The Next Non-IP Attraction.. Will It Happen?

[Model3 McQueen]

For those of you who don't know, the last non-IP E-ticket was Expedition Everest in 2006. Is there a possibility, even an inch of hope, that we will get another non-IP E-ticket in the future? Or is Disney set on this path to Universal, forever doomed to the pit of IP, and who ever succeeds Iger and Chappy will continue this trend in the foreseeable future..?

The debate has raged on but THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT IP vs Non-IP.
I just want to know your opinions and predictions regarding if there is room in the industry for another original made in the spirit of Space, Thunder, Everest, Tiki Room, It's a Small World, Haunted Mansion, Pirates, Soarin', etc etc.

 

[Kamikaze]

Do you classify Mickey & Minnie's Runaway Railway as IP?

 

[Model3 McQueen]

Do you classify Mickey & Minnie's Runaway Railway as IP?

I mean technically speaking, Mickey and Minnie are IP. The right IP, but IP nonetheless.

 

[Master Yoda]

Honestly, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Not only do IP based attractions make the most financial sense, but it seems like what your average Disney guest wants.

Just look at any Disney forum or Facebook group and you will find them littered with "When will we get a [insert latest Disney movie here] ride?" questions.

 

[JIMINYCR]

I think the possibility is still there but slimmer, very slimmer chance than ever before. Disney is experiencing success by using familiarity to the movies that draws the guests interest and desire. I never say never, so theres always a chance that someones non IP plans gets presented and theres enough interest that its put into the works.

 

[Kamikaze]

I mean technically speaking, Mickey and Minnie are IP. The right IP, but IP nonetheless.

'The right IP' is completely dependant on your personal likes and dislikes.

 

[marni1971]

Very very very slim chance with current management.

 

[eliza61nyc]

Honestly, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Not only do IP based attractions make the most financial sense, but it seems like what your average Disney guest wants.

Just look at any Disney forum or Facebook group and you will find them littered with "When will we get a [insert latest Disney movie here] ride?" questions.

totally agree. I think especially with today's youth. they have grown up with 24/7, in your face IP and superheros. that's what they want.

 

[Model3 McQueen]

'The right IP' is completely dependant on your personal likes and dislikes.

Yeah I guess having Micky and Minnie as the right IP for a Disney park is super subjective huh.

 

[Model3 McQueen]

I would argue that Disney parks were made famous due to their mixture of IP and non-IP properties. It was the ideas behind the attractions that won over the public, not the "Pixar Pier"s of the theme park world.

 

[Stripes]

Very very very slim chance with current management.

Do you know the story behind the approval of Hong Kong Disneyland’s expansion? Just curious why management approved that largely non-IP expansion.

Current management has built non-IP attractions outside the U.S. See also Roaring Rapids in Shanghai. Of course, Iger will probably be gone anyway before any non-IP attraction is approved.

 

[marni1971]

Do you know the story behind the approval of Hong Kong Disneyland’s expansion? Just curious why management approved that largely non-IP expansion.

Manor and Grizzly? Instigated before the current mindset.

 

[Schmidt]

Manor and Grizzly? Instigated before the current mindset.

I was watching imagineering Ep. 6 on Disney+. A lot of the episode was spent on Hong Kong Disney. Pretty interesting. Was only suppose to be a half day park originally.

I believe China had to approve the park prior to building. They mentioned that a lot of Disney IP's didn't translate over to their culture.

Sounded like it made sense, but I don't know anything about Hong Kong Disney, so I took it at face value.

 

[Kamikaze]

Yeah I guess having Micky and Minnie as the right IP for a Disney park is super subjective huh.

Because all the other IPs they put in aren't Disney? Obviously you're not going to get an argument against the Fab Five. But where does that change? When they've been part of the company a certain number of years? Nearly every Disney classic is something they got somewhere else.

IP synergy started when Walt built Sleeping Beauty castle to promote the movie years before its release. Its not like this is something that was just started.

 

[marni1971]

IP synergy started when Walt built Sleeping Beauty castle to promote the movie years before its release. Its not like this is something that was just started.

Very true. But it used to be about balance.

 

[bryanfze55]

I think it’s important to remember that IP isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Many of the best rides at Disney are IP-based (Radiator Springs Racers, Indiana Jones Adventure, Rise of the Resistance, Splash Mountain). And some of the worst rides are non-IP (Primeval Whirl, Tomorrowland Speedway). As long as it’s a good attraction, I don’t really care if it’s IP or not.

The only issue I have is when Disney inserts IP into existing attractions for no real rhyme or reason. For instance, putting UP into Flights of Wonder was tacky and a poor fit. Turning Paradise Pier into Pixar Pier was unnecessary and gimmicky, especially given how Disney tried to spin these as “new attractions.”

But as long as it’s a brand new, well designed, and well executed ride, I don’t really care if it’s IP-based or not.

 

[Kamikaze]

I was watching imagineering Ep. 6 on Disney+. A lot of the episode was spent on Hong Kong Disney. Pretty interesting. Was only suppose to be a half day park originally.

I believe China had to approve the park prior to building. They mentioned that a lot of Disney IP's didn't translate over to their culture.

Sounded like it made sense, but I don't know anything about Hong Kong Disney, so I took it at face value.

You're conflating parts of Shanghai and HK.

 

[Kamikaze]

Very true. But it used to be about balance.

Right, but consumer tastes have changed. They have too many properties to have attractions based on as it is, and building ones with no tie ins must seem like a waste to them.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a great original attraction, but its a harder sell to the masses than one based on property X.

 

[marni1971]

Right, but consumer tastes have changed. They have too many properties to have attractions based on as it is, and building ones with no tie ins must seem like a waste to them.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a great original attraction, but its a harder sell to the masses than one based on property X.

How’s Mystic Manor doing? Or Grizzly? Or Everest? Or Test Track? Or Soarin?

Its harder to sell to the board. Not the masses.

 

[Model3 McQueen]

I think it’s important to remember that IP isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Many of the best rides at Disney are IP-based (Radiator Springs Racers, Indiana Jones Adventure, Rise of the Resistance, Splash Mountain). And some of the worst rides are non-IP (Primeval Whirl, Tomorrowland Speedway). As long as it’s a good attraction, I don’t really care if it’s IP or not.

The only issue I have is when Disney inserts IP into existing attractions for no real rhyme or reason. For instance, putting UP into Flights of Wonder was tacky and a poor fit. Turning Paradise Pier into Pixar Pier was unnecessary and gimmicky, especially given how Disney tried to spin these as “new attractions.”

But as long as it’s a brand new, well designed, and well executed ride, I don’t really care if it’s IP-based or not.

Very true I think IP, when done tastefully, makes for some of the best attractions in the world. Add Twilight Zone Tower of Terror to that list right?

I think you have a great comprehension as to when an IP is NOT appropriate. I'd add Mission Cheapout to that list.

The question is, if i'm relaying this correctly, rather or not we're going to get another (major) great non-IP ever.