Rumor Hollywood insiders say there's growing tension at Disney as CEO Bob Chapek chafes at Bob Iger's 'long goodbye'

[RSoxNo1]

You could to an extent, but are there really any of those? I'm sure they're out there, but other than a handful of book report dark rides (which people generally complain about), they usually aren't just a repeat of the film.

The bigger issue, though, is that games are already interactive. If you built a Skyrim/Elder Scrolls land, e.g., it's almost definitely going to be less interactive than the video game already is, so what's the real draw? It's also essentially generic high fantasy, but that's a separate issue.

Also, most games don't have anywhere near the fan base of a blockbuster film. Video games make a tremendous amount of money as an overall medium, but individual games aren't generally on the same level as a major movie. Minecraft is supposedly the highest selling game of all time with over 200 million copies, and nothing else is even close. But that still pales in comparison to a film like Avengers: Endgame, which sold something like 400 million tickets at the box office plus all of the additional people who saw it later at home.

You're just casting a much wider net with film IP (and likely TV/streaming as well, although it's harder to get numbers for that) than you are with video game IP.

I'd also make the point that I was amongst the critical voices on the Mario Kart attraction in Japan. I have not experienced it personally and that may negate my opinion of it, but first hand reviews weren't exactly earth shattering either. To take an element that is interactive in 2 dimensions and make it interactive in 3 dimensions is an incredibly difficult task. What is more achievable is making it a more passive experience in 3 dimensions. I believe that should have been the move.

This problem is not exclusive to video games either. Any time you're adapting one type of media to another, you're going to run into snags.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

We've long said on here that the IP driven attractions are primarily for a year one marketing push. If the attraction is lousy, word will get out and the demand will drop.

Lilo and Stitch fans weren't booking vacations to WDW based solely on the attraction.

Generally speaking you are correct…or should be

But in either a completely ingenious or completely stupid strategy: TWDC has insulated themselves by allowing the attendance grow past ride capacity.

So it doesnt really what the IP or The suckiness of the rides are. It’s the reason there have been stupid lines for mine train (and slinky dog) for 10 years…now for a fee.

There just isn’t enough for the prices they charge and people “feel it” more than they verbalize it.

Ingenious…I think?

 

[UNCgolf]

We've long said on here that the IP driven attractions are primarily for a year one marketing push. If the attraction is lousy, word will get out and the demand will drop.

Lilo and Stitch fans weren't booking vacations to WDW based solely on the attraction.

It really doesn't matter if games are interactive in my opinion. A lot of people love video games and they love rides. And to get the chance to become part of your favorite game, is something a lot of kids, and adults, will love. Something like Minecraft will get people super excited, just like Pokemon, Mario or Sonic... So in my opinion, video games and rides are a perfect mix.

Regardless of whether you think games translate well into rides (I don't think they do for the most part -- I've played a ton of video games and I cannot think of a single one where I'd be dying for a ride), the biggest issue is that video games don't have the customer base necessary for a big marketing push. As an overall medium, video games are tremendously popular. Individual video game IPs, however, aren't even close to major IPs from other media.

If Disney had their own video game IP to use, it might be worth pursuing, but it would make very little sense for them to pay to license video game IP when they still have numerous non-video game IPs with a larger marketing base.

Pokemon is kind of its own thing, by the way, because it's a cross-media franchise and a significant percentage of its customer base doesn't play the games and didn't become a fan because of them. Nintendo is really the only collection of major video game IPs that would be a marketing fit and Universal already has them (and Pokemon is tied to Nintendo anyways).

 

[Brer Oswald]

I really can't see it. How would they translate Pokemon into a theme park environment in a way that's compelling, interactive and completely different from anything already offered. You can already play PokemonGo at Disneyland (and mostly for free).

Pokémon Go isn’t really a great translation of how Pokémon is supposed to work. Besides, physical locations and physical Pokémon animatronics are always going to beat the corny graphics on the phone. Plus, think of all the merch sales.

Pokemon is a bit weird because it's split into so many different fan bases. There are people who only play the video games, and there are people who only care about the cartoon, and there are people who only play the card game. And then there are people who just buy Pikachu merch because they think it's cute (Hello Kitty gets a bunch of this money too) and don't actually care about Pokemon at all outside of that; certainly not to where they'd care even a little bit about a Pokemon land at a theme park.

I get the feeling it would not be as valuable to theme parks as something like Harry Potter. It's obviously large enough to have value, though.

The cartoon and the game aren’t that far apart from each other in terms of characters and locations. But there’s definitely a division between fans that keep up with the series, and fans that only really care about the particular generation they grew up with. But that’s the beauty of Pokémon. From 25 years ago, up into the likely far distant future, different generations will grow up with different sets of Pokémon. So as long as you represent all of the generations, you’ve got a theme park area that will appeal to the nostalgia of a wide variety of age groups.

 

[Brer Oswald]

I'd also make the point that I was amongst the critical voices on the Mario Kart attraction in Japan. I have not experienced it personally and that may negate my opinion of it, but first hand reviews weren't exactly earth shattering either. To take an element that is interactive in 2 dimensions and make it interactive in 3 dimensions is an incredibly difficult task. What is more achievable is making it a more passive experience in 3 dimensions. I believe that should have been the move.

This problem is not exclusive to video games either. Any time you're adapting one type of media to another, you're going to run into snags.

They absolutely could have done a passive Super Mario ride, and it probably would have been hailed as the next Forbidden Journey. I respect what they did with Mario Kart. I don’t think you can have Mario Kart without the items, and the way they integrated the physical sets with the AR was more ambitious than I expected.

Personally, I would’ve done a big Mario Galaxy E ticket dark ride that was a passive experience, and Mario Kart as an interactive C ticket that focused more on the competitive racing than it being a dark ride. But I’m not a theme park attraction designer, so what do I know?

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Maybe I’m looking too far into the future. I look at the top grossing media franchises. Pokémon is number 1 by a pretty large margin. Super Mario is number 6, and is sure to grow once the movie comes out. Harry Potter and Spider-Man are not far behind.

On the flip side, Mickey Mouse, Winnie the Pooh, and Star Wars are 3, 4 and 5. But like you said, how many of Disney’s IP have been left better as a result of Iger’s tenure? The one is the MCU, not any of their top 3. Pooh in particular has been completely forgotten by the company.

Universal really has to go big with Pokémon. If they nail it though, I think it’s game set match for “IP Wars”.

I'm really puzzled by the notion Disney's big risk is being left behind in the "IP wars". They don't own literally everything that is popular... but close enough.

 

[UNCgolf]

From 25 years ago, up into the likely far distant future, different generations will grow up with different sets of Pokémon. So as long as you represent all of the generations, you’ve got a theme park area that will appeal to the nostalgia of a wide variety of age groups.

I think that's unlikely -- there's a better chance that Pokemon no longer exists (or at least is just a small niche interest) in 25-30 years than it maintains or exceeds its current level of popularity -- but that has very little to do with Pokemon itself and more to do with general trends. It's incredibly difficult for anything to stay popular for decades and decades; there's usually something new that comes along and pushes it to the background.

That may already be happening, actually. I have nieces and nephews that are 12 and under and none of them or any of their friends are into Pokemon. They all play Fortnite and have dabbled in Minecraft, though. I don't think Pokemon is in any danger of going anywhere anytime soon, but it's not inconceivable that it's already near or at its popularity height from people who grew up with it when it was relatively new.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm really puzzled by the notion Disney's big risk is being left behind in the "IP wars". They don't own literally everything that is popular... but close enough.

Yeah…I think that’s overstated.

Their problem in parks (IMHO) is falling behind on innovation, investment and capacity as they spend long periods analyzing how to repackage and reprice a slate of old options.

You know why I think that? Because Bob authorized 5 new things at once for wdw after he did what amounts fo nothing for 10 years prior. He was scared of something…

 

[MisterPenguin]

Y'all know that there's a growing... uneasiness... with an IP that is based on making animals fight one another, right? If I had stock in that IP, I'd be cashing out now.

 

[UNCgolf]

Y'all know that there's a growing... uneasiness... with an IP that is based on making animals fight one another, right? If I had stock in that IP, I'd be cashing out now.

That's another factor that goes along with what I posted above.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Y'all know that there's a growing... uneasiness... with an IP that is based on making animals fight one another, right? If I had stock in that IP, I'd be cashing out now.

There are two tangents here (not the dr strange tower idea)…

That video game IP is a winner in parks…which is far from certain and especially for Disney…

…and that you can continue to mine popular IP away from the “center” of it. There are limits and over saturation too.

A Nintendo world is definitely going into the third gate at UOR…and they may even throw a curve and replace a decayed part of the other two for a jolt…

And it will be well received. Would Disney need to counter or even consider it? Probably not.

 

[Tha Realest]

There are two tangents here (not the dr strange tower idea)…

That video game IP is a winner in parks…which is far from certain and especially for Disney…

…and that you can continue to mine popular IP away from the “center” of it. There are limits and over saturation too.

A Nintendo world is definitely going into the third gate at UOR…and they may even throw a curve and replace a decayed part of the other two for a jolt…

And it will be well received. Would Disney need to counter or even consider it? Probably not.

Yes, but I think they run the risk of losing the next / future generations of consumers by standing on the sidelines when it comes to gaming. As we’ve discussed, that’s where so many kids are focused, not conventional kids shows on Disney Channel. It’s tough because there’s a high risk involved in the gaming space, and audiences can be fickle and very niche. But it feels like there giving up on a huge potential base of future consumers.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Yes, but I think they run the risk of losing the next / future generations of consumers by standing on the sidelines when it comes to gaming. As we’ve discussed, that’s where so many kids are focused, not conventional kids shows on Disney Channel. It’s tough because there’s a high risk involved in the gaming space, and audiences can be fickle and very niche. But it feels like there giving up on a huge potential base of future consumers.

Disney and Comcast - as far as parks go -
Seem to be in different phases. Comcast sees expansion as a necessity and seems to enjoy it. Very reminiscent of the 90’s down the road.

Disney is “over it” by my estimation…the management has no attachment to its product and legacy beyond what it can yield in dividends…so they appear not to have much of a concern for the future. I think a big reason for iger’s ip obsession is so they can sell themselves off to a big tech when they feel it’s convenient.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Disney and Comcast - as far as parks go -
Seem to be in different phases. Comcast sees expansion as a necessity and seems to enjoy it. Very reminiscent of the 90’s down the road.

Disney is “over it” by my estimation…the management has no attachment to its product and legacy beyond what it can yield in dividends…so they appear not to have much of a concern for the future. I think a big reason for iger’s ip obsession is so they can sell themselves off to a big tech when they feel it’s convenient.

I don't want to over-romanticise what is going on at Disneyland Paris, but I have been very interested to watch the contrast in how they have approached the 30th there versus WDW and their 50th anniversary. In many ways, WDW has gone bigger with Harmonious and Enchantment. There doesn't seem much passion in it, though. The 50 gold statues, for example, were so weirdly handled both in the selection of characters and not really being 50 statues. The way they handled the actual anniversary will also likely go down as one of the grimmest 'celebrations' in Disney's history, with the top executives giving speeches to the press the night before and then doing almost nothing to mark the actual anniversary itself for the paying guests the next day. The live coverage on YouTube of people wandering around waiting for something to happen was quite something!

In Paris, they really seem to have a lot of affection for the resort and are putting a lot of effort into bringing it into its own now that they have the debt monkey off their back. The decorations and 'wind garden' are kind of unusual, but fittingly French and look like someone actually thought about, designed, and put them together. That is a big difference from the gold statues. They also seem to have integrated the attractions a lot more into the decorations for the anniversary, the new song is far more memorable than whatever WDW's 50th song is, and they're pushing ahead with refurbishments of attractions and lands to make sure everything is top show quality. The castle was even just recently restored by craftspeople who usually work on historical monuments and was the subject of a tv documentary in France. Compare that to the salmon paint job given to Cinderella Castle.

More and more, it really seems like whoever is running the parks and resorts in the US doesn't have a feel for their own product. The latest example of that is the apartment block going up in the Polynesian.

 

[WDWJoeG]

I don't want to over-romanticise what is going on at Disneyland Paris, but I have been very interested to watch the contrast in how they have approached the 30th there versus WDW and their 50th anniversary. In many ways, WDW has gone bigger with Harmonious and Enchantment. There doesn't seem much passion in it, though. The 50 gold statues, for example, were so weirdly handled both in the selection of characters and not really being 50 statues. The way they handled the actual anniversary will also likely go down as one of the grimmest 'celebrations' in Disney's history, with the top executives giving speeches to the press the night before and then doing almost nothing to mark the actual anniversary itself for the paying guests the next day. The live coverage on YouTube of people wandering around waiting for something to happen was quite something!

In Paris, they really seem to have a lot of affection for the resort and are putting a lot of effort into bringing it into its own now that they have the debt monkey off their back. The decorations and 'wind garden' are kind of unusual, but fittingly French and look like someone actually thought about, designed, and put them together. That is a big difference from the gold statues. They also seem to have integrated the attractions a lot more into the decorations for the anniversary, the new song is far more memorable than whatever WDW's 50th song is, and they're pushing ahead with refurbishments of attractions and lands to make sure everything is top show quality. The castle was even just recently restored by craftspeople who usually work on historical monuments and was the subject of a tv documentary in France. Compare that to the salmon paint job given to Cinderella Castle.

More and more, it really seems like whoever is running the parks and resorts in the US doesn't have a feel for their own product. The latest example of that is the apartment block going up in the Polynesian.

His name is "Josh".

 

[erasure fan1]

Regardless of whether you think games translate well into rides (I don't think they do for the most part -- I've played a ton of video games and I cannot think of a single one where I'd be dying for a ride), the biggest issue is that video games don't have the customer base necessary for a big marketing push. As an overall medium, video games are tremendously popular. Individual video game IPs, however, aren't even close to major IPs from other media.

I'm not sure why you think this. Minecraft has sold 238 million copies and the sonic games are well over 100 mil. Now granted, a lot of the top franchises are more mature titles but there are plenty of titles that are majorly recognizable by huge portions of the population. I don't think anyone is advocating a video game 5th gate or really even a whole land. But embracing the medium would be a smart move.

 

[UNCgolf]

I'm not sure why you think this. Minecraft has sold 238 million copies and the sonic games are well over 100 mil. Now granted, a lot of the top franchises are more mature titles but there are plenty of titles that are majorly recognizable by huge portions of the population. I don't think anyone is advocating a video game 5th gate or really even a whole land. But embracing the medium would be a smart move.

Minecraft is the best selling video game of all time by over 100 million copies; it's an outlier. Aggregating multiple games across an IP franchise doesn't make sense because it's often the same people buying every new version (this is true of movie franchises too -- it doesn't make sense to combine the ticket sales for Infinity War and Endgame as though they are independent events, e.g.).

Even Minecraft doesn't compare, though. 238 million copies is a lot, but big blockbuster films sell 300+ million tickets, and then get millions more new views via rental, home purchase, etc.

Most games, even the biggest ones, don't sell more than a few million copies -- Skyrim, which is one of the best selling games ever, has roughly 30 million sales. That's a drop in the bucket compared to blockbuster films.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Minecraft would be great in WDW. We already have the giant boxes!!

 

[IanDLBZF]

I think a deal with SEGA would be even more beneficial.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Minecraft is the best selling video game of all time by over 100 million copies; it's an outlier. Aggregating multiple games across an IP doesn't make sense because it's often the same people buying every new version.

Even Minecraft doesn't compare, though. 238 million copies is a lot, but big blockbuster films sell 300+ million tickets, and then get millions more new views via rental, home purchase, etc.

Most games, even the biggest ones, don't sell more than a few million copies -- Skyrim, which is one of the best selling games ever, has roughly 30 million sales. That's a drop in the bucket compared to blockbuster films.

Generally speaking…it’s very difficult for large segments of the population to allocate the time to engage in gaming. And most that do still fall in small “baskets” of demographics

Movies/tv are much easier to enjoy for most of the consumers