lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Why didn’t the general public expect Mickey Mouse in Frozen?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The Next Non-IP Attraction.. Will It Happen?
- Thread starter Model3 McQueen
- Start date
Walter Elias Disney
Well-Known Member
In our original plans for Disneyland it was supposed to be called Snow White's Castle, but the Imagineers were working on Sleeping Beauty and the castle was named to promote the movie.
Correct. Apart from “our”. And “imagineers”.
eliza61nyc
Well-Known Member
so basically IP has always been used in the parks.
Yes. If I am not mistaken, the man himself stated the parks would be used to promote his movies.
However, there did seem to be a balance between original concepts and IP based attractions. I can not say if this was for creative reasons, financial reasons, or simply due to a lack of options.
One thing is for sure, lack of options IP is certainly a problem that no longer exists.
WondersOfLife
Blink, blink. Breathe, breathe. Day in, day out.
|Epcot|
-Awesome Planet
-Wondrous China
-Canada Far and Wide
It's not much. But aye. It's honest work.
-Awesome Planet
-Wondrous China
-Canada Far and Wide
It's not much. But aye. It's honest work.
- In the Parks
- No
That's not the question though. IP has been used and if done correctly, the results are amazing.
Disney also weren't afraid to try new things and fresh ideas with great success too.
I'd like to ask you this - and it's just me trying to understand viewpoints that don't correlate with my own. Why is there a need to defend strict IP integration? I mean, are we not satisfied with the Disney classics that have no attachment to Hollywood? I'd like to hear a point other than "well because Disney bought Marvel so Marvel deserves to be in the theme parks everywhere it just makes sense to ride the movies".
I'll share another point as to why i'm against it - IP allows for minimal creativity. You HAVE to do what works for the IP first, and as we see clearly with Pixar Pier and Mission Cheapout, it can be devastating to the thematic integrity of an area.. thematic integrity and show being the main reasons as to why I personally love Disney parks over any other theme park.
Parker in NYC
Well-Known Member
Because Disney can do no wrong, silly!
- In the Parks
- No
lol that's fair, it's still something. Not very flashy though.
bryanfze55
Well-Known Member
“Done correctly” is subjective, though. Some people like Pixar Pier. Either IP is okay or it’s not (and it obviously is, because some of the best rides are IP-based). So if IP is okay, there’s going to be IP rides you like and IP rides you don’t.
If Disney thinks fans will find things like Pixar Pier “done correctly” at best, or at worst, be indifferent... then they’re going to do that. Disney doesn’t have a moral or legal obligation to be creative, but they have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder value. Why waste money on creativity when the average fan is fine with them putting slapping the Incredibles on a roller coaster? The Instagrammers and Vloggers eat it up. I know tons of people with that mentality... not to stereotype, but a lot of them are younger to middle aged suburban moms who drive SUVs and go to megachurches. A lot of them are involved in multi-level marketing. For these people, Disney parks are a means to an end. A way to get great photos to post on Facebook and Instagram. They see Disney as a lifestyle brand rather than an artistic and creative outlet. You’ll never find them in the Enchanted Tiki Room.
I don’t say this to demean people but rather to point out that the average guest has changed as Disney has become more popular. It’s now a lifestyle brand, and Disney is going to cater to the lowest common denominator in the pursuit of profit.
eliza61nyc
Well-Known Member
So for me I personally don't care if it's IP and non. I dislike old, tired worn out rides. Now let me also say I'm not that deep into all the things you just mentioned. I could care less if the dormers of a building don't match, and there is nothing imo that disney has put up that looks like a "mall" to quote a well used comparison so I may not be a good person to ask. Is Mission cheapout, mission space? why is that devastating to the thematic integrity of the area it's in? It's actually one of my favorite spots to take pictures.
Now I don't think Ip allows for minimal creativity. I think Pandora land is extremely creative and although I have not been I heard star wars is a triumph in that department.
So basically I'd much rather have a new IP ride than junk. Maelstrom, that horrible ellen ride? they IMO needed to go. I can't really say that I think they need strict IP but I will always pick an Ip new ride over a tired old non ip ride. every day and twice on Sundays.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Why repeatedly defend the franchise mandate if you don’t know or care? What do you lose if there is no franchise mandate and Imagineering is free to just come up with the best ideas? What do you lose if there is stronger design?
You really don’t see how being told to copy something is less creative than coming up with the best idea?
Parker in NYC
Well-Known Member
Disney can do no wrong. So long as they stay in business, who cares?
bryanfze55
Well-Known Member
Mission Cheapout refers to Guardians of the Galaxy - Mission: Breakout in California Adventure. Not sure if you’ve made your way to Disneyland. It’s a fun ride, but it does hurt the thematic integrity of Hollywood Land in California Adventure. You’d have to see it to understand.
I’m not as anti-IP as a lot of posters here, but don’t you agree that theme is important to a THEME park? If we’re okay with just slapping pictures of a character on a ride and naming the ride after them, why not just go to Six Flags for 1/10th the cost?
eliza61nyc
Well-Known Member
In a way you're not off but what you don't finish is that the consumer will decide if they are wrong BY NOT GOING. LOL that's what you're missing. Disney can do whatever their little hearts desire, I as a consumer will then decide whether it's wrong but either not going or going.
eliza61nyc
Well-Known Member
See for me, I questions the hate for a ride that hasn't even opened yet. so without even seeing or riding it's hated because it's Ip. I'd much rather have Mission cheapout than the Ellen crap even if the ellen ride fit the "theme" of the park.
- In the Parks
- No
Good insight. I'm sure there are key demographics Disney is trying to target that we sometimes may not understand. Regarding criteria as to what does and doesn't work, i'd argue an IP will work if the ride and its story stands on its own without the IP attachment. Some do, some don't.
As for people going to see the IP's for familiarity.. as @marni1971 previously pointed out, attractions like Soarin' and Test Track and Everest are still pulling in solid crowds. Doesn't that matter?
Mission Cheapout is Guardian's of the Galaxy, Mission Breakout in Disney's California Adventure. In Joe Rhodes words, it's a "Warehouse Fortress Power Plant" (and looks like an oil complex industrial building) in the middle of what was a decent looking area. It makes no sense, nor does the futuristic story, especially had there been no IP attachment.
Pandora is extremely well made, but IMO that's because Pandora in Avatar was extremely well made. The creativity was still limited because the land had to "feel" like Avatar. I'm not ragging on Pandora by any means - it's just this "we're gonna copy the movies and only do that" attitude that's taking the parks in a whole new direction.
Kate F
Well-Known Member
Is this sarcasm? Kinda hard to tell these days.
eliza61nyc
Well-Known Member
you see FOP or ROTR as a copy of something else? You're saying that route is a less better idea
Of cours there is nothing to lose if the imagineers had free rein but I deal in reality. I've worked in major corporations all my life (research and development) and everyone has constraints based on time and money. Heck, I'd love if my boss gave me a blank check. I have relatives in the movie industry, yeah they would all love to have the leeway to make what they want, how they wanted but again that's not reality.
Last edited:
- In the Parks
- No
Why not? Christopher Nolan and Elon Musk and countless others have that ability..