• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Interview with Bob Iger about the Parks

ChrisFL

Well-Known Member
TLJ was a terrible movie in many MANY ways.

Also, why was Maelstrom bad? I thought it was quite well done for the space and budget it was given. People talk so much about Everest going backwards (Mummy also), but Maelstrom was one of the first that did that, plus the idea that you might go backwards over the waterfall? brilliant
 

TwilightZone

Well-Known Member
I should’ve paid more attention to his Twitter account as it was up, but what was the tweet?
Recreation of the tweet, not word to word:
"Oh yeah, I'm going to create
Captain Marvel Resort
Captain Marvel Ride
ETC."
Basically a jokey tweet poking fun. All with captain marvel attractions.
EDIT:
I think Iger just revealed some of their secret strategies for the parks over the next few years.
 

HMF

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure though that society is as enthusiastic about technology and the future today as it was in the 80s. On top of the masterfully crafted stories, there was a great deal of fascination and hope in the future that permeated world culture. I don't see or feel that today.
Maybe there is little enthusiasm about the future because there are fewer things like EPCOT to inspire hope for the future.
 
Last edited:

DoubleJ21

Well-Known Member
Maybe there is little enthusiasm and the future because there are fewer things like EPCOT to inspire hope for the future.
Perhaps. Right now, I think there's more of an aspiration to limit technology's encroachment into our lives. Or at least this aspiration is regarded as "healthy" by society. If I were an Imagineer and given the responsibility of freshening Epcot while still maintaining its values I would steer clear of consumer electronics, and focus on AI or advancements in medicine, for example.
 

tigerlight

Well-Known Member
TLJ was a terrible movie in many MANY ways.

Also, why was Maelstrom bad? I thought it was quite well done for the space and budget it was given. People talk so much about Everest going backwards (Mummy also), but Maelstrom was one of the first that did that, plus the idea that you might go backwards over the waterfall? brilliant
Nostalgia for the past is a wonderful thing, and commonly associated with older people. Yes, the ride was state-of-the-art in 1989 but 25 years later none of those things represented any sort of brilliance. Disney parks are not museums. What replaced it is the same ride system (so you still get your backwards waterfall) married to state-of-the-art technology and a story literally billions of people now know....

I liked Maelstrom but mostly for the reasons you site: memories of that first time on it. The replacement is vastly more entertaining for the vast majority of people, myself included.
 

twebber55

Well-Known Member
The banshees in the Flight of Passage gift shop have had unforeseen success. Do you think people are shelling out $50 for a puppet toy based off of a recollection of, much less sentiment for, the banshees in the decade-old film? No. It is almost entirely the well-crafted attraction that sells you on a previously unfamiliar character. Flight of Passage is a perfect example of a theme park attraction succeeding as an independent medium of storytelling. It’s hard to fathom that Bob doesn’t understand this. How can one legitimately attribute a ten year old’s GSATs/purchases to a PG-13 film that came and left ten years ago?

Imagineering could create more of these successes if they were given the creative freedom to do so, as they were in the past. The mandated inclusion of IP is often hindering.
to me Avatar was purchased for three reasons
well known IP
This IP adapts well to a theme park environment
To keep people in the park in the evening/night

its success was predicated on Disney going all in on making it successful. Disney did and we now see it as an incredibly success. This has been the point ive made before whether IP or non IP thematic execution matter more than anything else

i simply dont care if a themed land is IP or not as long as it is well done and provides some escapism
 

montyz81

Well-Known Member
And here are all the non-IPs that Iger has somehow overlooked to change to IP...
  • Enchanted Tiki Room
  • Jungle Cruise
  • It's a Small World
  • Country Bear
  • Hall of Presidents
  • Speedway
  • Peoplemover
  • Haunted Mansion
  • Pirates of the Caribbean
  • Carousel of Progress
  • Space Mountain
  • BTM Railroad
  • Living with the Land
  • Spaceship Earth
  • Tower of Terror
  • Astro Orbiter
  • Kilimanjaro Safaris and all the animal exhibits
  • Kali River Rapids
  • Test Track
  • RnRC
  • TriceraTop Spin
  • Primeval Whirl
  • Journey into Imagination
  • Mission Space
C'mon Bob! You don't have much time left to turn all these into Disney Movie IP-based attractions!!
You could also argue that Test Track is based on existing IP from General Motors' Chevy division. That said, there is an attraction in Canada, American Adventure and China that are not based on IPs either.
 

WDW Guru

Well-Known Member
You could also argue that Test Track is based on existing IP from General Motors' Chevy division. That said, there is an attraction in Canada, American Adventure and China that are not based on IPs either.
If you want to argue that, you could say the the RnRC is based on an existing IP in Aerosmith. And don't worry guys, if Iger cant change them into an attraction based on an IP, he will surely turn the name of the attraction into a movie franchise.
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
We talk about these issues like we really know whether most movie IP draws people in, but do we really know whether it does or not? And does Bob Iger, for that matter? It's not clear to me that Avatar is drawing people in because it's Avatar, or that people really want to be immersed in Remy's Ratatouille world or whatever. For my kids, with the exception of a few movies they like, they really don't care whether the ride is themed to a movie or not, and a lot of times they just say "who's that?" when some strange character appears (like the Michelin man guy from Big Hero 6, which they've never seen).

Now, I can certainly accept that the situation is different for other people who want to see Radiator Springs, etc. But I think there's very little way of directly measuring, for instance, whether Expedition Everest would be 24% more popular if it had Moana grabbing you at the top of the mountain or whatever. We can speculate based on our own preferences, but that's about it.

I'm skeptical that Iger really cares about that angle, anyway, despite his response here. I think it's more about promoting the films and selling merchandise rather than making the parks immersive.
I mean, Flight of Passage is a fantastic attraction (screen fatigue aside for some), and it's still getting 2-3 hour waits .... I'd say people are going for it. But I've also argued they could basically open anything and it'd be a hit and have a long line. Anything new will. I think it's just "easier" for them to market. It's a bit lazy. On many levels, I get it. But I wish they'd "get it" ...
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
You could also argue that Test Track is based on existing IP from General Motors' Chevy division. That said, there is an attraction in Canada, American Adventure and China that are not based on IPs either.
I'm sure I'm late to this ... but to be fair, they have no IP they can shove in Canada or America besides the Fab 5, IMO (and no, they shouldn't do that -- or the Muppets, they go anywhere at this point LOL). China could easily use Mulan depending on the new film. Did we get confirmation it would be IP free? We probably did and I missed it.

If Brother Bear had been a bigger hit ...
 

epcotWSC

Well-Known Member
There is value to having IP in the park. As he said there are people who like to go to the parks to experience their favorite IP. There's nothing wrong with that. However, there's also the point that telling original stories in the parks can be very successful. People will flock to whatever is new at the parks and as long as it's done well it will endure. I do think that's one of the big things though. IP based rides can survive into the distant future if they're not top class just due to the allure of the IP (as long as that IP remains popular), whereas a ride that's nothing special that isn't tied to IP will die off fast once the newness wears off. That's the important piece Making something great each and every time, not just average. In the end, as a business man he's leveraging the fact that IP is a safer bet and shares almost the same upside as something that's original.
 
Top Bottom