Do you think we'll ever get another original, non-IP attraction at WDW?

[SSE_King]

This question might sound overly dramatic, but with the way things are going lately, it's pretty clear that Disney is only interested in either creating new attractions/lands based on IPs (TSL, SW:GE, Tron, etc.) or replacing old attractions with IP-based ones (GotG, Frozen, MAMRR, etc.)

If I'm not mistaken, the last attraction we got in WDW that was completely original and not tied to any existing IP was Everest back in 2006. That's 12 years of no new rides based on original creations. Personally speaking, I think original attractions are what always made WDW so special. You can't find experiences like POTC, HM, Jungle Cruise, CoP, or SSE anywhere else. They transport you into a brand new world. Seeing Anna and Elsa and Olaf singing songs from Frozen on a boat ride just doesn't have the same kind of memorable experience for me.

So what do you think? Do you think we'll EVER see any more non-IP attractions at WDW? Or are will we only be getting attractions based on IPs from now on?

 

[TwilightZone]

Well the problem with IPs is that non IP attractions do count as an IP attraction by the definition of the word, something a lot of people forget.
But to answer your question, maybe figment.

 

[LaughingGravy]

The Gondolas are new and not tied to an IP. I see that as a hopeful sign, if not an outright attraction in a park.

 

[winstongator]

Given Disney's recent massive investment in buying Fox, likely not. Even if you had a great science or technology attraction that would work without IP, I could see IP being shoehorned into it. Synergy. Management, "We've got this IP that will draw people to your attraction. You want people experiencing it, right?"

I don't mind IP. Many of the earliest attractions utilized it: 20,000 leagues, Peter Pan, Dumbo, Tom Sawyer's Island, Swiss Family Treehouse, Mad Tea Party. If I were Disney, I might look at what I'm spending on studio entertainment and see that as my investment in storytelling. Disney's IP creation is far faster now than it was 50 years ago, and its catalog is much larger.

I'd love to see from-scratch attractions. I've thought a lot about some technology attractions. I know you can keep kids attention, because I've done it. Today's technology is so fantastic that it amazes many when I describe it. How many transistors could you fit on a human hair? How many transistors are made each year? I'll just leave medical imaging for another day.

 

[TwilightZone]

The Gondolas are new and not tied to an IP. I see that as a hopeful sign, if not an outright attraction in a park.

But they are

 

[danheaton]

I think that trends are cyclical and it will come around eventually, but it won't be in the next 5-10 years. Iger and Chapek are all about branding, and the success with Marvel and Star Wars shows that it works. On the other hand, it can lead to less thrilling attractions.

I will say that I almost look at Pandora as a non-IP land. It has connections to the films, but they're fleeting. You could easily look at it as just a mythical land with blue aliens. That's probably the best we can hope for with future updates.

 

[winstongator]

Those attractions are always mentioned. But what about the attractions that really make Disney parks... Disney parks. Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Hall of Presidents (are those an IP?), Space Mountain, Small World, Tikis, most of Tomorrowland, historically, and most of Epcot, most of Animal Kingdom. Even those tethered to IPs are practically untethered (if that makes any sense), Splash Mountain (the general public hasn't seen the source material), Tower of Terror (it could sooo work without that IP). I'm grasping at paper straws or Ziploc plastic bags with those last two, but the whole... Disney has only ever really done IP argument (you say that it's faster now than it was, which is true) always seems questionable.

I would say Splash Mountain & Tower of Terror are very loosely tethered to IP. Very few people ride ToT because they are big Twilight Zone fans, and many people don't even know the underlying IP of Splash. Those are great rides - that's why people ride them. I think the IP on those rides is not forced and not overwhelming.

Has Frozen Ever After been more popular than Maelstrom? That's an example where people are going for the IP, not the overall ride experience. My daughters are only slightly older than in my profile pic, and our next trip to Epcot we could easily skip FEA. At one point though, Anna and Elsa were so hot - everywhere. You've got multi-hour lines for meet & greets? Gotta figure some way to get that in. There are cool elements to it, but it is somewhat forcing that IP in. If re-theming with IP makes attractions more popular, it'll be hard to fight that movement. I also think they're measuring guest sentiment, and I'd imagine that they're hearing characters are popular

Those two examples strengthen your argument. Pandora & the Wizarding World are two great uses of IP, as I expect Galaxy's Edge to be as well. I don't know how immersive TSL is - haven't been yet. Pandora & WWoHP are destination lands. They draw people in. Pandora probably drove increased attendance WDW-wide in 2017, in addition to the huge increase to AK. I think building a world like those from scratch, without an underlying IP, would be difficult and expensive. rides for Galaxy's Edge also seem less forced than Star Tours - an attraction I love, but won't cry when it is converted to something else.

Disney is much different than it was 50 years ago. They aren't making rides for World's Fairs anymore. There aren't even World's Fairs anymore. They're making tons of movie and TV. They've more than doubled-down on movies & TV.

TLDR: It'll be a long time before we get a non-IP based ride.

I also found a near identical question on another forum.

 

[Mickey5150]

Although I think Disney could make a non-IP ride I don't think they will any time soon. I've made this case before that Disney has 1000s of IPs to work with that it just makes sense to use them. It was my argument with Sebastian's at Caribbean Beach. They needed a caribbean cartoon animal so use what they have rather then spending the money to try to come up with something new and then having to worry if they infringe on any trademarks or copyrights. It would save Disney lots of money to not have to worry about copyright infringements. By the time the Fox sale goes thru I'm sure they will own an IP for just about everything.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

The international parks will..But, not us...

 

[Lensman]

I agree that the pendulum has swung way over towards IP-based attractions due to the perceived value of cross-media synergy. In some ways, it's like licensing revenue - hard to turn down, plus the parks get a marketing kick from the popularity of the IP.

Have there been any IP-free attractions added to Tokyo? And what about Shanghai, were there any IP-free attractions there?

One exercise that we could do in this thread is to try to come up with an "original" IP on which to base an attraction. The OP listed "POTC, HM, Jungle Cruise, CoP, or SSE" as being IP-free. Each of them does have a theme that sometimes comes from popular myth that was then imagineered into an attraction. So for POTC is obviously a pirate adventure, just as HM is a haunted house, and JC was inspired by The African Queen and is a (umm) jungle cruise adventure. So what settings/adventures aren't covered that might be appropriate for a Disney attraction. I add the latter because I don't think "historical war drama" would play well in the parks. Nor "science-fiction horror" as (maybe) evidenced by Extra-TERRORestrial Alien Encounter.

Examples:
- historical fantasy based on Merlin
- historical adventure based in Roman or Greek civilization
- mythological adventure in Greece
- polar expedition or mountain expedition
- puzzle adventure in asteroid mining colony
- adventure in the American west
- adventure on a deserted island

Someone in another thread said that they think that all imagineers need to be able to draw. I'd assert that some imagineers need to know how to write in order to create a narrative ultra-short feature in the 2-5 minute range. Maybe someone who can create stories like this:


I want attractions that let you experience a good story, not just be presented with some flashy special ride effects.

 

[eliza61nyc]

I never say never so I'll say within the next 10-15 years? nope

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

At this point is seems unlikely...

Definitely not with sit com bob and kmart blue light special bob calling the shots

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

There was a rumor tossed around years ago that Epcot was considering a weather-themed pavilion somewhere in Future World.
Logic unfortunately tells me that idea is very much extinct. Yet there will always be a shred of optimism that someday, eventually, Disney will remember what made Epcot what it is, and this currently shelved idea will finally see the light of day.

That was tied/crossed up with the “stormrunner” rollercoaster idea The was floated to be placed inside spaceship earth...but it never would have worked.

I do think a weather focused concept would be great there...as Florida is a unique setting that reinforces the appeal in a lot of ways.

 

[danlb_2000]

Well the problem with IPs is that non IP attractions do count as an IP attraction by the definition of the word, something a lot of people forget.
But to answer your question, maybe figment.

It is well understood my most people on these boards that when people say "IP based attraction" they mean building an attraction based on an existing IP, as opposed to designing something from scratch.

 

[danlb_2000]

This question might sound overly dramatic, but with the way things are going lately, it's pretty clear that Disney is only interested in either creating new attractions/lands based on IPs (TSL, SW:GE, Tron, etc.) or replacing old attractions with IP-based ones (GotG, Frozen, MAMRR, etc.)

If I'm not mistaken, the last attraction we got in WDW that was completely original and not tied to any existing IP was Everest back in 2006. That's 12 years of no new rides based on original creations. Personally speaking, I think original attractions are what always made WDW so special. You can't find experiences like POTC, HM, Jungle Cruise, CoP, or SSE anywhere else. They transport you into a brand new world. Seeing Anna and Elsa and Olaf singing songs from Frozen on a boat ride just doesn't have the same kind of memorable experience for me.

So what do you think? Do you think we'll EVER see any more non-IP attractions at WDW? Or are will we only be getting attractions based on IPs from now on?

Everest would be the last non-IP ride, but if you expand the definition of attraction then Rivers of Light would be the most recent.

As to your question, I wouldn't say it will never happen, but I think attractions based on existing IPs are going to be the norm for some time to come.

 

[Hayley In Wonderland]

Disney is a business, they sell what sells. That's what people seem to forget. Disney's popularity is based on their movies and characters, so this is what they are going to use to sell tickets and make money. I personally have no issue with IP attractions so long as they are done correctly and enjoyable. Especially when WDW is competing with Universal Studios, which have basically no non-IP attractions left - WW is probably Universal's best investment and no doubt saved their . Disney have to compete.

 

[winstongator]

I never say never so I'll say within the next 10-15 years? nope

Me too. There’s a Large number of things I’ve done over the past 5 years that were on my ‘I’d never do that’ list.

Everest would be the last non-IP ride, but if you expand the definition of attraction then Rivers of Light would be the most recent.

As to your question, I wouldn't say it will never happen, but I think attractions based on existing IPs are going to be the norm for some time to come.

Compare the reactions to Rivers of Light and Happily Ever After. One non-IP, the other about as IP heavy as an evening show could get.

 

[geekza]

We won't as long as there are Money Men making the decisions who aren't interested in the parks as anything other than a revenue stream.

Before anyone comes in and says it, yes, the parks have always been used for money, but much of that money was re-invested into the parks in order to create new attractions and technologies. It was more about, "What can we create?" than "What will bring in the most cash?"

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Disney is a business, they sell what sells. That's what people seem to forget. Disney's popularity is based on their movies and characters, so this is what they are going to use to sell tickets and make money. I personally have no issue with IP attractions so long as they are done correctly and enjoyable. Especially when WDW is competing with Universal Studios, which have basically no non-IP attractions left - WW is probably Universal's best investment and no doubt saved their ***. Disney have to compete.

Nobody has ever forgotten Disney is a business...not once.

At least no one worth talking to...

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Compare the reactions to Rivers of Light and Happily Ever After. One non-IP, the other about as IP heavy as an evening show could get.

That’s a pretty easy false analogy...

One is somewhat canned and feeds directly off the previous show and most disney Park fireworks displays since their inception...

The other was original, way overdue/trouble plagued..and “not real good”...to be kind.