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

[Kamikaze]

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

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

Do you think theres any way that they'd get an Avatar or RotR level mass interest in a new non-IP attraction? I don't think so. Avatar DID prove that anything they open at WDW will get a crowd, but like you say, its easier to push through Chapek and the board if they can tie it into the other parts of the Company.

 

[Kamikaze]

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.

Have you been on Mission Breakout? Because its actually pretty fantastic. Their tower was never as good as the WDW tower, nor anywhere near as beloved. M:B is an upgrade to what they had.

Ever is a long time.

Your question is more: Will there be an attraction at a Disney park not directly related to a movie IP?

The answer is - eventually.

 

[NickMaio]

Disney spent BILLIONS in acquiring more IP's - Lucasfilm / Marvel / Fox.....

I honestly think that we will not see non-IP rides over the next couple of generations - or possibly ever.

They have invested too much to not use them for everything..........

Don't get me wrong - the non-IP's are some of my personal fav's - -Space and Thunder Mountain - Carousel of Progress - Spaceship Earth - Haunted Mansion - - - Pirates <before the movies> - - - Horizon's, World of Motion <Test Track> and Body Wars.
These to me are timeless - - - -
Sadly I think those creative new idea days are long gone!

 

[bryanfze55]

I have fun on Mission: Breakout and still feel like I’m at Disney. At Pixar Pier, I feel like I’m at Six Flags and generally don’t have fun. I think the Imagineers (mainly Rohde) did a great job on Mission: Breakout given the short time they had to do a makeover.

This was also an instance of just turning one IP (Twilight Zone) into another IP, so it wouldn’t even apply to OP’s question. It was already IP.

But there’s no denying it’s thematically wrong for the park. It dominates the skyline. You used to have Tower of Terror tucked behind Carthay Circle, and they complemented each other. It looked very nice. Now, not so much. You could take the Red Trolley all the way down Hollywood Blvd to the Tower of Terror. Now? Hollywood Land makes no sense.

 

[Schmidt]

You're conflating parts of Shanghai and HK.

Thank you. My mistake. That makes sense.

 

[Model3 McQueen]

Have you been on Mission Breakout? Because its actually pretty fantastic. Their tower was never as good as the WDW tower, nor anywhere near as beloved. M:B is an upgrade to what they had.

Ever is a long time.

Your question is more: Will there be an attraction at a Disney park not directly related to a movie IP?

The answer is - eventually.

Disney parks have become so corporate, I think ever, albeit over-dramatic perhaps, may be the right term. When, would you say, is eventually?

I've unfortunately ridden it too many time. When it comes to IP, I ask myself 1 simple question.. does this idea work without it's namesake program? Can it strike a cord with the audience? Does a brilliant story of a Haunted 1930's Hotel make sense in the middle of Hollywood land? Absolutely. A few other examples.. what about a hidden Temple, with terrible secrets, discovered by an archaeologist (IJA)? A+. A flume ride featuring a hollowed out log going down a river to see a bunch of critters? Classic Disney.

Does a "Warehouse Fortress Power Plant" (as Joe would call it) complimenting the story of a space collector kidnapping a talking raccoon and a mini tree and other aliens make even a bit of sense for people if there was no "Guardian's of the Galaxy"? IMO, Absolutely not. Would Incredicoaster make sense if we didn't know Incredibles? Maybe, but it would be such a far fetched idea. A roller coaster chasing a super hero baby? They got it right the first time with "Screamin'", just like they got it right with Twilight Zone Tower of Terror.

 

[Hank Hill]

Will they ever build a new land at a park that is not based on an IP? Because the only way I expect them to have a non IP driven ride, is by having it thematically fit into a new land that would require a ride to reinforce the theme. I do not see anything like that being done in the current parks, nor expect it to happen in the future.

If a 5th gate where ever to be built, I could see a non IP ride built. But my opinion is that they will not look to build a 5th gate for at least 15 years, if ever.

 

[marni1971]

Do you think theres any way that they'd get an Avatar or RotR level mass interest in a new non-IP attraction?

Yes.

Have you been on Mission Breakout?

Yes.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

Disney is only a minority owner in Hong Kong Disneyland, so they do not get to decide on what new attractions are built, especially after the disaster of the initial park's lineup. Somewhat similarly, Iger said he would not invest in a Ratatouille attraction but the final say on what was built at Disneyland Paris was with the banks that held Euro Disney SCA's debt and not with Disney.

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.

Hong Kong Disneyland was not supposed to be a half-day park. Initially, Disney announced a much larger park including a large Frontierland and ToonTown. Lots of stuff that Hong Kong was furious to learn was not "culturally appropriate". The deal was that Disney would build the park while the SAR would build the land and infrastructure to get people there. Realizing they could do whatever they wanted and meet their agreement, Disney completely cheeped out because they were never all that interested in Hong Kong. What opened still offered the 8 experiences per guest per day that still dictates Disney's park capacity.

You're conflating parts of Shanghai and HK.

The local governments of both Hong Kong and Shanghai are the majority owners of their respective resorts and get final say on what which attractions are built.

Do you think theres any way that they'd get an Avatar or RotR level mass interest in a new non-IP attraction? I don't think so. Avatar DID prove that anything they open at WDW will get a crowd, but like you say, its easier to push through Chapek and the board if they can tie it into the other parts of the Company.

The nondescript roller coaster themed to India or whatever generated plenty of mass interest and with fewer dollars spent per person to attraction those people.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Disney parks are traditionally rooted in pop culture, Disneyana, Americana, and movie and tv IP.

Something essential is lost when the first three are discarded. I'm not sure the current model of 'all IP, only IP' is sustainable or could all of it's own produce a park/themed experience that is both recognisably Disney and attractive as an experience.

Let's say that the more Disney a park is, the less it's a Disney park. To use two meanings of the word Disney that create so much confusion.

 

[Brer Panther]

We probably won't get any more non-IP rides until after Iger and/or Chapek leave.

The nondescript roller coaster themed to India or whatever generated plenty of mass interest and with fewer dollars spent per person to attraction those people.

True. People LOVE non-IP attractions like Everest, Jungle Cruise, Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, and Space Mountain. So I highly doubt the mindset that parkgoers ONLY want IP-based rides is real.

 

[eliza61nyc]

We probably won't get any more non-IP rides until after Iger and/or Chapek leave.


True. People LOVE non-IP attractions like Everest, Jungle Cruise, Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, and Space Mountain. So I highly doubt the mindset that parkgoers ONLY want IP-based rides is real.

I don't think people are saying they "only" want Ip but as someone else mentioned, Disney has wealth of Ip at their fingertips. Stuff that pretty much a sure bet. So that's the easy base hit

 

[Model3 McQueen]

I don't think people are saying they "only" want Ip but as someone else mentioned, Disney has wealth of Ip at their fingertips. Stuff that pretty much a sure bet. So that's the easy base hit

Since when has Disney been popularized by taking the easy base hit aka easy route only with their IP? Chappy and Iger as of late are ignoring a key factor and that's originality.

 

[eliza61nyc]

Since when has Disney been popularized by taking the easy base hit aka easy route only with their IP? Chappy and Iger as of late are ignoring a key factor and that's originality.

Can't tell you that as I only started going in early 2000s and I've never been to the Asian parks. So I'm going to say since I've been going there has been plenty of Ip. Why NOT use the property you own??

 

[lazyboy97o]

Can't tell you that as I only started going in early 2000s and I've never been to the Asian parks. So I'm going to say since I've been going there has been plenty of Ip. Why NOT use the property you own??

Why is Mickey Mouse not in Frozen?

 

[eliza61nyc]

Why is Mickey Mouse not in Frozen?

??? Not getting the question?? Because he wasn't in the movie?? I would consider frozen original.

PS. I didn't see the movie

 

[lazyboy97o]

??? Not getting the question?? Because he wasn't in the movie?? I would consider frozen original.

PS. I didn't see the movie

Pick any Disney movie without Mickey Mouse. You don’t expect Mickey Mouse in every Disney movie because you expect movies to have their own stories. Themed entertainment is similarly its own storytelling medium, not just a means of living a brand lifestyle.

 

[Genie_naughty_whispers]

Lol. Never.

 

[eliza61nyc]

Pick any Disney movie without Mickey Mouse. You don’t expect Mickey Mouse in every Disney movie because you expect movies to have their own stories. Themed entertainment is similarly its own storytelling medium, not just a means of living a brand lifestyle.

Why is it either or? Star wars can be themed entertainment? IP cannot be a part of a theme??

Now I haven't seen ROTR but reports have it that it is very imaginative and original

I agree Frozen does not"fit" the so called Epcot theme but I totally get why the put it there and can totally understand why they got rid of the horrible Maelstrom

 

[Moka]

Unlikely but not 100% impossible like most people are saying. There’s a lot of guest who don’t go at all and when they do what they expect to see most of the time? Disney. Which is their IP. They expect to see all their favorite characters - most on attractions. Granted yes, there are definite classic non-IP attractions that anybody who rarely ever goes will know about. But when a lot of general guest go, when they think of Disney, they will think about what Disney owns and what they will likely see at the parks.