• 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.

Fox Properties at Disney parks

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
Am I the only one who thinks that the Simpsons is a very slowly dying franchise not relevant to today's teens? IMO, the only reason why Disney would build a Simpsons attraction is because it's a legacy franchise for older adults. I actually put Aerosmith coaster in the same category....it would be dead if it wasn't for being an awesome coaster. (and yes, I'm an Aerosmith fan)

Looking at Fox's movie portfolio, based on gross sales, there are few - if any - franchises worth investing in for permanent theme park attractions. You need to be popular yesterday, today and tomorrow for an IP to resonate with mass audiences.

Let's dissect Universal Epic rumored lands because it's a working case study of new IP attractions:
  • Classic Monsters: iconic, timeless stories re-made over generations and possibility for strong future reboots
  • Nintendo World: arguably the most famous and iconic video game franchise ever across cultures and generations, constantly rebooting and updating on newer and newer gaming platforms for youths/adults to enjoy
  • How to Train your Dragon: One of Paramount's most successful franchises - starting 10 years ago and likely sequels in the future. Also pretty obvious that Universal has dibs on Paramount properties.
  • Fantastic Beasts: While very new, it piggybacks off of the huge HP franchise. It's also heavily relying on the 2021 release.
The common theme here is (1) time - anywhere from decades to generations and (2) future - guaranteed to have future releases to constantly stimulate interest.

TDL;DR Fox's movie portfolio is worthless for theme park attractions IMO

A good IP can help with interest in an attraction, but it can't save bad rides and bad implementation.

A good ride can keep old, past-their-prime, and even problematic IPs popular.

Otherwise, by your theory, Fast and Furious is a theme park knockout.
 

Buffalo

Member
Advertisement
A good IP can help with interest in an attraction, but it can't save bad rides and bad implementation.

A good ride can keep old, past-their-prime, and even problematic IPs popular.

Otherwise, by your theory, Fast and Furious is a theme park knockout.

Definitely a balance between the two.

Yes, by my theory, Fast and Furious (regardless if we think it's a good movie franchise or not) has proved itself in box office sales over a long period of time and sequels won't stop, thereby upholding audience interest over the foreseeable future. I'm honestly surprised it took so long to build an attraction.
 

Buffalo

Member
A good IP can help with interest in an attraction, but it can't save bad rides and bad implementation.

A good ride can keep old, past-their-prime, and even problematic IPs popular.

Otherwise, by your theory, Fast and Furious is a theme park knockout.
The question of whether or not a ride is implemented well is a whole separate debate lol
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
Definitely a balance between the two.

Yes, by my theory, Fast and Furious (regardless if we think it's a good movie franchise or not) has proved itself in box office sales over a long period of time and sequels won't stop, thereby upholding audience interest over the foreseeable future. I'm honestly surprised it took so long to build an attraction.

Point was, don't put your hopes in a future attraction just because of the IP. F&F is an awful ride that is roundly mocked and has no queue. UO created a virtual queue just for this attraction because they thought it would be mobbed for years. Oops.

Likewise, Under the Sea in MK has a two hour empty queue most of the time for one of its most popular IPs.

If the ride ain't good, the IP can't save it.

Thus, there is no need to only use IPs that are currently popular and have more cinema tie-ins on the way. TRON Cycle is very popular tho that 'franchise' is mostly dead.
 

Buffalo

Member
Point was, don't put your hopes in a future attraction just because of the IP. F&F is an awful ride that is roundly mocked and has no queue. UO created a virtual queue just for this attraction because they thought it would be mobbed for years. Oops.

Likewise, Under the Sea in MK has a two hour empty queue most of the time for one of its most popular IPs.

If the ride ain't good, the IP can't save it.

Thus, there is no need to only use IPs that are currently popular and have more cinema tie-ins on the way. TRON Cycle is very popular tho that 'franchise' is mostly dead.
#1 IP's are supplemented with ride technology. IP's are first and foremost. Sometimes technology is created without an IP in mind. That's when Disney works to determine where it fits best within a legacy brand.

#2 All rides have a half-life and are considered into the overall production and planned long term existence. Universal and Disney attractions take a lot of money, time and energy to create. I don't disagree that some rides are worse than others. You're letting your own opinion of a ride take precedence over why it came to be in the first place.....because there was a demand yesterday, today and tomorrow for F&F. Give me a recent example of a Disney or Universal ride (not show) that was built and taken down within 2 years! Stitch's Great Escape was pretty much meant to fill a spacial void....so I'll give you that one.

#3 Little Mermaid is timeless. It follows my rules. And the ride will stand to exist for years because it's a crowd sucker. People don't hate the IP or hate the ride.

#4 Tron Cycle was never meant to happen in MK...or WDW for that matter. It was built in Shanghai because the movie was more successful there than in the States. But due to widely popular State-side demand and (low) costs behind replicating an existing ride, it's being built here. This ride does not fall within my theory because it was not initially created for an American audience and Disney is letting cost-cutting override IP precedence.
 

maxxpot77

New Member
#2 All rides have a half-life and are considered into the overall production and planned long term existence. Universal and Disney attractions take a lot of money, time and energy to create. I don't disagree that some rides are worse than others. You're letting your own opinion of a ride take precedence over why it came to be in the first place.....because there was a demand yesterday, today and tomorrow for F&F. Give me a recent example of a Disney or Universal ride (not show) that was built and taken down within 2 years! Stitch's Great Escape was pretty much meant to fill a spacial void....so I'll give you that one.
Does Superstar Limo count as recent, because if it does, then that’s definitely an example.
 

Buffalo

Member
Does Superstar Limo count as recent, because if it does, then that’s definitely an example.
Good example. Hmm.....maybe I need to include a time frame in my theory too. The Disney of today is much more IP-focused than yesterday. I think I'm mostly right, though?
 

Robbiem

Well-Known Member
If Disney could aquire the rights from MGM, then Bond could be the next great IP for an attraction.
I’m surprised Disney never licensed Bond back when they made the original deal to build DHS, even the great movie ride had a clip of never say never again rather than an official bond. It has to be one of the biggest IPs no one has really used in a park
 

maxxpot77

New Member
Good example. Hmm.....maybe I need to include a time frame in my theory too. The Disney of today is much more IP-focused than yesterday. I think I'm mostly right, though?
You are, but I just remembered Luigi’s Flying Tires was a thing, which admittedly did last longer than Limo, but still wasn’t around for very long.
 

*Grand Admiral Thrawn*

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
If only there was a ride that celebated movies from all types genres. A place where you could add some of these properties that don’t really fit in the parks as a stand alone attraction. That would be a great ride of movies! 🤔
I know right? Disney should've keep the Great Movie Ride and put Runaway Railway in Animation Courtyard.
 

Bocabear

Well-Known Member
You are, but I just remembered Luigi’s Flying Tires was a thing, which admittedly did last longer than Limo, but still wasn’t around for very long.
but it's removal was due mostly to mechanical and engineering problems...it was an experiment that didn't quite work... And there were always lines for it... IP, style and look of the ride were solid, it was the actual mechanics of the ride system.
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
Could Disney actually build that Alien shooter ride in tomorrowland like they were going to do many years back?

Looks at avatar....

1581809513011.png
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom