News Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge - Historical Construction/Impressions

[Deleted member 107043]

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.

No one is disputing this, but Disney trademarked rides and attractions isn't what we were talking about.

 

[Curious Constance]

Guillermo del Toro is working on a brand new Haunted Mansion movie which would pay proper respect to the ride and legend.

He's been working on that thing for YEARS. I'll be surprised if it ever makes it.

 

[britain]

No one is complaining that Disney is building attractions that contain IP. The complaint (from some) is that today's Disney seems to only build attractions that promote pre-existing IP.

 

[rle4lunch]

No one is complaining that Disney is building attractions that contain IP. The complaint (from some) is that today's Disney seems to only build attractions that promote pre-existing IP.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? It really, really, doesn't matter.

 

[rle4lunch]

No one is disputing this, but Disney trademarked rides and attractions isn't what we were talking about.

Professortango says otherwise.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

What came first, the chicken or the egg? It really, really, doesn't matter.

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]

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.

People had the same concerns about Pixar coming to Disneyland since it wasn't Disney.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

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.

 

[RMichael21]

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]

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.

 

[Kiwiduck]

More from yensid 55. Lots of fascinating detail work occuring, like making a metal hand rail appear to be a wooden one.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

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.

You're right, I just needed to get that last bit off my chest.

In other news...um, the show building is getting bigger!

 

[Phroobar]

You're right, I just needed to get that last bit off my chest.

In other news...um, the show building is getting bigger!

Have they added another section to it?

 

[britain]

There is no such thing as a "non-IP" attraction.

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]

Have they added another section to it?

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]

Borrowed from MiceChat's SWL update.

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

also this.

 

[Phroobar]

I wonder if the people walking pass critter country will be viewable from the Mark Twain. It's like the path is right next to the river. Too bad that path couldn't have been elsewhere. It looks like we will see people pretty far into the back country. I guess they all disappear immediately after the Hungry Bear restaurant.

 

[Professortango1]

Professortango says otherwise.

Nope, just said things like Haunted Mansion are not considered "IP" attractions since they do not draw from an IP property. They created their own IP when they created it, but the ride wasn't based upon a pre-existing IP nor has it incorporated anything from any IPs not associated with specifically the Disney theme park attraction. Everything created is IP, but not all are IP-based. IP Based implies the attraction is based upon a pre-existing property and is expanding upon that. While the Haunted Mansion may be cloned at different parks, the clones do not expand upon the Haunted Mansion brand. There's no sign above Tokyo's Haunted Mansion which reads "Inspired by the ride 'The Haunted Mansion' at Disneyland Park."

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

EDIT: The video is having a lot of trouble loading on my computer, but you can just click ahead on the timeline to see more.
At 2:31...getting real up close and personal with that show building.