HauntedMansionFLA
Well-Known Member
Guillermo del Toro is working on a brand new Haunted Mansion movie which would pay proper respect to the ride and legend.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge - Historical Construction/Impressions
- Thread starter BrianLo
- Start date
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
The Haunted Mansion attraction doesn't draw off of familiarity with the film. It is quite the opposite. Snow White, Mr Toad and other Fantasyland Attractions are obviously based upon IPs.
rle4lunch
Well-Known Member
Ugh. It's like talking to a wall. As soon as you trademark anything, it belongs to the creator as their intellectual property. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a movie has been made.
D
Deleted member 107043
No one is disputing this, but Disney trademarked rides and attractions isn't what we were talking about.
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
He's been working on that thing for YEARS. I'll be surprised if it ever makes it.
rle4lunch
Well-Known Member
What came first, the chicken or the egg? It really, really, doesn't matter.
rle4lunch
Well-Known Member
Professortango says otherwise.
D
Deleted member 107043
In the context of this discussion I think it does. If, for instance, people have concerns about Marvel coming to DLR because it isn't "Disney" and changes the tone of the park, then the distinction matters a lot.
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
People had the same concerns about Pixar coming to Disneyland since it wasn't Disney.
Earl Sweatpants
Well-Known Member
This might get long, so hang with me.
I think the IP debate has been largely confusing and it really just boils down to semantics.
Intellectual Property is defined as "a work or invention that is the result of creativity, such as a manuscript or a design, to which one has rights and for which one may apply for a patent, copyright, trademark, etc."
By this definition Disneyland itself is an IP. I'd even go so far as to say that nothing exists in Disneyland that isn't...
Now, I think where people are getting crossed wires is when someone flatly says, "I wish Disney would stop adding IP to the parks"...etc. (I admit, I was guilty of that in the past). But that doesn't really makes sense, because that logically means that they don't want ANYTHING added to the park. So, let's clear out that line of thinking.
What's REALLY being discussed in matters of IP is the merits of Disney adding something original vs pre-existing. The problem some of us have is that it seems like Disney is only interested in adding pre-existing IP to its parks and has put the kaibosh on creating anything original.
Original IPs like Haunted Mansion, Pirates, ALL of Epcot Center, etc. are what some of us long for when we go to Disney. If we strictly wanted movie-based attractions, we could go to Universal. But frankly, I believe WDI was partially created TO make original IP and they did so amazingly. Current brass at the top seems to have forgotten what WDI is capable of when given blue-sky assignments.
Looking at it another way, let's say WDI is like a bakery. They know they have all the necessary ingredients to make an amazing, original cake, but then in comes management with a box-mix and says, "OK, make this the best it can be".
Bad analogies aside, I truly hope we can all get over the "non-IP Disney" vs the "IP Disney" because by definition, they're the same thing.
There is no such thing as a "non-IP" attraction.
I think the IP debate has been largely confusing and it really just boils down to semantics.
Intellectual Property is defined as "a work or invention that is the result of creativity, such as a manuscript or a design, to which one has rights and for which one may apply for a patent, copyright, trademark, etc."
By this definition Disneyland itself is an IP. I'd even go so far as to say that nothing exists in Disneyland that isn't...
Now, I think where people are getting crossed wires is when someone flatly says, "I wish Disney would stop adding IP to the parks"...etc. (I admit, I was guilty of that in the past). But that doesn't really makes sense, because that logically means that they don't want ANYTHING added to the park. So, let's clear out that line of thinking.
What's REALLY being discussed in matters of IP is the merits of Disney adding something original vs pre-existing. The problem some of us have is that it seems like Disney is only interested in adding pre-existing IP to its parks and has put the kaibosh on creating anything original.
Original IPs like Haunted Mansion, Pirates, ALL of Epcot Center, etc. are what some of us long for when we go to Disney. If we strictly wanted movie-based attractions, we could go to Universal. But frankly, I believe WDI was partially created TO make original IP and they did so amazingly. Current brass at the top seems to have forgotten what WDI is capable of when given blue-sky assignments.
Looking at it another way, let's say WDI is like a bakery. They know they have all the necessary ingredients to make an amazing, original cake, but then in comes management with a box-mix and says, "OK, make this the best it can be".
Bad analogies aside, I truly hope we can all get over the "non-IP Disney" vs the "IP Disney" because by definition, they're the same thing.
There is no such thing as a "non-IP" attraction.
RMichael21
Well-Known Member
Look I hate to be a buzz-kill, but could this IP discussion move to another thread? I'm here for Star Wars Land Construction, not another debate that I've seen happen over and over on these boards. Sorry to be a party pooper, haha. 
Old Mouseketeer
Well-Known Member
Look I hate to be a buzz-kill, but could this IP discussion move to another thread? I'm here for Star Wars Land Construction, not another debate that I've seen happen over and over on these boards. Sorry to be a party pooper, haha.
Oh hell, yeah! THANK YOU!
I like a good digression as much as the next internet geek, but this is way overdue.
Earl Sweatpants
Well-Known Member
You're right, I just needed to get that last bit off my chest.Look I hate to be a buzz-kill, but could this IP discussion move to another thread? I'm here for Star Wars Land Construction, not another debate that I've seen happen over and over on these boards. Sorry to be a party pooper, haha.
In other news...um, the show building is getting bigger!
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
Have they added another section to it?
britain
Well-Known Member
You're absolutely right, but as a short-hand phrase, being able to say "Man, another IP attraction!?" works better than "Man, another attraction based on some concept that WDI didn't cook up themselves!?"
BUT ENOUGH OF THAT... Yes, I love the videos this guy (and his daughter) make!
Old Mouseketeer
Well-Known Member
More than likely. The Alcatraz building will probably be around 2.5 times as long as it is wide, and it's the shorter side that was completed first. If the MC plot plan is correct, we may see the building narrow as construction moves West.
Earl Sweatpants
Well-Known Member
Borrowed from MiceChat's SWL update.
Earl Sweatpants
Well-Known Member
also this.
