• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

This forum's opinion on IPs?

nunch3

New Member
Original Poster
I was wondering if people could offer their opinion on the use of IPs in Disney parks to gather a general opinion of this forum, and why they feel the way they do about the inclusion of IPs.

Personally, while I love the original Disney attractions such as Space Mountain and Big Thunder Mountain, and enjoy the unique charm they have, I feel that IPs are simply the future for a successful, 21st century Disney. When Disneyland first opened in the 1950s, it was IP-based, but didn't rely upon them for whole lands as it didn't make sense to invest fully into a single franchise at the time. However, as time went on, with the rise of technology and the internet, pop culture has (for better or for worse) become all encompassing in the lives of my generation and dominates the interests of kids my age. The reason non IP based attractions worked so well in the past is that Disney didn't have as wide of a selection of properties to chose from, and pop culture wasn't as dominant in everyday life which allowed original ideas to flourish. However, to remain relevant to the amusement industry, the move towards IP is necessary to keep the general public engaged with the park.

The core audience of Disney, ultimately, is children. While adults are able to enjoy the park and form a passionate community, children/families are the park's biggest demographic and source of income. In fact, the reason the older Disney community is so passionate right now is because many forum members all have memories of the parks from when they were a child, and I find the reason that a lot of people don't like to see change is because it erases the Disney that they remembered as kids. But we aren't kids anymore, and I feel that the parks have to move on and make sure they can establish themselves as relevant to today's children to ensure that a passionate community remains, say, 50 years later. That's why stuff like Marvel, Star Wars, or Frozen is necessary to these parks as those franchises hold lots of appeal to my generation, and keeps kids enticed to return to the parks. Epcot is a far-cry from Walt's original vision, and while the move towards IP does signify the end of the park's purpose of education, it was already out of line with its original concept, and is largely unpopular with the younger demographic compared to the other parks. This is going to be wildly unpopular, but the move of Epcot towards IP is necessary for it to remain going forward. When the general public comes to Disney, they want to see their favorite Disney owned films come to life, and Epcot has plenty of room for a GotG ride and Frozen. While it's unfortunate, if a non IP based park similar to the original Disney were to open today, it would probably fail in regards to being king of the amusement industry. People want to see IP, and by removing old, unpopular rides (such as Maelstrom) to make way for modern, long-lasting franchises, Disney keeps itself as king of the theme park industry.

What are your thoughts?
 

eliza61nyc

Well-Known Member
Truthfully could care less if every thing was Ip or not.

1) I didn't go to the parks until early 2000's so I don't have the past recollections and I've watched every video suggested by others. nothing I've watched made me yearn for the "good old" days. I do accept that it may be something one had to experience to understand but as my Avatar states, I try not to live in the past.

2) for some reason there is a popular belief that Disney guest are some how stupid, 🤔 don't get that, nor do I believe that, consumers have an inkling about what they like or don't like and in the end, that's all that really matters. They will vote with their dollars.

3) As I get older I stress less and less about things beyond my control. I have no control over what Iger an Co do to the parks. I do have complete control over my money. If I get to the point where I feel the money Disney ask for a vacation there, is not worth what I am receiving, I'll stop going. IMO that will have a better effect I also don't take the place as seriously as many others. I'm not into building designs, although I have gotten a great appreciation for ride placement from some discussions Could care less if a ride is Ip or not nor do I get the feeling that Epcot is like MK. it's just not that deep for me.
 

networkpro

Well-Known Member
Your presumption is a bit off “We believed in our idea – a family park where parents and children could have fun- together.” ,
Disneyland will never be completed. It will continue to grow as long as there is imagination left in the world.”
"We keep moving forward, opening up new doors and doing new things… and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths"
"It is my wish to delight all members of the family, young and old, parent and child"
"You can dream, create, design and build the most wonderful place in the world. But it requires people to make the dream a reality"
"I don’t want the public to see the world they live in while they’re in the park. I want them to feel they’re in another world"

- Walt Disney

Disney is now apublic company, but the core concepts are still the same no matter what discord you may read here or elsewhere. It takes money to do all of this.
 

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
I don't mind the IP-ization of the parks, as long as it's well done, enduring, and not a cheap cash-in on the latest flash-in-the-pan. I'm not sure if anyone remembers Kings Dominion before and after Paramount assumed control. That was an example of poorly executed IP tie-ins. Like displaying movie props like they were sacred relics, or basing an entire land on movie franchises with limited life spans, like Wayne's World (?!).

I'd rather that Disney remained relevant and highly profitable so that they have the cash to push the Imagineers to the next level, even if that means basing the attraction around IPs. If Disney didn't change and adapt, we'd still have stuff like the Monsanto House of the Future.

That being said, personally not being a Marvel fan at all, which has an aesthetic that doesn't really seem to fit with Disney, I hope Marvel's somewhat limited presence in the parks doesn't become much more expansive.
 

JiminyandTink

Well-Known Member
Personally, I feel like there should be a mix of both original concepts for the parks and the use of existing IPs (and by IPs, I mean from movies, tv, etc, as litterally everything in a Disney Park is part of their collection of IPs).

I have to say that most of my favorite rides (Pirates, SSE, Haunted Mansion, etc) and characters (Figment, Sonny Eclipse, etc) at the Parks have nothing to do with existing IPs, but if you are going to use an existing IP (Disney's or not - ex. Twilight Zone), it just has to be done with the classic storytelling, immersion and attention to detail that Disney is/was known for and then there isn't a problem. I do feel like there should be some balance between both however.
 

HauntedPirate

Premium Member
Placing movie IP into the parks can be done and done well, when it's well-placed, appropriate, etc. However, P&R management views every problem as a nail and their only tool is a hammer - movie IP. You can guess the rest.

For example:

GotG coaster - Good concept and ride potential, terrible placement
MMRR - Good concept and ride potential, terrible placement
Tron coaster - Good concept and ride potential, terrible placement
SW:GE - Good concept and ride potential (someday...), appropriate placement

Disney thrived for decades on creating new things (and yes, I know they borrowed from fairy tales and presented them in their own way), of pushing the envelope and doing things "the Disney way". They don't seem to be in that mindset much anymore and are relying almost solely on acquired properties to pump the P&R bottom line. Such things as PotC, HM, much of EPCOT Center, Space Mt, BTMR, et al., are/were timeless, classic, and quintessentially Disney. Hard to find that sort of thing these days, when quarterly numbers are all that matter and every square inch of the theme parks has to generate a profit. They were a creative company that used to lead by leaps and bounds but has slowly regressed to the mean, relying more on retreads and remakes and acquired properties and shoe-horning things in wherever they can than creating that timeless content they were once known and revered for. And since the masses these days eat up whatever TDO feeds them (it's a cultural thing, not going to get into it again here), there's zero chance things will change. And no amount of posts on an internet forum is going to change that.
 

WondersOfLife

Blink, blink. Breathe, breathe. Day in, day out.
I enjoy IPs if (I PERSONALLY think) they’re out in the right location. The only thing I wish was different was Guardians and Tron’s locations swapped. But like, they aren’t bad. In my personal opinion.
 

mousehockey37

Well-Known Member
I was wondering if people could offer their opinion on the use of IPs in Disney parks to gather a general opinion of this forum, and why they feel the way they do about the inclusion of IPs.

Personally, while I love the original Disney attractions such as Space Mountain and Big Thunder Mountain, and enjoy the unique charm they have, I feel that IPs are simply the future for a successful, 21st century Disney. When Disneyland first opened in the 1950s, it was IP-based, but didn't rely upon them for whole lands as it didn't make sense to invest fully into a single franchise at the time. However, as time went on, with the rise of technology and the internet, pop culture has (for better or for worse) become all encompassing in the lives of my generation and dominates the interests of kids my age. The reason non IP based attractions worked so well in the past is that Disney didn't have as wide of a selection of properties to chose from, and pop culture wasn't as dominant in everyday life which allowed original ideas to flourish. However, to remain relevant to the amusement industry, the move towards IP is necessary to keep the general public engaged with the park.

The core audience of Disney, ultimately, is children. While adults are able to enjoy the park and form a passionate community, children/families are the park's biggest demographic and source of income. In fact, the reason the older Disney community is so passionate right now is because many forum members all have memories of the parks from when they were a child, and I find the reason that a lot of people don't like to see change is because it erases the Disney that they remembered as kids. But we aren't kids anymore, and I feel that the parks have to move on and make sure they can establish themselves as relevant to today's children to ensure that a passionate community remains, say, 50 years later. That's why stuff like Marvel, Star Wars, or Frozen is necessary to these parks as those franchises hold lots of appeal to my generation, and keeps kids enticed to return to the parks. Epcot is a far-cry from Walt's original vision, and while the move towards IP does signify the end of the park's purpose of education, it was already out of line with its original concept, and is largely unpopular with the younger demographic compared to the other parks. This is going to be wildly unpopular, but the move of Epcot towards IP is necessary for it to remain going forward. When the general public comes to Disney, they want to see their favorite Disney owned films come to life, and Epcot has plenty of room for a GotG ride and Frozen. While it's unfortunate, if a non IP based park similar to the original Disney were to open today, it would probably fail in regards to being king of the amusement industry. People want to see IP, and by removing old, unpopular rides (such as Maelstrom) to make way for modern, long-lasting franchises, Disney keeps itself as king of the theme park industry.

What are your thoughts?
Gotta think this is a troll... :cautious:
 

AndyS2992

Well-Known Member
I don't understand why people get so worked up about IPs, you're going to Disney to be surrounded by Disney IPs, what would Disney World be without Mickey Mouse, Winnie the Pooh, Disney Princesess, Peter Pan? Get rid of IPs and you have a generic amusement park with no theme.. which do exist if you rather go there for a fraction of the price then go ahead ;). Yes original attractions like Haunted Mansion and Pirates are great and I still want original attractions but if Disney releases a new good movie, I want to see that in the parks, as long as it is done properly and not shoe horned in of course. IPs have their place, particularly Disney and Pixar.. Lucasfilm, Marvel and Fox stuff not so much. Disney IPs are what make Disney World 'Disney' so I think the argument is kinda silly.
 

BlakeW39

Well-Known Member
IP can be good or can be bad. It's all about where and how it is used. If IP thematically fits (is in the right place if there is one and actually supplements the land upon which it is placed) and is used in a way which does not feel like blatant advertisement, then it isn't worse than an original concept. The problem with that is IP rarely fits perfectly, and they can have a perfect fit if they just create something which fits perfectly ans creates the experience needed from scratch. So yes IP isn't innately bad but relying upon it can be, though as Disney engulfs so many IPs they do run the gambit of styles.

I think you're wrong to assume Disney guests as some stupid pop culture fiends that only want IP; they'll take something good. IP can grab some suoer fans but it doesn't mean the lab will absolutely grab more guests. However IP is obviously the future for now and the best we can push for or hope for is its proper use.
 

larryz

Can't 'Member Anything
Premium Member
GotG coaster - Good concept and ride potential, terrible placement
MMRR - Good concept and ride potential, terrible placement
Tron coaster - Good concept and ride potential, terrible placement
SW:GE - Good concept and ride potential (someday...), appropriate placement
I think you got it backwards... the only example of terrible placement I see in your list is SW:GE, and that should have been just one land in a whole new gate full of Star Wars planets and ships.
 
Top Bottom