BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
*Zootopia in DAK intensifies*
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
This forum's opinion on IPs?
- Thread starter nunch3
- Start date
*Zootopia in DAK intensifies*
Walt Disney1955
Well-Known Member
IPs are fine. They are needed and have always been a part of the parks. The characters too have always been there. In 1955 Walt had Dumbo, Snow White, Mr. Toad, Peter Pan, Casey Jr. (Dumbo), Mad Tea Party and such as opening day rides. Alice in Wonderland came in 1958. That is all of Fantasyland, and even Sleeping Beauty Castle was technically an IP with an upcoming movie. Swiss Family Treehouse was an IP by the time it opened in WDW in 1971. Heck, even Splash Mountain is an IP.
However..............you have to balance both. Those are great attractions but there has to be imagination too. You need the best of both worlds. Look at all of the stuff from the brain of Walt:
Jungle Cruise, Pirates, Haunted Mansion (in the early stages), Country Bear Jamboree (early stages), Tiki Birds, Carousel of Progress, Mr. Lincoln, Small World, Railroad, Autopia, etc.
Then stuff after the fact like Tom Sawyer Island, Space Mountain, Thunder Mountain, Hall of Presidents, etc.
You need to have the best of both worlds, that is what makes the park great. Without it then there isn't any true imagination as far as I am concerned. Expedition Everest opening over a decade ago shouldn't cut it as the last true original ride.
However..............you have to balance both. Those are great attractions but there has to be imagination too. You need the best of both worlds. Look at all of the stuff from the brain of Walt:
Jungle Cruise, Pirates, Haunted Mansion (in the early stages), Country Bear Jamboree (early stages), Tiki Birds, Carousel of Progress, Mr. Lincoln, Small World, Railroad, Autopia, etc.
Then stuff after the fact like Tom Sawyer Island, Space Mountain, Thunder Mountain, Hall of Presidents, etc.
You need to have the best of both worlds, that is what makes the park great. Without it then there isn't any true imagination as far as I am concerned. Expedition Everest opening over a decade ago shouldn't cut it as the last true original ride.
Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
What the IP represents and how you integrate it into the park are the key points. In my opinion, Disney usually gets both of these right. Disney has spent decades showing us these fantastic worlds and times unlike our own and instilling a desire to visit and immerse ourselves in these worlds. People want to visit the Old West, the Star Wars universe, Car's Land, etc.
An example of doing this the wrong way was Paramount's ham-fisted attempt to turn the Taft parks (King's Dominion, Carowinds, King's Island, Canada's Wonderland, etc) into "movie parks". This consisted of randomly posting movie props throughout the park like they were holy relics, re-theming existing rides to give them a peripheral connection to Parmount films, and building new rides losely themed on Paramount movies that, in retrospect, had very little staying power. Nobody wanted to immerse themselves in a land based on "Wayne's World". Did anyone remember "Days of Thunder" one week after they saw it? Probably not, nor did they want a ride losely based on this forgettable movie. Why would anyone want to insert themselves into the world of "The Italian Job", which is pretty much a more dangerous, crappier version of our own world?
An example of doing this the wrong way was Paramount's ham-fisted attempt to turn the Taft parks (King's Dominion, Carowinds, King's Island, Canada's Wonderland, etc) into "movie parks". This consisted of randomly posting movie props throughout the park like they were holy relics, re-theming existing rides to give them a peripheral connection to Parmount films, and building new rides losely themed on Paramount movies that, in retrospect, had very little staying power. Nobody wanted to immerse themselves in a land based on "Wayne's World". Did anyone remember "Days of Thunder" one week after they saw it? Probably not, nor did they want a ride losely based on this forgettable movie. Why would anyone want to insert themselves into the world of "The Italian Job", which is pretty much a more dangerous, crappier version of our own world?
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
I have stated many times before that to me the entire concern is ridiculous. Every thing that was every looked at outside of nature is somebodies IP. In Disney's case, pretty much since the beginning the definition of IP meant what twist they put on a story presented to them. Yes, they had a few ideas that were strictly "blue sky" and created by the group of people, including Walt, that were on the Disney Payroll. However, Cinderella, Pinocchio, Snow White, Peter Pan, and even the beloved Mary Poppins among others, was someone else, not on payroll, that thought of and created the character and basic story. Disney put it's own brand on it after, when necessary, purchasing the right to use the original story. Now all of sudden IP's are bad. Anything, any idea that is done well belongs in a Disney Park, especially if they own the organization or purchased the right from the one that created it. It is Disney's now so it is now a Disney IP for all intents and purposes. To me any objection is just something else to complain about with no basis for complaint.
Trackmaster
Well-Known Member
Walt Disney was an artisan, not a businessman. He was great at what he did, but I don't think that his company would have survived he had lived and stayed involved. They needed people with actual business sense to take it to the next level.
Nottamus
Well-Known Member
My opinion is...its all good. IPs are fine by us.
I will ride the ride, walk the land, eat the food....if its Avatar, or Mickey Mouse, Star Wars, or Goofy. ( I lean towards Goofy)
We go to Disney for it all...not just the rides, but the resort, the immersion, just all of it.
Placement seems to be a huge issue here on these forums, and i can see some points, but not all. My thoughts are....Disney can build what they want, where they want..it will just be more to do. That being said, having Donald Duck ride show up in Pandora wouldn't make sense, but I'm pretty sure even Disney would recognize that...
I will ride the ride, walk the land, eat the food....if its Avatar, or Mickey Mouse, Star Wars, or Goofy. ( I lean towards Goofy)
We go to Disney for it all...not just the rides, but the resort, the immersion, just all of it.
Placement seems to be a huge issue here on these forums, and i can see some points, but not all. My thoughts are....Disney can build what they want, where they want..it will just be more to do. That being said, having Donald Duck ride show up in Pandora wouldn't make sense, but I'm pretty sure even Disney would recognize that...
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
If the IPs in question are ones generated/created by Disney, then, depending on how the IPs are placed, I'm okay with them. I would ALSO like original concepts be developed for the parks, however. Unfortunately, that is something that may cease to exist given the pinheads currently in charge of attraction development. I really do believe that attractions like the Tiki Room and Haunted Mansion would not be built by today's Disney unless they were connected to a TV show or movie. Which is pretty darn sad if you ask me.
What I could do without is attractions built around unneeded, unnecessary, non-Disney-generated properties. You know, properties like Iger and Eisner's purchases and licensees, like the dippy Avatar. Pixar is an exception because of its Disney roots and mingled history; without Disney, Pixar would likely never have existed, much less been a success. So I don't mind them being in the parks, FWIW. And that's my two cents.
What I could do without is attractions built around unneeded, unnecessary, non-Disney-generated properties. You know, properties like Iger and Eisner's purchases and licensees, like the dippy Avatar. Pixar is an exception because of its Disney roots and mingled history; without Disney, Pixar would likely never have existed, much less been a success. So I don't mind them being in the parks, FWIW. And that's my two cents.
KBLovedDisney
Well-Known Member
I'm still upset with them changing the World of Disney store and getting rid of GMR...
But in all honesty, my anger won't stop them so when it comes to them bringing in IPs I can't win the argument, so....it's whatever.
But in all honesty, my anger won't stop them so when it comes to them bringing in IPs I can't win the argument, so....it's whatever.
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
IP represents a reliance on a previous idea. Original attractions are original stories.
IP has to enhance the park's story in some way - the theme, if you will. Because afterall storytelling is what every Disney park is built on.
And when using a predetirmed story to enhance the park's narrative instead of crafting a new narrative specifically for that purpose... it can do a bad job or at least a lesser one.
However if done right IP can fit. But the first question they ask themselves when designing a new attraction should be "how can we tell ___ story to promote ___ theme and further the PARK'S storytelling in ___ ways," and then if they decide an IP will do that then cool, but not "what IP can we use that will tell a ____ story that fits with the themes of the park."
IP has to enhance the park's story in some way - the theme, if you will. Because afterall storytelling is what every Disney park is built on.
And when using a predetirmed story to enhance the park's narrative instead of crafting a new narrative specifically for that purpose... it can do a bad job or at least a lesser one.
However if done right IP can fit. But the first question they ask themselves when designing a new attraction should be "how can we tell ___ story to promote ___ theme and further the PARK'S storytelling in ___ ways," and then if they decide an IP will do that then cool, but not "what IP can we use that will tell a ____ story that fits with the themes of the park."
Disney.Mike
Well-Known Member
IPs are fine so long as they are done and implemented tastefully. I also like original (non movie) attractions.
The forum's opinion of IP....
Yert3
Well-Known Member
I’m pretty indifferent of them. As long as the attraction is good. I’m skeptical of Guardians at Epcot, but they said they’re going to fit it in thematically somehow. I don’t know how they’re going to do that, but at least they’re trying. I’m more concerned about changes or dumbing down of current attractions. Like shortening Tiki room and country bears. Are people’s attention spans really that bad these days? Also adding cgi effects to the haunted mansion. While I greatly prefer practical effects over digital, I have no problem with those effects in new attractions. I feel like changing classic attractions like that is a huge middle finger to original creators. Pirates these days is a joke. Did they really need to tie in the movie series to it? That’s the equivalent to putting an Eddie Murphy animatronic in the Haunted Mansion. I’m still thankful to this day that didn’t happen.
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
If you can't recognize
- that there needs to be a balance
- that WDW became the world's number one tourist destination by largely NOT shoving Disney IP down your throat and instead offering original experiences
- that the majority of the most beloved classic rides are NOT IP-based
- that people will flock to an attraction based simply on whether or not it's good despite that the average market research target might say "oh yes I definitely want to ride a roller coaster with Iron Man, not some made up fictional setting" when responding to a carefully curated survey
- that the current push to shove characters and IP in every possible location regardless of theme or whether or not it belongs is extremely lazy and cynical and in fact the exact opposite of what the world's number one entertainment company should be doing
... then... uh... you probably also watch and enjoy The Big Bang Theory. *insert smug grin here*
You all know how when you talk to someone about your love of WDW and they've either never been or went as a kid and don't really remember it, and they scoff and say that its dumb and fake tacky stuff for kids only? Well, we all know that isn't actually like that at all, and although we could never convince those people otherwise, it felt good knowing the truth. Well... with all this tacky IP pushing it certainly is on its way to becoming the cynical tacky product the haters always said it was.
- that there needs to be a balance
- that WDW became the world's number one tourist destination by largely NOT shoving Disney IP down your throat and instead offering original experiences
- that the majority of the most beloved classic rides are NOT IP-based
- that people will flock to an attraction based simply on whether or not it's good despite that the average market research target might say "oh yes I definitely want to ride a roller coaster with Iron Man, not some made up fictional setting" when responding to a carefully curated survey
- that the current push to shove characters and IP in every possible location regardless of theme or whether or not it belongs is extremely lazy and cynical and in fact the exact opposite of what the world's number one entertainment company should be doing
... then... uh... you probably also watch and enjoy The Big Bang Theory. *insert smug grin here*
You all know how when you talk to someone about your love of WDW and they've either never been or went as a kid and don't really remember it, and they scoff and say that its dumb and fake tacky stuff for kids only? Well, we all know that isn't actually like that at all, and although we could never convince those people otherwise, it felt good knowing the truth. Well... with all this tacky IP pushing it certainly is on its way to becoming the cynical tacky product the haters always said it was.
Last edited:
SteamboatJoe
Well-Known Member
IPs themselves aren't bad. It's the implementation and execution of adding them which is the problem. That and the things we are losing as a result of said changes. Marketing, merchandising, and accounting are making the creative decisions now and it shows.
TheX8
Member
I think IPs are getting a bad flack here. IPs in their own right are huge technological/art/story-telling achievements. For the Disney parks to include them means that they are promoting them to the public.
For example let's say there are kids that were born in the Mid to late 2000s. They have over sixty years of Disney films before them that should be brought to their attention in the midst of the new movies coming out in theaters. Having a ride based on an IP brings out a necessary exposure to the IP regardless of quality of ride.
If a ride based on Beauty and the Beast (first animated movie to ever be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar) comes out that means kids will form an awareness to a movie that is almost 30 years old.
Let's face it the Disney parks will have an IP majority in the years to come.
What I don't like is an overexposure of an IP in multiple parks in the same resort (IE Frozen, stick to one place.)
For example let's say there are kids that were born in the Mid to late 2000s. They have over sixty years of Disney films before them that should be brought to their attention in the midst of the new movies coming out in theaters. Having a ride based on an IP brings out a necessary exposure to the IP regardless of quality of ride.
If a ride based on Beauty and the Beast (first animated movie to ever be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar) comes out that means kids will form an awareness to a movie that is almost 30 years old.
Let's face it the Disney parks will have an IP majority in the years to come.
What I don't like is an overexposure of an IP in multiple parks in the same resort (IE Frozen, stick to one place.)
AdventureHasAName
Well-Known Member
... because inventing the concept of Pirates of the Caribbean as a theme park attraction ... and then going on to make over a billion dollars with it was neither "smart" nor "efficient"?
Brer Panther
Well-Known Member
The problem with Disney's use of IPs is this...
1) They've somehow come to the conclusion that attractions that don't have IPs attached to them are dangerous, despite how popular rides like Test Track, Space Mountain, etc. are
2) They don't think about whether or not the IP works in a specific location or how it's executed
3) It's not just about IPs. Notice how the IPs they're milking are the franchises that are popular right now.
1) They've somehow come to the conclusion that attractions that don't have IPs attached to them are dangerous, despite how popular rides like Test Track, Space Mountain, etc. are
2) They don't think about whether or not the IP works in a specific location or how it's executed
3) It's not just about IPs. Notice how the IPs they're milking are the franchises that are popular right now.
SteamboatJoe
Well-Known Member
The age factor can't be overlooked. In 1955, they had only 9 feature animated films plus a hand full of package films to work with, not including the live action films. By '71 there were 13 animated films plus the above and the live action films. With Pixar and others there are now 80+ films.
