-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
There's no harm if they are balanced with original ideas and are located in a suitable location.
Kman101
Well-Known Member
I don't see the harm in using IPs. I'd prefer a mixture and it would be great to get more 'original' rides, but the outrage at IPs has always been a bit much, but to each their own. If Imagineering had come up with some of this on their own and not based on a movie franchise no one would bat an eye. I don't see the harm *where it makes sense*. (And Guardians is one of those times where it does NOT make sense, and Epcot has a sad history of this pattern. I don't give a flying you know what that Quill "visited Epcot as a kid". When it comes right down to it, that's extremely insulting to us, TBH)
I also don't see the harm of IP's as long as they don't disrupt the themeing of the park or land they're placed in, it's fun to be taken inside the world of a film you love and it can be amazing when it's done right, on a scale that a non IP ride can never truly reach (Diagon Alley without the Harry Potter link is an amazing visual feat but with it it's the stuff that dreams are made of and brought me to tears when I first saw it). On the other end of the scale we have Frozen- perfectly ok ride in absolutely the wrong place, an awful decision whatever way you look at it.
I'm willing to give Guardians of the Galaxy the benefit of the doubt for the moment, if only because I love the films, but unless the themeing is truly spectacularly well thought out, even if it turns out to be an amazing ride, it's absolutely going to be in the wrong park. I get that Hollywood Studios is already in a huge state of flux and they perhaps wanted to add some big draws to EPCOT to even out attendance, but GOTG seems a very strange choice.
I'm not as attached to original EPCOT as most of the people on here, simply because I never saw it in it's heyday and edutainment is far from my thing, but it's sad to see Disney bunging in any old property because it fits the very vague theme of space.
If it's a great ride though I admit I'll have a very hard time actually being upset about it.
I'm willing to give Guardians of the Galaxy the benefit of the doubt for the moment, if only because I love the films, but unless the themeing is truly spectacularly well thought out, even if it turns out to be an amazing ride, it's absolutely going to be in the wrong park. I get that Hollywood Studios is already in a huge state of flux and they perhaps wanted to add some big draws to EPCOT to even out attendance, but GOTG seems a very strange choice.
I'm not as attached to original EPCOT as most of the people on here, simply because I never saw it in it's heyday and edutainment is far from my thing, but it's sad to see Disney bunging in any old property because it fits the very vague theme of space.
If it's a great ride though I admit I'll have a very hard time actually being upset about it.
Jenny72
Well-Known Member
There really is a difference between using IPs that are developed in a park and those that come from the outside. Take Dreamfinder and Figment, for example. You got introduced to them in the ride, and the ride explored their characters (among other things). But the GotG ride is going to take its characters as a given, assuming that you're already familiar with them. That means that when Groot appears, my kids are going to say, 'what the heck is that thing'? You have to refer to something outside the park to fully get the ride in the park. I hate that.
Winter
Well-Known Member
No, they'll know who he is. He'll make sure to say "I am Groot"
danlb_2000
Premium Member
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.
Pretty much this. Something has to be really special today to get out of pre CAR and not have an IP. Burbank has decreed IP based attractions are the saviours of the parks.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Isn't that based on the public desire, though? Really?
I know it's sort of a "what came first, the chicken or the egg" thing, but if Universal had built a land like Potter based on a non-IP, do we really think that people would have flocked there (and continue to flock there) just to see it?
Or, for that matter, given what you know about SWL - which is far more than any of us mortals - would a land like that, as detailed as it is going to be, come even close to attracting the public attention its already gotten, years before it is built, if it were just some newly created "space" IP with unique characters?
The "classic" Disney attractions everyone always goes back to, Pirates and HM, became famous on their own at a time when Disneyland was sparkling new and in and of itself was something novel people wanted to see. No one had ever been to a real theme park before (and let's not forget, the idea of a HM wasn't really "original" itself - the idea of an amusement/theme park having a haunted house is as old as parks themselves).
I know there will be wild disagreement - people will bring up EPCOT, which, honestly, I think follows the same pattern - it was a new concept of a park itself - but I just don't think that can happen today in the same way. I don't see how it would be fiscally responsible for Disney to drop half a billion dollars on a new attraction that wasn't based on something people didn't already have a desire to see or experience.
AK as a park is an example of this. We know that the park did not attract new guests to WDW. "Animals at Disney" didn't do much for folks when there are so many regional zoos where the same animals can be seen (often in greater variety and much more closely).
It's akin to the "Oh, Hollywood won't make original ideas anymore!" complaint. When they do, they often don't do terribly well. People don't care. The movies that bring people out are largely those that are either familiar concepts, familiar properties, or use big stars in some type of formula film. I mean, look at the list of the three last Academy Award Best Pictures - all original properties (and only one had a major star, and even he hadn't had a hit in the past few decades) - can most people even name them? (Spotlight, Birdman, and Moonlight, to save folks looking them up.) Of those, despite the massive publicity of winning the Best Picture Oscar, even Birdman just eeked out 100m. The others less (Moonlight, far less, at 65M).
Theme parks need a hit every time. The reason we won't see "another HM or Pirates" is because they just do not make sense in today's cultural and financial climate. I know these thoughts will be met with vehement opposition by some, but the truth is - 2017 is not 1967. Or 1987. Or even 2007. There is far more competition for the entertainment dollar today, and people just aren't going to spend thousands and thousands of dollars to go on vacation at WDW because of some new attraction that doesn't have a familiar hook to attract them in the first place.
I’d say it’s what the board think the public should like. And for the most part the public don’t know what they want, but it’s made by TWDC so it must be good.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
But what about bringing them to the parks? I think the public knows what will get them to spend money and come, and something they have never heard of (and won't get much media attention for them to even hear about it) isn't going to cut it.
Chris82
Well-Known Member
I don't think people are averse to freshness and novelty - I just think it's MUCH harder to get right. People didn't fall in love with Hamilton hype because it brought back fond memories of their American History 101 class. They loved it for what it was, and it was new, and different, and fresh. Frozen, Moana, the occasional Pixar movie - are all successful despite being new IP. Disney and other big corporations relentlessly pump out more of the same because it's safer, not because it's the only thing people want. But franchises run the risk of being milked dry eventually - people do get tired of things. Nostalgia eventually runs out. So it's important to balance old with new.
It seems pretty clear to me that Disney is not stuffing franchises into parks for the benefit of the parks, but for the benefit of the franchises. Unless you have a black swan IP like Harry Potter, it seems that whether an attraction is NEW matters a lot more to crowd levels than whether it has recognizable characters slapped all over it. I guarantee you that no one is planning a trip to Hollywood Studios because the new roller coaster is shaped like Slinky Dog and not like something else. Pandora doesn't appear to be pulling very many theme park neophytes in, which was predictable enough. Which leads me to believe that the logic is less "The parks need the franchises" so much as the "franchises need the parks." "The park needs something new, but we have to offset the cost of the building somehow - how about we justify the building as part of a broader marketing strategy? Get people more invested in the franchise as a whole, resulting in more Blu-ray and toy sales?" I very much doubt that Pandora, or Toy Story Land, or Seven Dwarfs Mine Train, or Ariel's Extremely Bland Ride Past Dioramas from the Movie, or Stitch's Great Escape, or Mission: Breakout, were largely motivated by a belief that these properties would somehow pull non-theme-park goers into the park the way Potter did (if they were, they were delusional).
Theme parks don't need a spectacular, record-breaking hit every time. They need enough fresh stuff to motivate repeat visits, and to generate interest.
Star Wars and Nintendo, on the other hand, might be the kinds of properties that pull people in at Potter levels, but that'll depend on a lot of factors. I'm not persuaded that Disney's design for Galaxy's Edge will necessarily scratch the same Potter itch. No one wants to go to Batuu or whatever the heck it is in the same way they want to go to Hogwarts or Diagon Alley. But I could be wrong.
Jenny72
Well-Known Member
What does "public desire" really mean, though? It's probably true that people will still come (in droves) if they change every ride to a branded, IP-filled ride. But they'd probably also still come if Disney changed all the restaurants to chains -- the TGIFridays would be full. People will come to Disney because they want a vacation with their family. It's not like there are 10 non-IP parks to compete for the experience.
People accept all the IPs because in 2017, we all expect to be sold to, unrelentingly and all the time. Advertisements on a monorail at the Magic Kingdom? Of course! Why would anyone expect anything else? Advertisements for movies in the parks? Why wouldn't there be?
As for bringing people into the parks, it's impossible to really assess this. Harry Potter and Star Wars, for sure -- but those IPs are so large that they are practically in the public domain. Ratatouille? GotG? I think people will come if those IPs are there, and if they're not.
People accept all the IPs because in 2017, we all expect to be sold to, unrelentingly and all the time. Advertisements on a monorail at the Magic Kingdom? Of course! Why would anyone expect anything else? Advertisements for movies in the parks? Why wouldn't there be?
As for bringing people into the parks, it's impossible to really assess this. Harry Potter and Star Wars, for sure -- but those IPs are so large that they are practically in the public domain. Ratatouille? GotG? I think people will come if those IPs are there, and if they're not.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Well, Hamilton is a Broadway show...and Broadway shows are still pretty niche. My mom has never heard of it, for example.
I'd argue that Pixar/Disney films are a franchise of sorts in and of themselves. People are going to go see Coco because it's a Pixar film. If some no-name company was releasing it, it would be DOA. Disney is unique in this sphere - no one says "I'm going out to see the new Warner Bros. movie this weekend" - but they do say that about Disney/Pixar.
See, that's the basis that I just disagree with, because it doesn't make business sense. I know that is the "online park fan" view, but they aren't spending half a billion dollars on an attraction people are going to spend thousands of dollars to visit so they will go home and spend $10 on a movie ticket or $15 on a Blu-ray. Its not really good promotional investment when only 10-20 million people visit a park in a year, when they can get they can get that many eyes on an ad at the appropriate time for 1% of the cost.
raymusiccity
Well-Known Member
agreed. It's always amusing when adults presume to know what their kids reactions are going to be to a character. There were several sightings of 'Groot' this Halloween. All of the little trick or treater's immediately knew who that character was and were happy to call out 'Hi, Groot'. One of the 4 year olds kept asking if he was real
Kamikaze
Well-Known Member
Yes 'niche'. So 'niche' that solely because of the popularity of the play, the US Treasury switched from taking Hamilton off the $10 to taking Jackson off the $20.
Pixieish
Well-Known Member
Too add to the "they can't do things the same way they did in the 1960s or 1980s" convo (particularly in Epcot), I think they *could* develop attractions that were based on edutainment like they did in the early days - but 1) it would be cost prohibitive to do so and 2) the general public cannot be counted on to have respect for what doesn't belong to them and thus allow it to happen (Tom Sawyer paintbrushes being stolen, for one).
For example, can you imagine a pavilion in Epcot based on robotics where kids could learn about robotics and design their own, possibly sponsored by MIT? Or another pavilion based on learning about physics that featured an area where kids could experiment with how magnetic fields change the behavior of ferro fluid or how different sound frequencies affect the behavior of liquids? There's a ton of non-IP-based learning and entertainment just in those two ideas alone, but the pavilions would be expensive to set up and maintain, and as I said earlier, the public cannot be counted on to treat things that don't belong to them with respect.
Then there's the whole "synergy" thing. My ideas may be super fun and educational, but there's virtually no way to tie them into other areas of the company. Even BTM, Splash, and HM to a degree tie in with a handful of Disney films, even if just by thematic qualities.
For example, can you imagine a pavilion in Epcot based on robotics where kids could learn about robotics and design their own, possibly sponsored by MIT? Or another pavilion based on learning about physics that featured an area where kids could experiment with how magnetic fields change the behavior of ferro fluid or how different sound frequencies affect the behavior of liquids? There's a ton of non-IP-based learning and entertainment just in those two ideas alone, but the pavilions would be expensive to set up and maintain, and as I said earlier, the public cannot be counted on to treat things that don't belong to them with respect.
Then there's the whole "synergy" thing. My ideas may be super fun and educational, but there's virtually no way to tie them into other areas of the company. Even BTM, Splash, and HM to a degree tie in with a handful of Disney films, even if just by thematic qualities.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Oh Gosh, I wasn't ragging on Hamilton. People get so defensive...
The audience for a Broadway show, any Broadway show, isn't really a great example - Broadway shows themselves are niche.
But if you want to talk Broadway, go look at a list of the top grossing Broadway shows of all time and look how many of them are either based on movies, based on existing stories, or jukebox musicals based on a single source of music. Oh look! The top broadway musical of all time - The Lion King, based on the Disney Film. Beauty and the Beast and Mary Poppins are in the top 10, too.
I'd agree with this, Harry Potter and Star Wars are huge culturally important IP's with millions of fans worldwide, the inclusion of a land for either is the sort of thing that people base their whole trips around, but the smaller stand alone IP rides gain nothing from being an IP. IP lands to me make an awful lot of sense because you can attract fans with the idea of spending a prolonged amount of time inside their favourite media. IP lands aren't just about the rides, they're about the streetscape and the experience and the exclusive merchandise. When the IP is limited to a single ride the 'experience' is lost and people are hardly any more likely to base a new trip on their inclusion than they would be to base a trip on any new ride.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Well, with Epcot in particular - that's kind of the rub.
If kids want to experiment with and build their own robotics, they can do that at home now, with a Disney product no less (though there are many others). The second one, is something that any regional science museum can do. Especially with how we share information today, and how quickly it changes, Epcot would have a very difficult time doing anything more than bland generic stuff in the "edutainment" field.
Not to mention, how controversial things are today. There just isn't a topic they can cover that isn't somewhat controversial in some circles, or at least has something dynamic about it that could out date an attraction really quickly. It just doesn't make a lot of sense in today's world, unfortunately.
