The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
That where Flynn Rider made the castle run in twelve parsecs on his Magic carpet ride?“Gotta keep
One jump ahead of the Tusken
Raiders cause they can’t be seen
I shoot
Womp rats in my T-16”
That where Flynn Rider made the castle run in twelve parsecs on his Magic carpet ride?“Gotta keep
One jump ahead of the Tusken
Raiders cause they can’t be seen
I shoot
Womp rats in my T-16”
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'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?
Why are fans so fundamentally opposed to intellectual properties added to the parks?
They actually seem to be doing pretty well which kind of sucks as that means more of the same.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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
Oh, brother. And people complaining about people complaining about the lack of non-IPs is older than Methuselah.
...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.
Rides use to spawn movies but now movies spawn rides.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.