• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Fans vs. IPs - what gives? (I apologize if it was brought up before)

networkpro

Well-Known Member
#21
Define "internal." Film characters were still created by The Walt Disney Company (exclude Marvel and Star Wars if you want).
Original ? If its not the Fab 5, its borrowed.

Sir James Barrie - Peter Pan
Carlo Lorenzini - Pinocchio
Snow White - Collected by Brothers Grimm
Rapunzel - Collected by Brothers Grimm
Winnie the Pooh -AA Milne
Beauty and the Beast - Gabrielle-Suzanne de Villeneuve
 

CaptainAmerica

Well-Known Member
#22
Advertisement
Original ? If its not the Fab 5, its borrowed.

Sir James Barrie - Peter Pan
Carlo Lorenzini - Pinocchio
Snow White - Collected by Brothers Grimm
Rapunzel - Collected by Brothers Grimm
Winnie the Pooh -AA Milne
Beauty and the Beast - Gabrielle-Suzanne de Villeneuve
That's kind of my point. Even OG Disney is ripped from somewhere.
 

eliza61nyc

Well-Known Member
#24
I don't have any problem with IP stuff and I 1000% prefer new IP rides than the borrowing, 2 day older than Christ himself stuff. The Maelstrom ride and film was old and beyond boring. Yes it was time for it to go. could they have come up with something more Authentic Norwegian?? maybe but let's face it Frozen was uber popular.

Same with Ellen, worn out and most folks just went in there to cool off or catch a quick nap
 
#25
I don't mind IPs, but they should work for the land/ride not the other way around. Indiana Jones Adventure fits Adventureland perfectly. Star Tours fits Tomorrowland. Twilight Zone Tower of Terror is a phenomenal attraction. But Monsters Inc Laugh Floor, just an excuse for a cheap MI attraction. Stitch replacing Alien Encounter was a lazy uninspired way out of an issue. Guardians in Epcot makes no sense in terms of the park. Tron doesn't work in Tomorrowland. Just shoving IP attractions in where they don't fit is what people hated about Universal for so many years and slapping an IP name on a basic attraction (Incredicoaster for example) reminds us of Six Flags or even Disneyland's Disney Afternoon Avenue layovers.

IPs seem to give Disney the excuse to be lazy and turn out a mediocre project because they know fans will flock to see the IP and the quality of ride doesn't matter. Also, when IP becomes dated, it makes the attraction feel more dated than it should.

I'd like to hear how you think Tron doesn't work in Tomorrowland. Given the nature of a universe within a computer, I think it fits perfectly. But why do you think it doesnt?

And everything else you said seems 100% true. I never thought about the fact that "slapping an IP" on attractions is very Six Flagsish
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
#26
I'm pretty sure this was brought up before on more than one occasion, so I apologize if it has, but...

Why are fans so fundamentally opposed to intellectual properties added to the parks?
I don't have a problem with IP's when used appropriately. I think the problem is, that instead of Imagineering being told, we need something new in park X and they go off and come up with the best idea to fill that need, it looks like instead they are being told, we need a ride for IP Y and it needs to go in park X, find a way to make it happen, or even worse, they are being told to replace ride X with IP Y.
 

WondersOfLife

Blink, blink. Breathe, breathe. Day in, day out.
Premium Member
#27
It's the difference between the average theme park guest and the Disney history fanboy.

Normal guests expect Disney at Disney World. Fanboys expect a lot more.

Normal guests outweigh the demand/profit of fanboys.

Fanboys are upset when IPs are shoehorned into unfitting lands and become easy cash grabs.

Disney doesn't care so they keep cranking out the IP attractions that will never be the same quality attractions at Haunted Mansion or Pirates of the Caribbean.

Fanboys become a mob.

Disney starts charging $25 for parking.

Fanboys take IPs even MORE seriously as a result.
 

egg

Well-Known Member
#29
Why are fans so fundamentally opposed to intellectual properties added to the parks?
If the studios just stopped making original movies, how would they fare? What if Star Wars was never created? What if Toy Story was never created? As far as theme parks go, what if Pirates of the Caribbean was never created? What if the Jungle Cruise was never created? Originality is a required part of a healthy business, otherwise they're letting the fuse burn.

It's not just a matter of personal distaste. They are actually hurting their business.
 

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
#30
If the studios just stopped making original movies, how would they fare? What if Star Wars was never created? What if Toy Story was never created? As far as theme parks go, what if Pirates of the Caribbean was never created? What if the Jungle Cruise was never created? Originality is a required part of a healthy business, otherwise they're letting the fuse burn.

It's not just a matter of personal distaste. They are actually hurting their business.
They actually seem to be doing pretty well which kind of sucks as that means more of the same.
 
#31
If the studios just stopped making original movies, how would they fare? What if Star Wars was never created? What if Toy Story was never created? As far as theme parks go, what if Pirates of the Caribbean was never created? What if the Jungle Cruise was never created? Originality is a required part of a healthy business, otherwise they're letting the fuse burn.

It's not just a matter of personal distaste. They are actually hurting their business.
There really is no evidence of IPs hurting the parks business whatsoever. If anything there is plenty of evidence of the opposite.

Which would draw more to the parks, Star Wars rides or generic space samurai ride?
 

BoarderPhreak

Well-Known Member
#32
I don't think people are necessarily against anything IP, rather the use of IP to apply a Band-Aid (overlay) to an existing attraction and calling it awesome. Look at Frozen. Sure, the Maelstrom had its issues (e.g. mold and being dated) but slapping a coat of paint on it and installing an Elsa AA was a half-arsed attempt to capitalize on its current popularity at best.

How about the Three Caballeros? It brought nothing to the attraction and even detracts.

Ratatouille on the other hand, promises a whole new experience, from the ground up. This could truly be awesome.
 

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
#33
Non-IP Disney attractions:

Haunted Mansion, Horizons, SSE, Jungle Cruise, Big Thunder Mountain, Space Mountain, American Adventure, It's a Small World, Alien Encounter, Journey Into Imagination, Countdown to Extinction, Kilimanjaro Safaris, Expedition Everest, Carousel of Progress, Test Track, The Timekeeper, Soarin', Living with the Land, Enchanted Tiki Room etc.

IP based attractions since 2000:

Stitch's Great Escape, Magic Carpets of Aladdin, Frozen Ever After, Little Mermaid, Monsters Inc Laugh Floor, Toy Story Land etc


The track record speaks for itself. The only exceptions IMO are Midway Mania and PhilharMagic. Seven Dwarfs is just OK.
 

egg

Well-Known Member
#34
There really is no evidence of IPs hurting the parks business whatsoever. If anything there is plenty of evidence of the opposite.

Which would draw more to the parks, Star Wars rides or generic space samurai ride?
But by that logic, which would draw more to the theaters, a new Star Wars movie or an original movie? Oh right, the Last Jedi made a ton of money in large part because it's Star Wars, but not everything can be a sequel, and original franchises like Frozen and Coco are healthy. Similarly, in the parks, there are certain cases like Star Wars where established IP can absolutely help, but there are certain cases where something original would be healthy.

The mandate's been in place for less than a decade so I don't know what evidence you're talking about.
 
#35
But by that logic, which would draw more to the theaters, a new Star Wars movie or an original movie? Oh right, the Last Jedi made a ton of money in large part because it's Star Wars, but not everything can be a sequel, and original franchises like Frozen and Coco are healthy. Similarly, in the parks, there are certain cases like Star Wars where established IP can absolutely help, but there are certain cases where something original would be healthy.

The mandate's been in place for less than a decade so I don't know what evidence you're talking about.
The quote said the IPs are hurting business, there is no evidence of that. Disney is making money hand over fist so business is doing quite well.

If a movie IP will fit then I see no evidence whatsoever that an orignal parks IP would be more popular. Would generic wizard land out draw Harry Potter? Would animated motors ride bring in more guests than Radiator Springs? Adding Nemo to The Seas has brought MORE people to that ride. I'm still waiting on a legit Lion King and Aladdin experience.

If you want more original parks IPs because it's your personal preference that's fine but let's not pretend like it doesn't make more financial sense to use a popular movie IP when applicable.
 
Last edited:

FettFan

Well-Known Member
#36
I'm pretty sure this was brought up before on more than one occasion, so I apologize if it has, but...

Why are fans so fundamentally opposed to intellectual properties added to the parks?
It's not being opposed to IPs in the parks......it's us being opposed to IPs that make NO DAMN SENSE being shoved wherever.

Guardians of the Galaxy at Epcot Center? Sure....provided that you give them a 5D show at the Magic Eye Theater, because they don't really belong anywhere else.
Killing the Universe of Energy for GotG? That's stupid and the total antithesis of what Epcot is supposed to be about.


Speaking of Epcot....while some fans didn't care for Nemo taking over the Living Seas, at least Nemo made sense. It's an aquarium, who better to star there than a talking fish?
Fans also weren't too mad when Donald Duck took over El Rio at the Mexico Pavilion or the upcoming Ratatouille's Kitchen Nightmare (possibly starring Gordon Ramsay throwing things at your ride vehicle) at the France Pavilion because those make sense.

Donald is actually exploring Mexico,
(despite the fact that he could have been integrated into the scenes SO much better. They should have given him the "Roger Rabbit" treatment. Gotta bump the lamp!)

whereas Ratatouille actually takes place IN FRANCE.


But Frozen in Norway? BIG mistake!
Sure the art department on that film might have been *inspired by* Norway.... but that is a cheap cop out for an attraction that should have been in the Magic Kingdom.
Could it have been different? Sure. But it wasn't. It was essentially a retelling of the movie, in the same vein as Snow White's Scary Adventures or Peter Pan's Flight. Arandelle doesn't exist, just as Neverland doesn't exist, and nor does....wherever the hell Snow White took place.

Pandora: World of Avatar at Animal Kingdom? While the land itself is impressive enough, it makes even less sense than Beastly Kingdom. Pandora should have been built at the Studios, maybe where Honey I Shrunk the Kids used to be.

Star Wars taking over DHS? That should never have happened. The Magic of Disney Animation was closed and converted to Star Wars: The Meet and Greet, when in reality there was a perfectly good, mostly vacant building (The Premiere Theater) behind the Muppet*Vision.
Meaning that Star Wars was now on two sides of the park. Almost like a virus that had split itself to infect another area.
FURTHER -- When they decided they wanted to have an animated Mickey Mouse ride, the fact that Star Wars had taken over the Animation Building made it off limits....so they closed the classic Great Movie Ride.
 

FettFan

Well-Known Member
#37
There really is no evidence of IPs hurting the parks business whatsoever. If anything there is plenty of evidence of the opposite.

Which would draw more to the parks, Star Wars rides or generic space samurai ride?
How about a generic pirate ride? Because that mattered so much to guests visiting WDW that they complained to everyone in management, and as a result PotC was built instead of the planned Western River Expedition.

Or how about a generic dragon ride? That one mattered so much to longtime Disney fans, they went nuts and had the generic dragon put back into the ride after Disney tried to axe him.
No such luck on said dragon's companion though. :(
 

FettFan

Well-Known Member
#38
I'd like to hear how you think Tron doesn't work in Tomorrowland. Given the nature of a universe within a computer, I think it fits perfectly. But why do you think it doesnt?
Well, since the majority of Tomorrowland is still supposed to be the retro-metro "Spaceport of the Future", going inside a computer doesn't exactly jive with the locale, especially one populated by robots of a particularly kid-friendly design...


 

egg

Well-Known Member
#40
The quote said the IPs are hurting business, there is no evidence of that. Disney is making money hand over fist so business is doing quite well.

If a movie IP will fit then I see no evidence whatsoever that an orignal parks IP would be more popular. Would generic wizard land out draw Harry Potter? Would animated motors ride bring in more guests than Radiator Springs? Adding Nemo to The Seas has brought MORE people to that ride. I'm still waiting on a legit Lion King and Aladdin experience.

If you want more original parks IPs because it's your personal preference that's fine but let's not pretend like it doesn't make more financial sense to use a popular movie IP when applicable.
You conveniently ignored everything I said but I'll give you the courtesy of another reply. Often original works can indeed be more financially successful both short term and long term. Expedition Everest, Where's My Water, and Moana are some of the company's latest original works and are all among the company's biggest successes. People trust the most valuable IP the company has, the name Disney, to denote strong storytelling and a quality product.

Are you going to suggest that Flight of Passage's (the highest-rated ride in the world) popularity is really boosted by Avatar? A movie most young guests have never seen and most who have don't give a crap about? Don't be silly.
 
Last edited: