More IP's in the parks...not the worst idea?

[spacemt354]

Including special purpose performance and films does not stretch the definition to include feature films like Frozen or Guardians of the Galaxy. Disney considers themed entertainment inferior to film and television, and therefore does not consider it appropriate for the introduction of new content. Iger has even spoken about the primacy of established franchises when it comes to the future of the theme parks under his leadership.

You claim the definition is not overly well defined, yet clearly it's defined enough for you to dissect it and exclude what you feel is not under the umbrella of the term 'themed entertainment'

Television/film is entertainment. A genre is an overall theme to said entertainment.

Also edit: I'm glad you've finally taken the conversation back to the original topic. Iger's philosophy with established franchises is indicative that we will see IPs in the parks. As long as they are done effectively, I wouldn't mind seeing more IPs in the parks. (To answer the original question)

 

[lazyboy97o]

You claim the definition is not overly well defined, yet clearly it's defined enough for you to dissect it and exclude what you feel is not under the umbrella of the term 'themed entertainment'

Television/film is entertainment. A genre is an overall theme to said entertainment.

It's not just me that excludes feature films from themed entertainment. You're never going to see a feature film win a Thea Award. The core of themed entertainment is theme parks, but it also includes museums, restaurants, zoos, special venue theaters and more. The fuzziness comes in things like the difference between amusement park and theme park, or when an experience can be deemed "themed" or some of the special venue experiences. Nobody but you is trying to claim feature films as a type of themed entertainment.

 

[spacemt354]

It's not just me that excludes feature films from themed entertainment. You're never going to see a feature film win a Thea Award. The core of themed entertainment is theme parks, but it also includes museums, restaurants, zoos, special venue theaters and more. The fuzziness comes in things like the difference between amusement park and theme park, or when an experience can be deemed "themed" or some of the special venue experiences. Nobody but you is trying to claim feature films as a type of themed entertainment.

That's because nobody cares enough to spend pages debating it except for you and myself.

I don't know what's worse. Debating a definition or debating and acronym

 

[lazyboy97o]

That's because nobody cares enough to spend pages debating it except for you and myself.

I don't know what's worse. Debating a definition or debating and acronym

You are the one who sought to refute my point regarding Disney's theme parks and intellectual property by creating a radical new definition for themed entertainment. We're not quibbling about two established definitions and which is more appropriate. This is not even the pedantic "everything is intellectual property" because once created an original work is instantly intellectual property. You, and you alone, made up a definition to make you point. It's like those who try to expand intellectual property to mean any preexisting concept, no matter how vague, so that concepts like pirates, ghosts, town, or space are magically included as intellectual property. Yes, someone can try to argue that definition until they are blue in the face, but Guardians of the Galaxy shouldn't be in the public domain because rag tag group of heroes has been done before.

 

[copcarguyp71]

Edison also stole most of the inventions he's famous for...stealing must have been what was considered "unrealistic by others"

But it's true. Greatness will never be achieved if you simply follow what everyone else does. You need to step out of the box and make your own path with your own decisions.

Nicola Tesla FTW!!! Sorry to derail....back to the discussion

 

[spacemt354]

When it comes to any creative medium (books, plays, movies, television, theme parks) people are going to point to what they already know when asked about what they want, not create something entirely new.

^ this has been the catalyst for my responses this entire time. We have been talking about two different things.

You are the one who sought to refute my point regarding Disney's theme parks and intellectual property by creating a radical new definition for themed entertainment. We're not quibbling about two established definitions and which is more appropriate. This is not even the pedantic "everything is intellectual property" because once created an original work is instantly intellectual property. You, and you alone, made up a definition to make you point. It's like those who try to expand intellectual property to mean any preexisting concept, no matter how vague, so that concepts like pirates, ghosts, town, or space are magically included as intellectual property. Yes, someone can try to argue that definition until they are blue in the face, but Guardians of the Galaxy shouldn't be in the public domain because rag tag group of heroes has been done before.

I've been talking about entertainment in general that Disney has produced. The word 'theme' being interpreted as anything associated with a certain genre or setting. 'Entertainment' covering anything designed as public amusement.

When discussing themed entertainment, I was associating it with any variety of creative medium, in this case films, since in films there are themes and it's considered entertainment. I did not know that with themed entertainment, you were referring to the TEA. I didn't even know what that stood for until a few minutes ago.

Can you see the crossroads? Doesn't really matter because the topic is mute by this point.

 

[morningstar]

Move away from the fan obsession with whole new lands for every single attraction addition, and you now have room for there to also, even accidentally, be something that can inspire. Would the big Avatar attraction not work in a land about the possibilities of extraterrestrial life? Couldn't Radiator Springs Racers work in Car Land?

My feeling is ... not really. Here is some irony for you. The reason it is difficult to fit rides based on several different current IPs together into a cohesive land is that current IPs are too original. Back in Walt's day, you had themes like western, fairy tale, and sci-fi which had their standard motifs. There might be several different western movies made by different people, but you tend to expect six-shooters, mesas, and cowboy hats. And sci-fi meant rockets with fins and laser blasters. Nowadays, sci-fi can mean a lot of things. The styles of The Matrix, Star Wars, and Avatar wouldn't fit together. Star Wars is a big galaxy of a setting. You can't do it justice with a single ride and its environs.

 

[copcarguyp71]

Including special purpose performance and films does not stretch the definition to include feature films like Frozen or Guardians of the Galaxy. Disney considers themed entertainment inferior to film and television, and therefore does not consider it appropriate for the introduction of new content. Iger has even spoken about the primacy of established franchises when it comes to the future of the theme parks under his leadership.

Another nail in the coffin for our lack of attendance until we see a change in current corporate manifest destiny. I hold on ever so dearly to the memories of our newlywed (1-year) trip from 1996 and work very hard to maintain those memories in my happy place. Let me say I do not want feel to nor do I embrace this feeling in ANY way shape or form in fact I feel rather conflicted between my love for what was and my feelings for what is (or is yet to come).

 

[spacemt354]

Nicola Tesla FTW!!! Sorry to derail....back to the discussion

Derail? Don't worry. The point has been so forensically dissected that I'm not sure what the argument is anymore. Something about Disney probably.

 

[lazyboy97o]

^ this has been the catalyst for my responses this entire time. We have been talking about two different things.

That comment had nothing to do with types of entertainment. It had to do with your point that people want what they know in theme parks because of recent excellent projects. My counter was the above, that people saying they want what they know and as a whole not being creative is something that holds true when speaking of all creative mediums.

My feeling is ... not really. Here is some irony for you. The reason it is difficult to fit rides based on several different current IPs together into a cohesive land is that current IPs are too original. Back in Walt's day, you had themes like western, fairy tale, and sci-fi which had their standard motifs. There might be several different western movies made by different people, but you tend to expect six-shooters, mesas, and cowboy hats. And sci-fi meant rockets with fins and laser blasters. Nowadays, sci-fi can mean a lot of things. The styles of The Matrix, Star Wars, and Avatar wouldn't fit together. Star Wars is a big galaxy of a setting. You can't do it justice with a single ride and its environs.

The whole point of having a dedicated group of strong creatives is that they are supposed to be capable of creating new things.

 

[wdisney9000]

As it turns out, I just wrote a review of Maleficent this morning. I was a lot less enchanted with it than you were. Jolie saved the movie which is quite an accomplishment. Because aside from her, a lot of it is soulless and cynical. It would be very easy for me to hate this movie.

Agree on Guardians of the Galaxy though. It's a lot of fun. Best space adventure movie in years.

I look forward to reading your review. Just left soccer practice and getting Mexican food so Im beat and about to have a few brews so I will give your review the justice it deserves and save it for morning going while I have my coffee. I usually dont like such fast paced movies but I found it rather entertaining and satisfying. No drawn out love story, no wasting time between the acts, cool effects, and above all else, a villain I was actually rooting for. I kinda judge a movie based on how many times I will want to watch it again and again and I can't wait to get the blu ray and wear it out! Thanks for the link

 

[morningstar]

That comment had nothing to do with types of entertainment. It had to do with your point that people want what they know in theme parks because of recent excellent projects. My counter was the above, that people saying they want what they know and as a whole not being creative is something that holds true when speaking of all creative mediums.


The whole point of having a dedicated group of strong creatives is that they are supposed to be capable of creating new things.

I didn't say they couldn't, or shouldn't, create new things. I'm saying that if they create derivative things, it doesn't work so well to go small. Either go full IP-based land, or all original, that's my opinion.

 

[wdisney9000]

As it turns out, I just wrote a review of Maleficent this morning. I was a lot less enchanted with it than you were. Jolie saved the movie which is quite an accomplishment. Because aside from her, a lot of it is soulless and cynical. It would be very easy for me to hate this movie.

Agree on Guardians of the Galaxy though. It's a lot of fun. Best space adventure movie in years.

GoG review first. Spot on. Great breakdown of the characters and I totally agree that Saldana reigns as Queen and hopefully will for quite sometime. (I dont get tired of looking at her either, green or not!) As we walked out of the theater my wife mentioned the awesome Star War-esque appeal it had. I just looked at her and smiled knowing I picked the perfect woman to be with for the rest of my life. She was NOT a sci-fi fan when we met but now she will pick Aliens or Predator on movie night. Back to the review. Star Lord makes me want to buy an old Sony Walk Man and jam out to 80's mixes while kicking and dancing around. Prat was awesome and your correct about Groot having more soul than the average character you see. I just dont get why they needed Vin Diesel to voice him. I also liked that the romance between Prat and Soldana was brief and left us waiting to see what will become of it. It was an awesome movie from start to finish and I can easily see myself and family waiting in line for the sequel while proudly rocking our GoG gear. We went bowling a few days ago with family and everybody used a GoG character name. I could tell the other bowlers around us were jealous that we had such cool names and they used there foolish human names.

Onto Maleficent. I almost wish I hadnt read your review because it highlighted a few issues I purposely ignored due to Angelina Jolie wrapping me up in her performance. I am not changing my original stance that it was an awesome movie (IMO), just admitting that your correct about having very shallow characters that we dont get to know very well but I also think this aspect allowed Maleficents character to wash over you and the viewer experienced the essential nature of her transformation. Had it gotten into the other characters more, the emotions felt towards Jolies character would have been lessened. Just look at the title of the movie. I think the whole idea was to focus solely on her an not much else to keep us emotionally entangled with her struggle as she went through it all. Movies like Oz the Great and the Alice in Wonderland reboot sort of bored me while they weaved in and out of all the different characters and story lines. Maleficent just steam rolled through any type of side story and stayed on course to the finish line. Agreed that it had the LOTR style fight scenes but they kept it short and sweet. Also agreed that the Prince was absolutely useless aside from keeping the story line somewhat accurate. Sometimes I dont want three hours of a fairy tale. Ill take a satisfying 90 minutes and enjoy the fact that I didnt have to wait for the love story to unfold or for the hero to loose his way and then come back stronger in the end. I dont think Jolie "saved" the movie, I think that Jolie "was" the movie. Anybody else would have probly botched it. But your review was fair, I respect your opinion and concede to the fact that you obviously are more experienced at critiquing than I. As I said before, I base my love for a movie on how many times I will want to watch it and for both of these titles, it will be a lot.

While I have to side with @lazyboy97o as far as experiences in the parks being more about creativity, imagination, and born of ideas we never thought possible, (he says it more eloquently than I do). I think both of these movies deserve some type of recognition in the parks (eventually). I dont say that because I am still riding the high of recently seeing them but more from an aspect of these stories completely drawing me in, imagining myself as a Star Lord fighting enemies in space or a warrior in a fairy tale world, and while doing so, all my cares of the outside world are briefly put on pause. Perhaps it is not the movies themselves, but the feeling I had while watching them. I miss that at WDW. I can only get that feeling so many times from attractions like Haunted Mansion or POTC before it slowly fades. I do not get that feeling from anything they have created in the last decade or more. I haven even had that feeling from any movies Ive seen in the last few years, especially Disney movies so if it means using GoG or Maleficent as a medium, fine. Just give creative people like Stromberg, or Gunn a say in its creation and/or story line. You can keep James Cameron, lol.