The End of Originality?

[neoshinok]

With the tremendous success of WWoHP for Uni, Carsland for Disneyland and the expected arrival of Pandora and Star Wars expansion, are original concepts a thing of the past for major stateside theme parks?
It seems that the parks now believe they can't rely on an unknown concept to deliver attendance boosts and return on investment. Much like the way of film studios of the past decade or so, they've realized you can have a better chance of success by giving people something they're familiar with (sequels, remakes) than trying to create something unknown which may not draw interest.
It's sad considering the best known Disney staples (Pirates, Mansion, Small World) were successful and now globally recognized despite not having a previously known property association. More upsetting is seeing how amazing newer original attractions can be, specifically Mystic Manor overseas.
In the exceedingly competitive Orlando market, Disney looks to be giving up on original creations and trying to combat the Potter success only by obtaining popular properties for their own parks. It must be frustrating for the talent in Imagineering to likely create many unique storylines and concepts for attractions, only to be told 'We've bought a movie tie-in, work on this'.
Do you think we'll ever see an original, non-IP, major attraction again?

 

[luv]

I don't know if we will, but I'd really like to see one.

I think the Ariel ride is wonderful and that she certainly deserved her own ride, considering how much she did for Disney...but we could certainly use some interesting, fun, original stuff.

 

[IAmFloridaBorn]

No. IF Universal is going to pull the "Kong" Rumors off I don't think this is the end .

Plus what's wrong with theme parks adopting outside franchises, if it's done well? Universal Cooperated with JK Rowling in Order to bring that immersiveness of the Harry Potter world. Universal could have simply put a ride and a restaurant with little theming and called it a day.

Disney is clearly heading a different direction, yes. If Disney had invested as much money they did in the other world parks, that money would have gone too the Orlando/California parks and they'd be much better than what we see today.

I wish more Disney movies,stories had their own attractions. More than a meet and greet. But Ehhh who knows Lets hope not for either company!

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

Well, many original characters have gone from Walt Disney World if you think about it...

The Kitchen Kabaret
Food Rocks
Dreamfinder
General Knowlege
Buzzy
SMRT-1
Timekeeper & Nine Eye
Starnac
Tom Morrow 2.0
Alec Tronic

 

[Goofyernmost]

The part I don't understand is how one considers what is original and what is not. Wasn't Disneyland absolutely inundated with familiar properties. Disney's yes, but still not original ideas just for a theme park. Snow White, Pinocchio, 20 K, Toad, just to name a few. They all had familiar concepts if not ID's. Haunted Mansion, wasn't exactly a new thought, pirates didn't start with Disney. All had some previous connection with something else. In fact, as I think about it the only really, really original, no one ever heard of, attraction would be Imagination with Dreamfinder and Figment. That fact that Small World and Carousel of Progress were original, but, when created the venue was not dependent on recognition. World Fair's were creative centers in themselves and didn't require any connection. But when they moved to Disney it was a familiar project with a history. The little Mermaid was a Disney creation just like many of the other original concepts. Even those were copied from literature and not an original idea. Those were just imagined into 3D by Disney.

So in my mind, without EPCOT Center, Imagination would have had a limited appeal and not even close to being considered a draw at the time. It built it's audience, but it was connected to a theme in the park itself. I see nothing wrong with them trying to find a way to make something that is recognizable to entice people to see it. Once in a while you can throw in a new idea and it will take, but most will not last forever. Think Horizons, WoM and WoL. We all miss them now but, they were never a draw on there own until they had been there for a while, and in some cases not until after they were gone.

 

[Walt would be]

I agree OP. My biggest concern with Disney's creative process is the apparant abandonment of free form creativity in favor of synergistic and familiarity to ensure profits - Although I doubt anybody could quantify that position (???).

Walt certainly proved innovative could be profitable and so did Jobs with PIXAR prior to Disney's buyout. Of course Walt and Jobs weren't JUST interested in profit in those endeavors as current Disney obviously is. They both wanted to be creative and innovative. They believed in quality and originality over simply appealing to the masses with well marketed but acceptable stuff.

Certainly Wall St. Is to blame for the majority of these issues with their continual push for quarterly results and certainly Disney is bound to continue down that road as long as MBA qualifications are the sole criteria for those occupying the top corporate positions. The saving grace is that there is no law that says a businessman can't be creative too ... Disney just needs to find that guy.

Lastly, there ian't anything inherently wrong with synergy or mass appeal but when the company's goal is to appease those two, mostly financially motivated goals without factoring in innovation, creativity and overall quality (whether it's familiar or not), then you are on track to severly stifle if not kill that goose that once laid the golden eggs that got us started on this merry go round in the first place.

 

[TubaGeek]

Next time a theme park is built, we will see both originals and preexisting themes. Then, slowly, the original concepts will be replaced with tie-ins.

 

[copcarguyp71]

Disney seems to be in the mode of acquiring intellectual property of others instead of bringing new ideas to light. Until that mode of thinking flops then I think they will follow suit as it works and requires little thought and originality. Once standing on others shoulders either fails or wears thin then we may see the imagineers and TDO unleashed but for now they remain sadly muzzled.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I think a large part of recycling ideas is the fact that society is more comfortable being spoon fed.

 

[FettFan]

Well, many original characters have gone from Walt Disney World if you think about it...

The Kitchen Kabaret
Food Rocks
Dreamfinder
General Knowlege
Buzzy
SMRT-1
Timekeeper & Nine Eye
Starnac
Tom Morrow 2.0
Alec Tronic

Chairman L.C. Clench
Roger Rabbit (more or less...he was a joint creation between Disney and Amblin, but Disney owned the rights to use him in the parks)
Oswald

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

Chairman L.C. Clench

He's still being used in the Pre show of Invasion! An ExtraTERRORestrial Alien Encounter at DisneyQuest. Which means "IN THEORY" The transporter did work but, put him somewhere else on earth..

 

[IowaHawks7]

I do not think Originality is gone whatsoever. Nor does the problem lie with WDI. I believe there are still plenty of great ideas that WDI comes up with. But its hard to approve something in the parks when Corporate does not think guests will like it. That they will want the new movie or tv show tie in. In my mine we will still see plenty of original ideas come into the parks over time.

 

[Dog Ate Mouse]

Well for one I feel this is a trendy kind of thing going on. Star Wars land makes sense because of the very long time popularity of a great bunch of movies and till this day there is still a lot of hype about star wars. Right now I see the industry as going after projects that people want to see that will generate park money quickly. HP makes alot of sence for Uni and when you think about it, it will be a big draw for future HP fans/Children to come. When this trend ends and it will end one day, then the creativity side will once again come back. When you think about it a little, didn't Hollywood Studios be the first one to kind of do this with the Muppets? Only so many Great Movies have been made that are classics. After these new attractions based on Movies are made then what, new ideas and creativity of course will once again prevail.

 

[Figments Friend]

Do you think we'll ever see an original, non-IP, major attraction again?

I sure hope so.
There needs to be a return to this in some respects.
It is okay to have some synergy/IP tie ins sometimes, but not ALL the time.
There needs to be a balance, and lately that has not been the case.

There are plenty of great ideas that have been pitched but the purse holders tend to favor branded tie ins.
Only when that mentality changes, or at least shifts a little, will we start seeing more of that in the US Parks.

 

[Sped2424]

I think the trend will be that original non ip attractions will go in other countries theme parks, and if they are a massive success there, then they shall head stateside.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Also, it works both ways. There have been movies based on Disney attractions - Haunted Mansion; Pirates.

I am told there are movies in development based on Space Mountain; Jungle Cruise; Big Thunder.

But please, for the love of all that is holy, do not let them make a Small World movie, unless of course the concept is that the dolls come alive and go on a worldwide murderous rampage. That might be kind of cool.

 

[danpam1024]

With the tremendous success of WWoHP for Uni, Carsland for Disneyland and the expected arrival of Pandora and Star Wars expansion, are original concepts a thing of the past for major stateside theme parks?
It seems that the parks now believe they can't rely on an unknown concept to deliver attendance boosts and return on investment. Much like the way of film studios of the past decade or so, they've realized you can have a better chance of success by giving people something they're familiar with (sequels, remakes) than trying to create something unknown which may not draw interest.
It's sad considering the best known Disney staples (Pirates, Mansion, Small World) were successful and now globally recognized despite not having a previously known property association. More upsetting is seeing how amazing newer original attractions can be, specifically Mystic Manor overseas.
In the exceedingly competitive Orlando market, Disney looks to be giving up on original creations and trying to combat the Potter success only by obtaining popular properties for their own parks. It must be frustrating for the talent in Imagineering to likely create many unique storylines and concepts for attractions, only to be told 'We've bought a movie tie-in, work on this'.
Do you think we'll ever see an original, non-IP, major attraction again?

I think this generation is too lazy- there are very few people with those kinds of imaginations AND the drive to be heard. sad.

 

[Figments Friend]

They are out there....it is just that those who have the great ideas and imaginative sources to create such things are not in a position to make many waves within the Company.

At some point hopefully they will get into a position where they can.

 

[cynic710]

this is a tough debate, because what is "origniailty" really? how many stories/attractions are from disney in the first place. I think it was walts vision to convey the real-life ability of the worlds favorite stories. He did it with movies, cartoons, books and parks. Do I think that some attractions should be of original thought? Of course, but at the same time they (imagineers, disney FO) have the ability and know-how on bringing the current favorite wonders of the world to life, including avatar, star wars, etc. where else can we enjoy glowing plants? or even visit worlds of star wars? better yet, the question should be, who but disney would we all rather have bring us to these worlds in real life? the non-disney stuff in the parks is fine, my fondest memories are with things like indy, star tours and even aerosmith (huge fan) and the twilight zone. disney will have the mix-ins of their personal stuff, mermaid for example, but i think the route they are taking now is fine and will be fine for a long time.

 

[Omnispace]

From a different standpoint, it's important to look at the viewpoints of WDI's Principal Creative Advisor, John Lasseter. Back when Pixar was first purchased by Disney, I recall reading an interesting article of what design influence Lasseter might have on the attractions in the parks. He specifically mentioned how unfortunate it was that a good movie comes out and it may be many years later that any type of attraction is developed, let alone built. He proposed developing attractions simultaneously with the films so that a synergy could be created between the two and the public could enjoy the story in multiple forms, both at the theaters, and at the parks. Obviously this was the initial thoughts of a person thrown into a new creative position, and in the intervening years it doesn't look like Disney has been convinced about developing attractions along side movies -- at least for new intellectual properties. If the Star Wars rumors for Disneyland's Tomorrowland are true then we could very well be seeing new things happening simultaneously. Regardless, Lasseter's apparent views on the subject seem to reinforce the synergy between parks and movies approach.