Ummm...
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Something original maybe ?
- Thread starter Astro_Digital
- Start date
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
Ha!!
I think that's a distortion of both history and reality.
Walt had a big hit with Snow White and featured her prominently. Do you think he wouldn't have featured Frozen on some kind of principle?
Life in the 1950's and life now are two completely different animals, especially when it comes to commerce and entertainment. He used what he had at the time. The company has the rights to a lot more IP now.
Even if Disney created the existing movie or TV show 5 minutes ago. That makes it somehow "unoriginal."
danlb_2000
Premium Member
You are really stretching this beyond what we are discussing when it comes to IP's today. Putting the name "Mark Twain" and "Santa Fe" on things didn't really limit the creative possibilities. The Jungle Cruise was inspired by those things but wasn't limited by them.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
That was not an opening day attraction. Which actually goes to show you that Walt was all for adding IP to the park.
I agree that IP isn’t the problem... rather it’s high up management forcing IP where it doesn’t fit.
But... it could be argued that Walt did this some.... did a Babes in Toyland movie set belong on Main Street USA?
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
This is false, and yes, a stretch.
Mickey5150
Well-Known Member
The only way Disney could make an attraction not IP based is to sell off some of their companies. After purchasing Fox I'm pretty sure Disney owns an IP for everything.
Movielover
Well-Known Member
I would argue by that logic Galaxy's Edge and Pandora are perfect fits then since they don't recreate specific scenes from the movies and instead are inspired and craft their own stories.
Cmdr_Crimson
Well-Known Member
WDI when they are forced to make an IP ride...
Raineman
Well-Known Member
I think there is one thing that everyone involved in the 1,264 posts on here about IP are missing. IMO, the majority of WDW visitors are not die-hards or theme park fanboys like most of us on forums like this one-they are only interested in coming to the parks and having fun. Add to that the fact that a good chunk of WDW visitors are most likely young enough to have been completely immersed in the IP-driven Disney offerings in the last 25 years, particularly the animation-driven "Disney Renaissance era" feature films, and I think that the majority of people expect to see IP everywhere; they want to see attractions based on Disney characters. So, Disney has been giving them what they want, and making a ton of money in the process. That may not placate some people's distaste for "all IP, all the time", but I think it might point out why it happens, and why it's unlikely to change soon.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The nondescript coaster themed to India or whatever was a better return on investment than the franchise attractions built at Walt Disney World since then. This idea that the public now demands that Disney copy Universal is a crock. The franchise mandate isn’t based on business, it is one man’s personal bias and dislike of theme parks, theme parks he tried to sell off and let rot for about a decade while spending billions to avoid building attractions.
Raineman
Well-Known Member
I don't think you can deny that the franchise mandate isn't based on business and making as much money as they can-and not adding to/updating the parks while raising prices fits right into that plan. It's pretty apparent that Iger's focus has always been acquisitions and media, but the fact that the $$ raked in by the theme parks most likely help to fund these areas and prop up money pits like ESPN makes it hard to believe that he hates the theme parks-I think what he hates is spending billions on the parks if the financial reports indicate that he doesn't have to, and patching in IP here and there and spending less in Imagineering to develop original concepts, while making it publicly seem like they are starting to add to the parks, fits right into that line of thinking. And, I'm sure little Jimmy and Sally wouldn't be as excited to ride a new attraction over and over if their favorite animated characters weren't attached to it somehow.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
If the decisions were just business there would have been at least one attempt made at replicating the huge success of Expedition Everest. There was not. It was dismissed as bad business because it is not understood.
Iger tried to sell the parks. Their revenue production wasn’t worth the hassle of their cost.
Walt Disney Imagineering is spending far more now than they were before the franchise mandate. Pixar Pier cost more than Expedition Everest. The franchise mandate has absolutely nothing to do with controlling costs.
The idea that the Jimmys and Sally’s of the world didn’t like Disneyland or Walt Disney World until a few years ago is laughable.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
This should be on a t-shirt that we all wear to the parks!
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
You never know. Maybe Minnie will get stuck on Mickey & Minnie's Runaway Railway and never move as intended for years.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Personally, I don’t care what the theme of an attraction is , if it’s a great experience I want to ride it over and over, examples of non IP I like to ride over and over, Sorin, Mission Space, Test Track. Examples of IP based, FOP! The best ride in central Florida!
Except they are kind of all second generation Future World, they would not get built today and D23 says the whole Future World concept is going to be removed from EPCOT.
Somebody said that Disney went on a spending spree to buy Marvel. Lucas films, Pixer... etc... for the theme parks.
You do not think maybe the studios so they can rake in 1.5 to 2 billion on box office receipts ?
Raineman
Well-Known Member
I wasn't inferring that they didn't enjoy Disney theme parks until recently-but Jimmy and Sally in 2019 are different than Jimmy and Sally from 30-40 years ago in regards to the methods and the amount of Disney entertainment they consume. With kids having constant and unending access to Disney content through any Internet-connected device, through the multiple cable channels, and through movie theaters that always seem to have a Disney movie playing, they get the mindset that Disney is all about animated characters, and they expect that when they go to the parks. If a popular Disney character is plastered on an attraction, 2019 Jimmy and Sally are going to gravitate towards it, whereas 1970s or 1980s Jimmy and Sally would be just as happy riding BTMRR or the carousel as they would be riding Peter Pan or Mr Toad.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
That must explain why nobody wants to ride space mountain, big thunder, Everest, Soarin, splash mountain, haunted mansion.... oh wait. That doesn’t make any sense. 
phillip9698
Well-Known Member
That must explain why nobody wants to ride space mountain, big thunder, Everest, Soarin, splash mountain, haunted mansion.... oh wait. That doesn’t make any sense.
Just to play devils advocate here, i dont think the thought process is that those attractions you mentioned are lesser because they arent attached to an IP. If im in charge my thought process is this, "Which land/attraction will do more for me generic wizard land or Harry Potter land, race car land or Radiator Springs. Its clear in those two examples which was the correct choice.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
We’re not talking Jimmy and Sally from 30-40 years ago. The franchise mandate is not that old.
Allowing the parks to create their own content would allow them to differentiate from all of the content available in other formats. This idea that people only want what they know doesn’t make sense. People weren’t turned off by Frozen because it lacked characters people already know. People weren’t asking for more Mickey Mouse in a Disney movie.