sedati
Well-Known Member
Wow.
I don't expect to see Charlie Tuna in Frozen or Captain Crunch in Soul.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
EPCOT Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
I don't expect to see Charlie Tuna in Frozen or Captain Crunch in Soul.
sedati
Well-Known Member
Well let's see how many of their sponsors keep at it ten years in.
Let's see how dated the content becomes ten years in.
Let's see how long their lines are ten years in.
Let's see if they start grabbing up some IP ten years in.
TikibirdLand
Well-Known Member
My favorite souvenir of that ad campaign was a tiger tail that you attached to your filler cap. Seemed like everyone had one back then. I remember that exit queue. It never made me say, I better buy their gas even though it's more expensive. Indeed, we put more Shell in our tank than anything back then. Didn't bother me that the tail was on the tank filler though
Sharon&Susan
Well-Known Member
Or perhaps Burger King in Iron Man?
Disney+ Adds Paid Product Placement Warnings
Disney+ added paid product placement warnings to some of its titles, including Marvel Cinematic Universe movies like Avengers: Endgame.
www.cbr.com
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
I believe the point is that your definition of what represents "Disney" is absurdly arbitrary. Which is something you have in common with modern Disney management.
SSE is in my top 5, and that’s putting it mildly.
sedati
Well-Known Member
That's interesting. I guess the parks should follow through with a similar warning.Or perhaps Burger King in Iron Man?
Disney+ Adds Paid Product Placement Warnings
Disney+ added paid product placement warnings to some of its titles, including Marvel Cinematic Universe movies like Avengers: Endgame.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I'd find it hilarious if the Main Street Confectionary had a big "this shop contains product placement" right underneath the sign.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
I agree, the park sorely lacks a major draw. There are a lot of fine attractions. All the more evident in the LL+ days and because of the catch up DHS/AK have undergone.
I too very much like SSE and too think it is very possible for some (not all) people to simply not have an Epcot attraction on their top ten list. I just think it's nearly impossible for anyone to say that about the other three parks with a straight face.
Even if someone doesn't like FoP or Rise... there is still Everest / Tower of Terror OR Kilimanjaro / Mickey that probably will cover the broader array of tastes.
Guardians needs to be that attraction, otherwise this overhaul is not going to have the effect they are desiring
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
I think "Hidden Mickeys" has become such a thing in Disney fan circles that any given project (movie or otherwise) actually IS expected to have them.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Looking forward to "Petoria: World of Family Guy" coming to World Showcase. Based on the hit Disney+ show!
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
I mean, I think there is a real chance Ice Age shows up somewhere. Disney does not understand that they are running a multiplatform transmedia entertainment juggernaut. They think they are running a movie studio with some bits hanging off. It's Trickle Down IP-Nomics - all IPs come from film and roll downhill to parks, TV, streaming, etc. It's a shockingly stupid understanding of the industry from the company that has hit Pirates of the Caribbean and Jungle Cruise film franchises and is rushing Haunted Mansion through development, a company that is reaping the benefit of the MCU, the most successful film franchise in history all based on characters and stories developed by the absolutely miniscule comic industry, but it's real. It also seems to be one of the reasons Disney has always struggled to grasp The Muppets.
Last edited:
flynnibus
Premium Member
Well.. obviously attractions need to be good if people want to look back decades later and still call them good. I think that's a bit of a 'duh' kind of line saying 'IP alone only does so much'. Obviously
BUT, take the inverse of your postulate. If you have a bad original attraction, and a bad IP based attraction... who is gonna get more clicks? You're still more likely to pull more with the IP because of the built in draw. People crave the familiar - people need less convincing to try if you throw them a line of 'its the stuff you like!'.
When trying to say 'how can we build a great attraction' - no one is looking for IP to carry the bag alone.
I get that.. but it's also an uphill fight and generally when it comes to fixed attractions Disney is aiming for cycles that are 5-10+ years plus. So it's not like this is some 'baby step' kind of ask. Add in you are paired with a content factory that is pumping out new candidates all the time. So you have a pretty reliable headwind of stuff people would like to see represented too...
This is why smaller more agile concepts like the in-park treasure hunt stuff could be better grounds for this kind of stuff.
I mean.. I'm sure we all want to see the next Space Mountain or BTMRR... but given the opportunity to use IP... why wouldn't they?
In Disney theme parks the currency is time. People are still pushing themselves and don't have a ton of slack.. so things still need to fight to get their attention and commitment.
Disney just has so little downside to trying to use their own content for stuff.. they'll stick it on even if it wasn't there from the idea genesis.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
Right, this is why I've referenced Frozen Ever After a couple of times. It's not a very good attraction, but because people love the Frozen IP it gets relatively long waits -- that's partially because of its low capacity, but as I said above, it's not as though Maelstrom got similarly long waits so someone can't claim it's solely due to the low hourly capacity.
IP is a great way to prop up a mediocre attraction. It won't save an attraction people just don't like (Little Mermaid is often close to a walk-on even at busy time, and although it's an omnimover with higher capacity, Disney certainly expected longer waits or they wouldn't have built the queue they built), but from a Disney business standpoint, a mediocre IP attraction is absolutely a better investment than a mediocre non-IP attraction.
It's certainly one of the reasons the IP mandate exists. Overall quality is less of a concern when the IP alone can draw people to an attraction. And no, I'm not suggesting they're going to intentionally build mediocre attractions -- just that it's a safety net.
If I was running Disney parks in the current corporate environment solely from a business perspective, I'd probably have the IP mandate too. There's just no real downside to it in the short term, especially when the goal is quarterly growth. Any potential long-term issues (which are less about the IP mandate and more about other quality issues throughout the parks anyways) would likely not be my problem.
Last edited:
sedati
Well-Known Member
Selling a product and product placement are different. Something like the previously mentioned RCA post show or the Country Bears using Pepsi's tag, "We've got a lot to give," isn't selling you a Pepsi or RCA product- you/the audience are actually the product they paid for.
Last edited:
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
As you point out, IPs can create a safety net - but they can quickly become a crutch instead. More dangerously, IPs become the focus rather then the ride itself - the impetus to action shifts from, "We want to build a ride that skillfully and uniquely marries theme and experience and fits in EPCOT" to "We want to put something showy based on Guardians somewhere." The IP becomes the point. Disney would NEVER have built something like Avengers Campus without a fixation on exploiting an IP and a determination that the IP would make up for the absolutely awful land.
The focus on film as the only legitimate creator of IPs also hamstrings the whole company. A corporation constructed like Disney should be constantly feeding IPs created in one media to the other divisions. The parks - which, along with animation is and will remain THE center of the brand - should not just be using IPs but creating original ones that can be filtered to other divisions. Thus, original IPs developed because they fit the theme of a land or enable the Imagineers to create an intriguing experience can be repurposed for other divisions.
Oddly, I think Universal's relative lack of IPs helps them. Having to rely on sometimes comically outdated properties like Bourne or The Blues Brothers or American Graffiti can allow the experience to take priority over the IP. The Bourne Stuntacular is a really cool attraction because its a really cool attraction that uses new technology in a new way - the IP is strictly secondary.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I'm aware of what product placement is.
The new Main Street Confectionary is straddling that line with the Mars partnership. They're not just selling bags of Mars candy, they've included it in every single item they make (I think -- there may be a few exceptions). Even the cookies and cupcakes have some kind of Mars candy; you can't just buy a regular cupcake. It's going to have Snickers or Skittles on it.
It's certainly not standard product placement, and there's probably a better term, but it's something more than just selling their products.
Last edited:
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
This is why I've mentioned that it may be easier to create a great attraction without IP than one with it, because there are inherent constraints to using an IP.
Of course they can still build great attractions with IP, and have, but there's certain limitations to creative freedom that go hand-in-hand with IP usage.
Last edited:
Those aren't "m&m"s. You're reading them upside down. They're "w&w"s that stands for "Walts World"!
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
I think this is raising an important distinction. I'm in the camp where corporate sponsors and current Disney IP use feel very similar. As I think several of us are alluding to, the question centers on focus. Is the focus the brand or is the focus the experience. From what I'm hearing, many felt like the corporate brands detracted from the experience. That's exactly how I feel about the IP invasion. You're being "sold to" vs. having an experience.
For example, I would guess you could have visited Epcot, hated GM cars and still enjoyed World of Motion or Test Track. Same with Nestle chocolate and Living with the Land. The sponsor model (vs. "brand" model) should allow you to separate the company and its products from the experience. Club Cool, for example, makes that tougher. And I would argue many of the modern Disney additions are falling into that camp. If you aren't 100% bought into the film and its characters, your ability to enjoy the attraction is severely limited. Whereas, something like a Pandora, Splash Mountain or Tower of Terror. The attractions are more attractions - and less product placement.
For example, I would guess you could have visited Epcot, hated GM cars and still enjoyed World of Motion or Test Track. Same with Nestle chocolate and Living with the Land. The sponsor model (vs. "brand" model) should allow you to separate the company and its products from the experience. Club Cool, for example, makes that tougher. And I would argue many of the modern Disney additions are falling into that camp. If you aren't 100% bought into the film and its characters, your ability to enjoy the attraction is severely limited. Whereas, something like a Pandora, Splash Mountain or Tower of Terror. The attractions are more attractions - and less product placement.