Interview with Bob Iger about the Parks

[jt04]

That whe article is about building more ip rides, then he bashes an ip ride in it? I dont buy that one bit.

That quote is too specific to be just off the top of the head. He is talking about something. Now, could be a different ride, or could be an inside joke, but its specific enough it is about something. I'm more than willing to believe it is not about everest, but I dont buy it being about an IP ride, and I dont buy it being just off the cuff meaning nothing.

Okay. Maybe he will explain it when he writes a book.

 

[RobbinsDad]

The quality of the attraction will always be more important than the property it's based on. Over time, Galaxy's Edge will keep its legs if the attractions are amazing, regardless of whether or not the Star Wars franchise loses popularity. My one hope is that Iger and Chapek understand this too - popular IP may drive people to the parks initially but quality will keep them coming back.

 

[RSoxNo1]

We understand it's a joke, it's just very out of character for him.

It would be great if he actually did a bit more of this.

The reality of the situation is that he had a line in an article that was questioned by the fan community and he was called out on it. Now by making a joke about it he's attempting to diffuse the backlash. Probably not a bad move to be honest.

Of course as fans, the better move would be for him to approve some D/E-ticket original concepts that better fit into Epcot, but still.

 

[RandySavage]

The quality of the attraction will always be more important than the property it's based on.

Not always. If a better attraction undermines/wrecks the theme of its area, I'd take the lower-ticket or -quality attraction. Kali Rapids is generally regarded as a mediocre ride. But design-wise, Kali harmonizes perfectly with everything around it and so the Land (Asia) and the wider park (DAK) are enhanced to the point of becoming Attractions in themselves - the hallmark of the Disney way. Replace Kali with an out-of-theme-but-better-ride, e.g. Tokyo's upcoming Beauty & the Beast ride, and that effect of the Land/Park being compelling attractions gets shattered.

This concept feels lost on Iger, Chapek and especially the lady who has been running DLP (with Lion King/Frozen going in Frontierland and Philharmagic & Toy Story in Discoveryland).

 

[RSoxNo1]

I thought it was a parody account. Unbelievable.

I suppose it’s okay to be undignified when you’re mocking idiots.

Who are the idiots that he is mocking? Those that called into question the quote? Those questioning thematic integrity? Those complaining about too many IP attractions?

I pretty much agree with everything else in your post, but I think he's mocking what were valid points and the rest of your post supports that view.

 

[DDLand]

Who are the idiots that he is mocking? Those that called into question the quote? Those questioning thematic integrity? Those complaining about too many IP attractions?

I pretty much agree with everything else in your post, but I think he's mocking what were valid points and the rest of your post supports that view.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. The idiots are those who care. He is making fun of those who are watching a very real process of degradation occur at Walt Disney World. Yeah, it might be ridiculous to make 50 Captain Marvel attractions, but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re not unhinged because we want to see great content.

Take Spaceship Earth. A Ray Bradbury creation. The same man who invented modern science fiction created an attraction at Walt Disney World! The idea of recording, disseminating, and organizing information is actually a concept that has only gotten more relevant with age.

We need a forum we can visit to see the very best of ourselves.

But what about the attractions that are being made today? Is Mickey’s Runaway Railway going to become more relevant over time?

That’s not to say there haven’t been good attractions, but even those have included large tradeoffs.

I don’t think he was poking fun at himself. I think he was making fun of his company’s most ardent fans. People who expect creativity. That stings.

Or in other words, [sarcasm on]

 

[Missing20K]

I think he was making fun of his company’s most ardent fans.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That whe article is about building more ip rides, then he bashes an ip ride in it? I dont buy that one bit.

That quote is too specific to be just off the top of the head. He is talking about something. Now, could be a different ride, or could be an inside joke, but its specific enough it is about something. I'm more than willing to believe it is not about everest, but I dont buy it being about an IP ride, and I dont buy it being just off the cuff meaning nothing.

I have a very, very hard time believing that Bob Iger has any familiarity with something like Kingda Ka. Expedition Everest was the first major attraction opening of his tenure and something he has specifically banned.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Okay. Maybe he will explain it when he writes a book.

Whoa whoa whoa. His forthcoming book has already doubled in size once, up to two 3x5 index cards now, how big do you want that thing to be??

"Buy stuff" (flip)
"Push movie IP"

"Merchandising" (flip)
"Synergy"

Not sure many will have time to read more about Iger and his tenure as Disney CEO.

 

[tl77]

You can admire Iger's business acumen and appreciate what the acquisitions of Marvel, Lucasfilm and Fox mean to Disney moving forward, while also criticizing his short-sighted reliance on IP integration within the parks. It's not a package deal.

Hollywood, and movie themed parks by extension, no long focus on "making original classic films" or making things that will stand the test of time, they want stuff that is "disposable" for a lack of a better word. It's all about, franchises, sequels, and reboots now, it's about creating a "recognizable brand" that people will keep coming back to. So something like Star Wars becomes like McDonald's hamburgers or Coca-Cola, something that they know people already love, and something that they can constantly keep selling to public. There is very little risk in that approach, but it's a disposable product.

In terms of attractions they don't seem all that interested in trying to create the next Haunted Mansion, because there is only so much hype you generate around that, but transforming "that boring energy ride" into "Guardians or the Galaxy" is exciting, it's easy to promote and sell merch for, and if in 15 years, if people get bored with the Guardians you can just re-theme the ride again to what ever the most popular ride of 2035 happens to be... it's disappointing to me, but it seems to be working for them for now

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

I think he was making fun of his company’s most ardent fans. People who expect creativity. That stings.

Or in other words, [sarcasm on]

If these types of boards are proof of anything it's that there is NO WAY to make all of these people happy -- more so than with the general population. Same with the "most ardent fans" of Star Wars. And if he catered to the people I think you're talking about and allowed them to dictate parks direction, I suspect the parks would not be doing as well as they are financially -- which does matter.

There can be tremendous creativity in adapting IP to the parks. I despise the movie Avatar and love Pandora -- they hit that theming out of the park IMO. I want creativity -- I just don't bristle at IP being part of that. Many of the self-proclaimed "most ardent fans" seem to.

 

[HauntedPirate]

There can be tremendous creativity in adapting IP to the parks. I despise the movie Avatar and love Pandora -- they hit that theming out of the park IMO. I want creativity -- I just don't bristle at IP being part of that. Many of the self-proclaimed "most ardent fans" seem to.

There can be creativity around it, absolutely. Movie IP can be well-integrated. They simply choose the easy path too often and just shove and shoe-horn it in. And choose the wrong park. Rat or BatB fits in France. GotG taking out UoE... not so much.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If these types of boards are proof of anything it's that there is NO WAY to make all of these people happy -- more so than with the general population. Same with the "most ardent fans" of Star Wars. And if he catered to the people I think you're talking about and allowed them to dictate parks direction, I suspect the parks would not be doing as well as they are financially -- which does matter.

There can be tremendous creativity in adapting IP to the parks. I despise the movie Avatar and love Pandora -- they hit that theming out of the park IMO. I want creativity -- I just don't bristle at IP being part of that. Many of the self-proclaimed "most ardent fans" seem to.

Keeping fans happy is really quite easy. You treat the object of fandom with respect and care. Fans are much more accepting of deviations from the expected if it is done from a place of passion.

Creativity has been completely removed from the top-level decision making process. If Imagineering came up with the unquestionably greatest attraction ever, it would not be considered if it is a new story. Iger claimed Pirates of the Caribbean as his favorite attraction, but he would have never allowed it to be developed, much less actually built.

 

[wdisney9000]

If these types of boards are proof of anything it's that there is NO WAY to make all of these people happy

There are fans who except anything Disney builds and will defend it regardless of its location and/or mediocrity. And then there are fans who would prefer to see attractions that actually add to the theme and concept of the park itself. By catering to this group, the first group is automatically "happy".

 

[spock8113]

It's all semantics: "or is it more about growing ticket prices"
Just ask about "RAISING" ticket prices, don't play that insult-my-intelligence game like so many politicians do.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

There can be creativity around it, absolutely. Movie IP can be well-integrated. They simply choose the easy path too often and just shove and shoe-horn it in. And choose the wrong park. Rat or BatB fits in France. GotG taking out UoE... not so much.

Agree 100%

Keeping fans happy is really quite easy. You treat the object of fandom with respect and care. Fans are much more accepting of deviations from the expected if it is done from a place of passion.

Creativity has been completely removed from the top-level decision making process. If Imagineering came up with the unquestionably greatest attraction ever, it would not be considered if it is a new story. Iger claimed Pirates of the Caribbean as his favorite attraction, but he would have never allowed it to be developed, much less actually built.

I've been hearing that for 15 years on boards. I have no ability to falsify or prove that claim, and am not at all convinced that this is evidenced across the board at WDW at all. There is obviously a shift toward more IP, which I don't think is necessarily bad. The key is in execution and integration, IMO, and I think they've had some hits and some misses. Not nearly as one-sided doom-and-gloom as I read from a set of vocal people online -- all IMO, of course.

There are fans who except anything Disney builds and will defend it regardless of its location and/or mediocrity. And then there are fans who would prefer to see attractions that actually add to the theme and concept of the park itself. By catering to this group, the first group is automatically "happy".

I disagree. I think the two groups you've sketched out here don't reflect the actual customer base. For one thing, "attractions that actually add to the theme and concept of the park" is subjective, and some seem very doctrinaire on this point: there is one "right" thing and anyone who doesn't agree just "doesn't get it" or is reflexively defending anything Disney does. Overly simplistic.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I've been hearing that for 15 years on boards. I have no ability to falsify or prove that claim, and am not at all convinced that this is evidenced across the board at WDW at all. There is obviously a shift toward more IP, which I don't think is necessarily bad. The key is in execution and integration, IMO, and I think they've had some hits and some misses. Not nearly as one-sided doom-and-gloom as I read from a set of vocal people online -- all IMO, of course.

This whole thread is about an interview where he again makes his mandate clear.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

This whole thread is about an interview where he again makes his mandate clear.

And they've had some creative hits (Pandora) and some misses (GotG, IMO) with that "mandate". That's my point.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And they've had some creative hits (Pandora) and some misses (GotG, IMO) with that "mandate". That's my point.

Creativity had nothing to do with their impetus and approval. That is the point you are missing.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Creativity had nothing to do with their impetus and approval. That is the point you are missing.

Set aside that I have no proof to substantiate this... IMO it's in the execution as much as the idea. If the initial idea was "let's build Pandora", I believe that was very much motivated by Potter and bottom line concerns. Precisely WHAT gets built (specific idea + execution) is where hopefully the most creative/innovative draw gets built. And whether creativity was reason 1 or reason 4 for this being approved and well-executed, it happened.

Mixed motivations (creativity, innovation, bottom line $$) is to be expected and I think ideal. We can't ignore the $$ aspect... future investment depends on profitability today.