News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

mikejs78

mikejs78

Premium Member
Jenny72 said:
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.
Click to expand...
So I'm guessing you don't like Peter Pan's Flight?
 
Chris82

Chris82

Well-Known Member
RSoxNo1 said:
Still relevant every time I re-post it. Addicted to the Easy Money

In that article, I use the following quote:
As we spend money at the parks on new attractions that are based on known intellectual property and brands, the likelihood of their success is greater. So when we increase Toy Story’s presence or other Pixar presence, when we put Frozen in the parks, when we grow Star Wars presence, which we will do significantly, when we do it with Princess, for instance, you’re going to see, I think, basically better bets being made that pay off, that are more likely to pay off for us than some of the bets that were made in the past. – Bob Iger, Quarter 3, Fiscal Year 2014 Earnings Call
Click to expand...

Oh man, I had forgotten about that quote.

Maybe they really DO believe that franchises make an attraction's success more likely, although that genuinely feels delusional to me. Some of the parks' most spectacular failures - both in terms of guest rating and longevity - have been franchise based. Consider Stitch's Great Escape, the Jack Sparrow and Prince Caspian attractions at DHS, Enchanted Tiki Room Under New Management, Doug Live, and various other come-and-go shows at MGM/DHS. Again, I could be very wrong, but my gut feeling is that either (1) there was some horrifying non-franchise-based failure in their recent history that somehow "taught" them that non-IP rides were dangerous (Mission: Space?), or (2) more likely, they measure attraction success largely by merch sales. Stitch sells more plush than Skippy alone ever did, so Stitch is a "success," even if the ride is almost universally panned, at least on those terms. Given the (general) penny-pinching nature of Disney Parks and Resorts over the last 20 years, I'd still bet on #2.

Although... notice how Iger refers to "when we increase/grow [X franchise's] presence." Is he really talking about making good rides, or is he talking about increasing brand awareness? That's marketing language, not Imagineering language. Maybe I was right the first time - this decision is mostly for the franchises, not for the parks.
 
disneyC97

disneyC97

Well-Known Member
larryz said:
FWIW, they resolve some of the Arandale/Norway tension in the short running with Coco... and I should put "short" in quotes because 20 minutes is kinda long for a short.
Click to expand...
Something in that run time range used to be referred to as a “featurette” like Mickey’s Christmas Carol or Prince and the Pauper which is more fitting IMHO than calling them a short.
 
britain

britain

Well-Known Member
Watching the recent IAAPA panel discussion, Rodhe makes a really good case that execution matters more than whether or not an attraction is based on an IP. Other than some IPs that really don’t apply at all in a theme park setting (I’m trying to think what that would be... the Daddy’s Home franchise?) Joe argues that if the IP originator is a good collaborator, and if WDI does a good job distilling the essence of an IP, then there’s no reason it can’t be a successful attraction.

I don’t care if Disney never creates another attraction not based on some pre-existing IP, I’m just concerned about the impact on the areas where they are putting them.

 
Jenny72

Jenny72

Well-Known Member
"So I'm guessing you don't like Peter Pan's Flight?"

When GotG morphs into a classic piece of children's literature, on par with Peter Pan, Winnie the Pooh, The Velveteen Rabbit, the Wind in the Willows, and Alice in Wonderland, I will welcome it into the parks. Albeit in Fantasyland in the MK.

Again, echoing everything that's been said here -- it's not *just* that they're using outside IP. It's how they're doing it.
 
RSoxNo1

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
britain said:
Watching the recent IAAPA panel discussion, Rodhe makes a really good case that execution matters more than whether or not an attraction is based on an IP. Other than some IPs that really don’t apply at all in a theme park setting (I’m trying to think what that would be... the Daddy’s Home franchise?) Joe argues that if the IP originator is a good collaborator, and if WDI does a good job distilling the essence of an IP, then there’s no reason it can’t be a successful attraction.

I don’t care if Disney never creates another attraction not based on some pre-existing IP, I’m just concerned about the impact on the areas where they are putting them.

Click to expand...

Quality should always win out. Always. Recent news aside, John Lasseter was absolutely correct with his statement.

"Quality is the best business plan." - John Lasseter
 
britain

britain

Well-Known Member
marni1971 said:
It certainly does. And always has. Splash and Tower being a case in point.
Click to expand...


Sure - but the point I take away from this is that since it doesn't matter if it's IP or not, go ahead, make corporate happy and build attractions based on IP. It is not the deciding factor between successful or failed attraction. Don't fight the "anti-IP" battle. Save your ammunition for the "Let's do it right, and make it high quality" debates.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
britain said:
Watching the recent IAAPA panel discussion, Rodhe makes a really good case that execution matters more than whether or not an attraction is based on an IP. Other than some IPs that really don’t apply at all in a theme park setting (I’m trying to think what that would be... the Daddy’s Home franchise?) Joe argues that if the IP originator is a good collaborator, and if WDI does a good job distilling the essence of an IP, then there’s no reason it can’t be a successful attraction.

I don’t care if Disney never creates another attraction not based on some pre-existing IP, I’m just concerned about the impact on the areas where they are putting them.

Click to expand...

Joe is also aware of what his boss is dictating. His body of work is not filled with IP.
 
EricsBiscuit

EricsBiscuit

Well-Known Member
And most of these IP attractions we are getting now aside from a few are not book reports. SWL will have two attractions that take you into the adventure. As did Pandora, Cars Land and GotGMB (latter still a downgrade).
 
marni1971

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
britain said:
Sure - but the point I take away from this is that since it doesn't matter if it's IP or not, go ahead, make corporate happy and build attractions based on IP. It is not the deciding factor between successful or failed attraction. Don't fight the "anti-IP" battle. Save your ammunition for the "Let's do it right, and make it high quality" debates.
Click to expand...
I’ve always said on those boards than an attraction will succeed regardless of IP if it’s a great attraction. The IP can often be the cherry on top. My personal issue is from the direction of nothing but IP/cross promotion attractions and nothing original. There needs to be a fair balance like there used to be.

And of course the shoehorning in of IP based attractions where they don’t belong.
 
Frankiepopsicles

Frankiepopsicles

Active Member
marni1971 said:
I’ve always said on those boards than an attraction will succeed regardless of IP if it’s a great attraction. The IP can often be the cherry on top. My personal issue is from the direction of nothing but IP/cross promotion attractions and nothing original. There needs to be a fair balance like there used to be.

And of course the shoehorning in of IP based attractions where they don’t belong.
Click to expand...

I cannot remember where I read it but someone mentioned that Disney are also kind of considering building Non-IP attractions into their parks any truth to that?
 
Cesar R M

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
AEfx said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Really Useful company would say otherwise with their run of The phantom of the Opera, Cats and others..
 
Cesar R M

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
Incomudro said:
Excellent points.
I can't help but to imagine what it would have been like for some of the criticism and scrutiny of today to have been applied to some of the IP's of yesteryear:
Dumbo represented by a carnival ride.
Alice in Wonderland represented by a teacup spinner.
Mr. Toad represented by a carnival ride with wooden cutouts.
Click to expand...
If they were built like that, they would definitively would deserve the criticism.
But the tech they have at disposal right now its incredible And getting better every year.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom