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

[lazyboy97o]

That plus it is CHEAPER for them to regurgitate something that has already been produced and accepted. It is a marketing extension and not exactly a bold move to plus anyones experience. Due to the fact that new things are few and far between we embrace whatever they throw at us. I truly in my heart believe imagineering has tons of plans in their closet but truth of the matter is the corporation just is not comfortable with risk taking anymore.

Then you're not paying attention to the very real problems inside Walt Disney Imagineering. They share plenty of the blame for the current creative direction of the parks.

 

[Mike S]

People are also not creative and are limited to only using what they already like as an example.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I'm guilty of the "I want a land" mentality as well. Disney used to give us things we didn't know we wanted. What guest ever said, before the rides were built, "you know what would be perfect for Disneyland? Rides about a haunted mansion and pirates". It's easier for people to want what they already know. Probably the reason we're only armchair Imagineers and not real ones.

 

[copcarguyp71]

Then you're not paying attention to the very real problems inside Walt Disney Imagineering. They share plenty of the blame for the current creative direction of the parks.

I gotta say my blame lays squarely on the shoulders of those who hold the purse strings. Just my opinion

 

[lazyboy97o]

I gotta say my blame lays squarely on the shoulders of those who hold the purse strings. Just my opinion

Walt Disney Imagineering is given exorbitant sums of money.

 

[Chef Mickey]

For instance, I'd prefer if Epcot strayed away from characters. I'd much prefer the old Living Seas to the character filled Seas with Nemo and Friends.

Totally agree.

EPCOT should really not have any of the "Classic" Disney characters, IMO. Characters specific to the park's theme like Imagination's Figment are fine, but don't just throw in Mickey, Donald, Minnie, Goofy, Chip, Dale, etc just because people "want to see them at Disney."

EPCOT has been dumbed down far too much for my liking.

 

[wdisney9000]

People are also not creative and are limited to only using what they already like as an example.

This reminds me of something I recently read. It was discussing people who achieve greatness must think in a manor that would be considered unrealistic by others. The idea of walking into a room and flicking on a switch to have light was extremely unrealistic, but Edison didnt think so.

 

[spacemt354]

People are also not creative and are limited to only using what they already like as an example.

It has nothing to do with people not being creative. It has to do with the growing trend of higher echelon theme parks and building an environment around your attraction(s) to immerse guests into an experience.

I don't see an obsession with entire lands. I see more of an obsession with visceral experiences. Theme park guests have come to expect more and more for the price they pay. If it's an entire land based on Harry Potter, or Avatar, or Cars, so be it.

But just because there is an palpable interest in entering a well-designed themed land does not mitigate fan interest in a singular, yet wholesome attraction.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I'm guilty of the "I want a land" mentality as well. Disney used to give us things we didn't know we wanted. What guest ever said, before the rides were built, "you know what would be perfect for Disneyland? Rides about a haunted mansion and pirates". It's easier for people to want what they already know. Probably the reason we're only armchair Imagineers and not real ones.

It's easy for people to want what they know, but anytime archive Disney attractions pop up, it's clear that people are interested, even if it's unfamiliar.

Fire Mountain, Thunder Mesa and Western River Expedition, rumored Japan bullet-train attraction, and more. All things that don't need to include Frozen, Star Wars, or other popular titles of today's era.

 

[spacemt354]

This reminds me of something I recently read. It was discussing people who achieve greatness must think in a manor that would be considered unrealistic by others. The idea of walking into a room and flicking on a switch to have light was extremely unrealistic, but Edison didnt think so.

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.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It has nothing to do with people not being creative. It has to do with the growing trend of higher echelon theme parks and building an environment around your attraction(s) to immerse guests into an experience.

It has nothing to do with trends. 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.

 

[spacemt354]

It has nothing to do with trends. 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.

That's painting a broad brush over society.

All that creative medium had to be created by people in the first place. The issue here is that the rumors of potential additions to Disney have been limited to known franchises. That's why people discuss them and focus on them. If the floor was open to any addition possible, I think you'd see a more eclectic variety of interests.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That's painting a broad brush over society.

All that creative medium had to be created by people in the first place. The issue here is that the rumors of potential additions to Disney have been limited to known franchises. That's why people discuss them and focus on them. If the floor was open to any addition possible, I think you'd see a more eclectic variety of interests.

Creative content is not created by society at large and the most successful work often come from an individual, not a large committee. Disney limits their consideration to franchises because they are convinced that it is inappropriate to introduce new material through the medium of themed entertainment, that everything has to be "Disney."

 

[spacemt354]

Creative content is not created by society at large and the most successful work often come from an individual, not a large committee. Disney limits their consideration to franchises because they are convinced that it is inappropriate to introduce new material through the medium of themed entertainment, that everything has to be "Disney."

Disney World was not created by one person. Everyone needs assistance. People to bounce ideas off of and to come up with their own.

In places around the globe and even domestically, new material is still being assimilated. The umbrella of themed entertainment branches out into all sorts of media that Disney has under their wing. We talk as if Frozen has been around forever, but it's not even a year old property yet. Introducing it in the theaters was not a guaranteed success. And under the umbrella of themed entertainment, the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe was a risk. A relatively unknown property in Guardians of the Galaxy was just released this month to rave reviews. I think to a extent Pandora is a risk.

Attractions such as Mystic Manor or Expedition Everest display no connectivity to any known franchise. While Disney is complacent in some of their material, the problem isn't the franchises or introducing new material...

Because in the end, the only thing that matters to the paying guest is the execution of the attractions.

 

[Mike S]

Creative content is not created by society at large and the most successful work often come from an individual, not a large committee. Disney limits their consideration to franchises because they are convinced that it is inappropriate to introduce new material through the medium of themed entertainment, that everything has to be "Disney."

Even more proof that current management doesn't "get it". IMO, Haunted Mansion is just as much "Disney" as all the rides in Fantasyland. Same goes for all other great rides not based on IP and an honorable mention for The Twilight Zone: Tower of Terror. If only Disney would make more rides like that, something we didn't even know we wanted. I guess the last one we got was Expedition Everest but look at how that turned out.

 

[lebeau]

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.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Disney World was not created by one person. Everyone needs assistance. People to bounce ideas off of and to come up with their own.

In places around the globe and even domestically, new material is still being assimilated. The umbrella of themed entertainment branches out into all sorts of media that Disney has under their wing. We talk as if Frozen has been around forever, but it's not even a year old property yet. Introducing it in the theaters was not a guaranteed success. And under the umbrella of themed entertainment, the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe was a risk. A relatively unknown property in Guardians of the Galaxy was just released this month to rave reviews. I think to a extent Pandora is a risk.

Attractions such as Mystic Manor or Expedition Everest display no connectivity to any known franchise. While Disney is complacent in some of their material, the problem isn't the franchises or introducing new material...

Because in the end, the only thing that matters to the paying guest is the execution of the attractions.

You keep letting the point go flying over your head. I am not talking about the process of "Imagineering," as broken as it may be at the present. Nor is themed entertainment "all sorts of media," so I have no idea what you are trying to say at all.

 

[spacemt354]

You keep letting the point go flying over your head. I am not talking about the process of "Imagineering," as broken as it may be at the present. Nor is themed entertainment "all sorts of media," so I have no idea what you are trying to say at all.

Your remarks on whatever you're trying to say are more concerned with diction than actual credibility. Your inability to accept other differing opinions leads to complicating the issue to the extent where the discussion is frivolous.

And I would never let the point go flying over my head. My reflexes are too quick. I would catch it.

 

[Mike S]

And I would never let the point go flying over my head. My reflexes are too quick. I would catch it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Your remarks on whatever you're trying to say are more concerned with diction than actual credibility. Your inability to accept other differing opinions leads to complicating the issue to the extent where the discussion is frivolous.

And I would never let the point go flying over my head. My reflexes are too quick. I would catch it.

What constitutes themed entertainment may not be overly well defined but is most definitely not all entertainment as you try to stretch it.

 

[spacemt354]

What constitutes themed entertainment may not be overly well defined but is most definitely not all entertainment as you try to stretch it.

I never said it constituted "all entertainment." But there are "all sorts of" ways the term 'themed entertainment' can be defined and interpreted.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I never said it constituted "all entertainment." But there are "all sorts of" ways the term 'themed entertainment' can be defined and interpreted.

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.