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?
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?
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.
. 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.