News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[Magic Feather]

So, in almost every thread on the board IP is always brought up (as good or bad), but often, heck, as long as I can remember, it's meaning is misconstrued, which often can have in company implications. First off, les look at the dictionary.com definition:

So basically, it is whatever concept is yours. Therefore, when, say Frozen Ever After is built, it is IP based, but back in the 80's, when the fabled Horizons was built... it too was based on an intellectual property. Whenever you say based on an IP, you normally mean, based on a different media source.

This common mess up, really isn't a big deal on the forums, but it can be when corporate makes a similar mistake. This mistake being when it rarely thinks of a theme park attraction as a viable source of media to convert to others. While obvious exceptions can be seen, like with the new Jungle Cruise movie, it is definitely the exception. Believe it or not, a surprising amount of people in the US (not just theme park junkies) Know of things like Space Mountain, Tower of Terror, Jungke Cruise, and even Figment. $DIS isn't seeing that, and it is what is preventing Original IP rides from coming to WDW, instead we get original attractions based on other media.

 

[MisterPenguin]

This common mess up, really isn't a big deal on the forums, but it can be when corporate makes a similar mistake. This mistake being when it rarely thinks of a theme park attraction as a viable source of media to convert to others. While obvious exceptions can be seen, like with the new Jungle Cruise movie, it is definitely the exception. Believe it or not, a surprising amount of people in the US (not just theme park junkies) Know of things like Space Mountain, Tower of Terror, Jungke Cruise, and even Figment. $DIS isn't seeing that, and it is what is preventing Original IP rides from coming to WDW, instead we get original attractions based on other media.

Indeed, it would be more accurate to refer to "pre-existing movie-based IPs" and "newly created IPs for an attraction."

But Disney is a business, and to a corporation, the former is much more attractive than the latter. Not only for the cross promotional synergy and the merch money that flows from that, but also for having unique IPs that are protected from being copied.

Take Pirates of the Caribbean, e.g. There have been hundred of pirate stories that predate movies and hundreds of movies about pirates. When PotC was built as a generic homage to the piratin' life, well, any and every other theme park could do the same thing. The source, Caribbean pirates, is in the public domain. There is nothing stopping Universal from having a pirate-based dark ride and show and coaster and restaurant. However, a PotC ride that features the story and look and feel of the Captain Jack Sparrow series of pirate movies... that is something only Disney can do and no competitor can copy.

Any other competing theme park can have an indoor coaster themed to space; or a ride that is a cruise through the jungle; or an educational ride on the history of communication or the story of energy. Only Disney can have a Guardians coaster.

Disney did something right in creating a new IP that wasn't movie based in Figment and making that an integral part of the attraction. And then they screwed it up badly. Hopefully, they'll finally fix it.

But I don't think the generic ride like Space Mountain (a coaster in space!) will ever be built again. There will always be IP, whether based on something pre-existing (as from the movies) or newly made up (the Storytellers for Rivers of Light), for both the merch and to keep competition from creating a similar generic attraction.

 

[trainplane3]

I've seen the "regular" UoE shirt posted here, but I don't think anyones posted the AP one.

I don't think the regular one has the original UoE logo on the front? Much better than the regular one they're selling. I know which one I'm buying for sure.
Source: https://twitter.com/ORLParkPass/status/893516424001597440

 

[Mike S]

I've seen the "regular" UoE shirt posted here, but I don't think anyones posted the AP one.

I don't thing the regular one has the original UoE logo on the front? Much better than the regular one they're selling. I know which one I'm buying for sure.
Source: https://twitter.com/ORLParkPass/status/893516424001597440

I'd prefer if the Dinosaurs were on the front.

 

[trainplane3]

I'd prefer if the Dinosaurs were on the front.

The regular one is like that and is in brown.

 

[Mike S]

The regular one is like that and is in brown.

And that would've been better in black, lol.

 

[Rider]

I got one today for my brother. It's more blue than black.

 

[Jenny72]

Love these pictures.
Does anyone know if there is a similar phenomenon with the "nostalgia" shirts/caps/etc. at Universal? Like, when Jaws closed or King Kong. I'm sort of assuming that Universal fans aren't really so much concerned about replacing old rides or trying to stay true to a theme....mainly because there isn't really one, and it's better to update to newer movies. I guess I'm assuming that the Universal fan base is pretty much happy with any cool new rides--out with the old, in with the new? Does that seem accurate? Like I said, I'm still pretty new to discussing any of this.

 

[*Q*]

So, in almost every thread on the board IP is always brought up (as good or bad), but often, heck, as long as I can remember, it's meaning is misconstrued, which often can have in company implications. First off, les look at the dictionary.com definition:
View attachment 220875
So basically, it is whatever concept is yours. Therefore, when, say Frozen Ever After is built, it is IP based, but back in the 80's, when the fabled Horizons was built... it too was based on an intellectual property. Whenever you say based on an IP, you normally mean, based on a different media source.

This common mess up, really isn't a big deal on the forums, but it can be when corporate makes a similar mistake. This mistake being when it rarely thinks of a theme park attraction as a viable source of media to convert to others. While obvious exceptions can be seen, like with the new Jungle Cruise movie, it is definitely the exception. Believe it or not, a surprising amount of people in the US (not just theme park junkies) Know of things like Space Mountain, Tower of Terror, Jungke Cruise, and even Figment. $DIS isn't seeing that, and it is what is preventing Original IP rides from coming to WDW, instead we get original attractions based on other media.

Can we please pin this to the top of every page in every EPCOT-related thread?

 

[Thanks phoenicians]

Apparently they are selling merch for Ellen's closing. Just saw some at Epcot. I thought they only announced it for gmr

 

[MaxW]

Apparently they are selling merch for Ellen's closing. Just saw some at Epcot. I thought they only announced it for gmr

the page prior has shirt designs for the merch being released to commemorate the ride.

 

[Kylo Ken]

Came to say my goodbyes

 

[RSoxNo1]

So, in almost every thread on the board IP is always brought up (as good or bad), but often, heck, as long as I can remember, it's meaning is misconstrued, which often can have in company implications. First off, les look at the dictionary.com definition:
View attachment 220875
So basically, it is whatever concept is yours. Therefore, when, say Frozen Ever After is built, it is IP based, but back in the 80's, when the fabled Horizons was built... it too was based on an intellectual property. Whenever you say based on an IP, you normally mean, based on a different media source.

This common mess up, really isn't a big deal on the forums, but it can be when corporate makes a similar mistake. This mistake being when it rarely thinks of a theme park attraction as a viable source of media to convert to others. While obvious exceptions can be seen, like with the new Jungle Cruise movie, it is definitely the exception. Believe it or not, a surprising amount of people in the US (not just theme park junkies) Know of things like Space Mountain, Tower of Terror, Jungke Cruise, and even Figment. $DIS isn't seeing that, and it is what is preventing Original IP rides from coming to WDW, instead we get original attractions based on other media.

That's all well and good, but the general understanding around these parts is that IP based attractions mean, "movie based IP". What Disney has failed to realize is what you just outlined. They can create new intellectual properties that have more name recognition than some of the movies.

Take Tron for example, I suspect that Space Mountain as an intellectual property is worth more to the Disney company than Tron.

The exception I'll make with Tron is that I think a 90 second theme park attraction is a better medium to tell the "Tron story" than a 90 minute movie. The public seems to agree as well.

 

[Mike S]

The exception I'll make with Tron is that I think a 90 second theme park attraction is a better medium to tell the "Tron story" than a 90 minute movie. The public seems to agree as well.

Just like how a 4 1/2 minute ride is a better medium for Bayformers than a nearly 3 hour movie.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Just like how a 4 1/2 minute ride is a better medium for Bayformers than a nearly 3 hour movie.

I disagree. They're both equally incomprehensible.

 

[Tom Morrow]

I disagree. They're both equally incomprehensible.

Transformers the Ride is supposed to be chaotic and confusing. It's a rare instance where Universal's overused style of bombastic chaos on their rides is warranted because it truly feels like being dropped into a Michael Bay movie.

 

[marni1971]

The exception I'll make with Tron is that I think a 90 second theme park attraction is a better medium to tell the "Tron story" than a 90 minute movie. The public seems to agree as well.

The "public" just want shiny rollercoaster with lights.

 

[WDW1974]

The "public" just want shiny rollercoaster with lights.

The public are generally idiots and Disney never used to aim for 'give 'em what they want' ... as you know, it was all about creating attractions, parks and entertainment that they didn't know they wanted or was even possible.

BTW, just sent you an email ... but was the GotG gift card design done as an example of British humour?

 

[Phicinfan]

The "public" just want shiny rollercoaster with lights.

The public are generally idiots and Disney never used to aim for 'give 'em what they want' ... as you know, it was all about creating attractions, parks and entertainment that they didn't know they wanted or was even possible.

I don't think that is totally fair.
I think there are multiple facets going on here...
1) you do have a set group that does just want "roller coasters" or thrill rides
2) you have some who LOVE Disney, and desperately want something new, in a place that has NOT been upkept - put me here
3) you have some that are so defeated by lack of effort to upkeep certain rides, that any thing new or better in that area is a win
4) you have those who are die hard "classic" Disney, and want what was originally designed, but it has to be updated and kept up

The issue isn't the "Public" the issue to me is "Disney."

They made the choice to allow the parks to get where they are at, now they have no choice but to play catch up, and in some cases, catch up means replace.

 

[wannabeBelle]

Disney never used to aim for 'give 'em what they want' ... as you know, it was all about creating attractions, parks and entertainment that they didn't know they wanted or was even possible.

<3 <3 <3 <3 <3