-
The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More -
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
MK Stitch's Great Escape Replacement— Don’t Hold Your Breath
- Thread starter Magic Feather
- Start date
WDWTank
Well-Known Member
Did Iger actually say that?
Not in so many words, but it's implied from all his public statements aimed at investors that Disney will be more cautious in spending by spending on things already popular (both in the parks and movies).
Also, for years, insiders have been telling us both Bobs have mandated as much through the organization.
Of course, this could lead to stagnation on the film side as they double down on popular sequels and no new IP is being created. But, Disney has a backlog of popular IP that hasn't been fully developed in the parks yet. And once the investors are no longer spooked, they can go back to taking risks on new stories.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
There was an interview years ago where he did just straight up say they were no longer going to make park investments not connected to a franchise. Oddly enough, the movie he used as an example of a good movie that wasn’t a franchise and therefore wouldn’t get an attraction was Ratatouille.
Last edited:
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
He did. It was during an interview on site rather than at a podium or anything like that. He said that they were no longer going to be making attractions not tied to their current film library. That Disney had done quite a lot to build up its library and that other theme parks would kill for access to these beloved stories and characters so it would be foolish to not capitalize on that.
He has a point
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
I can see the point of saying we won't pay to license other IPs for our parks anymore, but to say that Disney no longer wishes to create a modern Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Big Thunder, Space Mountain is pretty short-sighted.
Theme park attractions are their own artistic medium, and to be so myopic to only seek film as their inspiration means that Disney will constantly be trying to shove a movie shaped peg into a theme park attraction-shaped hole. It can work, but the old school imagineers knew that rides shouldn't be beholden to their film inspirations. From Snow White to Splash Mountain, Disney found great success with focusing on the art of creating a quality theme park attraction first.
With the focus on IPs and being faithful to them for modern audiences, it limits the types of experiences we will be seeing at the parks.
Imagine the wealth of ideas that could happen with Beastly Kingdom. With Avatar, that are pretty boxed in to what they create.
John park hopper
Well-Known Member
Wondering what the life expectancy is for an IP attraction --John Q public seems to have limits attention span
I'll let Bob know we still don't have sufficiently good and popular sci-fi future films to headline at all the Tomorrowlands.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
There are IP attractions that have been around since the parks opened.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
Sort of … There are better parts and worse parts.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
Sleeping Beauty castle called and it’s still around. The parks have been leveraging IPs since day one. They are vehicles for IP.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Disneyland was always going to have a castle and its name waffled around. The name was secondary and it bore no resemblance to the film’s aesthetic. Sleeping Beauty was not driving the anything.
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
In limited capacities. Most were confined to Fantasyland. Frontierland got Davey Crocket canoes and the Mike Fink Keel Boats; neither of which took us through a narrative of the TV show.
As for how they will age, 2-D Animated films have a much longer shelf life than 3-D animated films. Plus the older films went after a more timeless quality to the writing rather than the ultra modern and hip new animated films.
Live Action films age even worse. Most kids I know think Star Wars is old and lame. Heck, I thought the OT was pretty dated while I grew up in the 90's.
It will be interesting to see how well GotG attractions play in 20 years.
Abstract original ideas like ghosts or pirates or dinosaurs are easier to keep relevant by updating tech. The 30-40 year old franchise about some guy and a talking raccoon might fare differently.
Rich Brownn
Well-Known Member
But the park wasn't designed to be exclusively IP-based attractions.
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
The direction for the park until Eisner was a vehicle to give guests unique experiences to share with their family. Be it exploring exotic jungles or voyaging to the moon, or riding a mule through the wild west.
These were big ideas. All-encompassing. They left places for our mind to explore and find interest. Even the Darkrides, which were meant as C-Tickets, were not literal translations of the films. They were experiences. Tied more cloesly to a narrowed experience, but that works in a smaller type attraction. Experience being chased by the Wicked Witch. Experience flying to Neverland. Experience a wild and crazy car chase through the world of Mr. Toad.
With Star Tours, we got the chance to experience being in our favourite film trilogy. And since the success of that, the parks have leaned more and more towards experience being in this movie franchise.
So instead of varied experiences, we now have similar experiences with different themes and vehicles. Frozen Ever After, Incredicoaster, Rise of the Resistance, Smuggler's Run, Tiana's Bayou Adventure, Mission BO...these all have the same experience. Be welcomed by characters you know from movies and then see things you recognize set to music you recognize.
WoundedDreamer
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Nor even predominantly IP.
I once read a summary of Disneyland that was incredibly useful for illustrating this. Disneyland was designed to combine a zoo, a national park, a world's fair, and an amusement park/gardens. To this I would add a living history site. I found this to be a really useful way of thinking about the lands of the original Disneyland.
The original 5 lands were Main Street USA (living history site in the style of Henry Ford's creation), Adventureland (zoo), Frontierland (national park), Fantasyland (amusement park/gardens), and Tomorrowland (world's fair). These lands each had a specific purpose within the Disneyland concept.
Overtime, the identity of each of the lands has eroded. This is true for both the Magic Kingdom and Disneyland. It's difficult to tell the difference between each land besides surface level scenery. Some of that was the natural adaption to the realities of operating a theme park (animals in Adventureland would prove infeasible). But a great deal of it has been related to a lack of care and poor understanding of Disneyland or Magic Kingdom.
The Magic Kingdom is dedicated to the life and philosophy of Walt Disney. It's a celebration of his upbringing (Main Street USA), his imagination (Fantasyland), his love of progress and technology (Tomorrowland), his fascination with history (Frontierland), and his appreciation of nature (Adventureland). The basic standard for any attraction in the Magic Kingdom should be its relation to Walt Disney. Not that new stories can't be told, but that they should be harmonious with the life and philosophy of Walt Disney.
But how many realize this today? To many guests (and Imagineers!), Disneyland and Magic Kingdom are an eclectic mix of lands all surrounding a castle. You can put anything in those lands as long as the basically look right. You can also replace one of the lands with something else. Why? Because as long as there's a castle in the middle, Mickey Avenue is just as good as Main Street USA!
WoundedDreamer
Well-Known Member
On an unrelated note, Magic Feather's post aged phenomenally. We're approaching 8 years without anything solid. Hopefully we get something concrete soon.
I'm glad I didn't hold my breath, or else I wouldn't be here today!
I'm glad I didn't hold my breath, or else I wouldn't be here today!
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
This erosion is not exclusively the result of a lack of care or understanding, even if it sometimes is. In Magic Kingdom in particular, some of the missions were offloaded to other parks that executed the concept far better. EPCOT is/was a better World’s Fair than Tomorrowland, and World Showcase is a better vehicle for presenting the history of not just the United States but many other countries as well. Animal Kingdom is a better zoo. It makes sense for them to shift more toward a “fantasy tomorrow” or a “fantastical adventure” than to stick with something that now looks diminished and redundant.