Interview with Bob Iger about the Parks

Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
TwilightZone said:
Yes, that's why there is an arguable next to it. While it is just mission space without spinning, the new film recently added to it does make it kind of count as a new experience.
Click to expand...

I’m not disagreeing with you. But the iger IP dependence is still clear. He hasn’t broken ground on anything domestically that isn’t IP dependent and/or a clone. And has converted things to IP dependent that were not originally.

I don’t have a hardline stance on either plan...but I do always point out that IP gets stale much more quickly...either looking obsolete over time or requiring more money to redo.
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
peter11435 said:
Yes actually.

But that’s not how I know.
Click to expand...

How ya know, Joe? Insider vlogger stuff? I love that - please share.

peter11435 said:
Just laughing at your ridiculous ill-informed post.

That’s all.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely nothing to back up your claim...nor do I. It’s a gut feeling...so we shouldn't debate. If you want to look at the sales trends for the property - however - that is “arrow down” for several years...reception of product and performance of released material.
 
Kevin_W

Kevin_W

Well-Known Member
Kman101 said:
It really feels like some just can't believe people want IP in the parks. We are a vast minority. But I also feel like Iger and others don't quite understand that non-IP can work too. It doesn't really even need to be one or the other. Both can equally and do exist. It's not hard. And when I say I "get" their strategy, I do (and it doesn't mean I endorse it). Look at Pixar Pier. I'm pretty sure it's at least a little bit more popular now than it was, as hard as that is to believe. I know it's hard, but you're right, he's not incorrect.
Click to expand...

I just rode the Incredicoaster for the first time this weekend... and I enjoyed it. I actually liked it more than California Screamin. So while in general I don't think IP needs to be everywhere, at least for some of us it can be done right.
 
RSoxNo1

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
twebber55 said:
and how is that working out for Disney?
i agree with you Tim but execution is what im after not IP or Non IP
Click to expand...
Quality should always win out, but thematic integrity is a HUGE part of quality. Execution of IP based lands like Cars Land and Pandora show what can be done, but so too does Africa.

Perhaps it's my cockiness, but I feel given the budgets for EPCOT that myself and a handful of others on this forum (looking at you @marni1971) could come up with an appropriate blending of IP and original concepts that would work as a true new direction for EPCOT. What Disney has announced for the park up to this point, and what they've done to date is problematic. It shows a true lack of understanding on what makes theme parks work.

The worst situations are when they try to retrofit an IP into an existing attraction. IncrediCoaster and Up a Great Bird Adventure are the most recent examples, but things like Frozen Ever After and The Seas with Nemo and Friends do a disservice to the IPs themselves and Epcot.

I'm asking them to be better at what they do and in my mind that includes thematic integrity and an appropriate blending of IP vs non-IP based attractions.
 
RSoxNo1

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
Conno said:
The same argument can be made for a non-IP land. The difference is perhaps there is less of an expectation with a non-IP land.
Click to expand...
This is part of it. When you go into an IP based attraction or land you have certain expectations for that land to be satisfied. On a Frozen ride for example, you want to hear Do You Want to Build a Snowman and Let it Go, after that you're willing to accept other short comings.

IP prays on familiarity over quality. It doesn't mean the two are mutually exclusive, but they often are.
 
RSoxNo1

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
tigerlight said:
Are you joking? Putting $2 BILLION dollars into properties that are more-or-less mature businesses (and in DL's case extremely overcrowded) is a gigantic risk!!
Click to expand...
This is outdated thinking.

When Iger took over he and Jay Rasulo operated as if the parks were a mature business. A variety of factors headlined by the success of Harry Potter (but also television's/ESPN's shortcomings) led them to understand that not only are the parks NOT mature, they are a cash cows that still need to be fed and milked. This time of rapid growth at WDW is them playing catchup for doing so little in the first 8 years of the Iger administration. If they believed the parks were mature they wouldn't be pouring this much money into them.

They're willing to spend money and I applaud that, but I maintain that in some areas they're not spending it correctly. Myself and others have called them out on similar poor spending decisions. The fan base is certainly not infallible, but there is a group of reasonable fans that I often side with that have been 100% correct on Disney's recent spending mistakes. (Looking at you @marni1971)

The biggest recent example here is Next Gen. While it certainly has it's benefits, the cost far outweighs what it produced. So many people are quick to play Monday Morning Quarterback, but myself and others have been calling Disney out for having a poor game plan on Saturday rather than Monday.
 
Last edited:
World_Showcase_Lover007

World_Showcase_Lover007

Well-Known Member
tigerlight said:
Yet oddly appropriate because he reports to the Stockholders, who own the company - the majority of which are mutual funds, retirement accounts, etc.
Click to expand...

Yet inappropriate as this approach can be bad for long term stability, growth and overall guest satisfaction.

I don’t believe that executives have a fiduciary duty to shareholders to drive up stock prices, but I am in the minority in this. I believe executives are beholden only to improving the company itself or stabilizing growth.

If people want stock, they should buy it; if they don’t want stock, they should sell it. Shareholders might technically own the company and direct executives, but they only have their shortsighted interest in mind.
 
D

doctornick

Well-Known Member
Just an idle thought, but we know an India pavilion is being considered for Epcot. Is it possible that there was an idea for a roller coaster for that (not IP tied) that might have been the reason for the reference? Like maybe that found his way to Iger or he heard about it and laughed as squashed the idea and said "they know we're only considering The Jungle Book for a ride, right?"
 

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

Back
Top Bottom