothers games didn't find them to be anything special.

Multiple generations of people have connections to Mario games. That's why having the Nintendo IP in theme parks has such massive potential for Universal. Minimizing its appeal seems ridiculous.

 

[UNCgolf]

But Guardians of the Galaxy, makes a big efforts to explain why it's in Epcot. No one seems to be arguing how Remy doesn't fit. I think people whining about those really just need to come out and admit there's no IP integration into Epcot that would accept.

The problem with Guardians is that those efforts aren't very good. They tried to explain why it's in EPCOT, but it just doesn't really work, and the ride itself doesn't do anything that would make it feel out of place at DHS (this is also true for Ratatouille, Nemo, and Frozen Ever After).

They could have easily used IP to make a ride/pavilion that was actually somewhat educational about space (or another topic), but they didn't do that. They also failed to make a good Guardians attraction IMO, in terms of the use of the characters/IP itself (as opposed to whether the attraction is fun), but that's irrelevant to any point about EPCOT.