Tom Staggs drops some REAL information about the future

[JustInTime]

Except that Disney's emphasis on characters is predated by the success of the theme parks. Disney created the medium by creating great experiences, not subjecting one medium to another.

What are you even talking about? I am not saying Disney invented theme parks. What I am saying is that Disney has less stale properties then Universal and attendance numbers back that up. People would rather see characters they love on decent rides then ones they don't care about on great rides. Naturally not everyone agrees so they chose which park to visit. But one is chosen more than the other. The history of the theme park is irrelevant to my point.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

That's a shame. A Star Wars land could be outstanding. I'd take it over avatar anyday

There's a much higher chance of a Star Wars land coming to the parks than when compared to before the announcement of the company buying the franchise, obviously. And equally obvious, the "insiders" on this board don't know what the top brass are thinking with regards to Star Wars.

Star Wars is sort of like Apple in terms of devoted followers. Apple fans wait hours before stores open to buy the latest production, and Star Wars fans will be waiting in lawn chairs before Episode 7 opens.

Disney has had some good live action films, classics like 20,000 Leagues, the new Tron film, Pirate films are fun . . . but they've never had something like Star Wars with the rabid fan base combined with broad appeal.

If Star Wars does blockbuster business, (which every Star Wars film has), I see a Star Wars land in a stateside park at some point, after Episode 7 though. Possibly before Carsland comes to WDW (according to Al Lutz, Carsland is coming to Tokyo as they are willing to front the budget Lasseter wants). Al said that Carsland would be at the end of the current decade, if ever, for Orlando. Everybody loves Mater, and Carsland, but Star Wars is coming back for good, Episodes 7,8,9 and spinoffs . . .

What is Star Wars going to compete with at the multiplex? Avatar?

Hehe.

There must be a sucker born every minute, I can see Avatarland getting put on hold while the company fouces on its "in-house intellectual properties and projects," i.e. Star Wars. No sense at all hyping a rival to Star Wars, which is what Disney is doing with Avatarland. I won't be surprised when Disney calls off Avatarland, it is a big red flag that Staggs intimated that Disney "remains enthuasiastic" despite the whole thing being stuck in development limbo.

There is absolutely no need to do Avatarland, at all . . . look at all of the lush worlds of the Star Wars universe that could be put into Animal Kingdom. Wookie, Ewoks, Yoda's Degobah, even Tatooine has interesting animals. Building Avatarland would be like settling for a frozen burrito when you just bought a four star restaurant. Everybody *gets* Star Wars, it's been around for decades and has generated huge fan interest. Avatar is just G.I. Joe in space.

 

[JustInTime]

Slight disagreement. I don't think attendance us really s good indicator.

I think overall people go where the best rides are. IP is a secondary consideration for anyone older than a teen, or who isn't hooked on " Pixie Dust" (and I don't use that in a negative way here). At least that's true for me and pretty much every adult I know.

Sure, parents choose Disney so the kids can see their favorite characters, but when the kids aren't with them, more and more are shifting away from Disney. That's because the best new rides (for the non-fanatic public) are going in elsewhere.

Attendance is really a dead end in most arguments. After 50 years, Disney parks have become almost a rite of passage for many families. That does, and will continue to, skew attendance in their favor.
But take attendance out of the equation and you get a level playing field for making comparison.

But why is Disney a right of passage? It's at least partially because of Disney characters and their stories. Which drives my point home, in a way.

 

[lazyboy97o]

What are you even talking about? I am not saying Disney invented theme parks. What I am saying is that Disney has less stale properties then Universal and attendance numbers back that up. People would rather see characters they love on decent rides then ones they don't care about on great rides. Naturally not everyone agrees so they chose which park to visit. But one is chosen more than the other. The history of the theme park is irrelevant to my point.

What I'm saying is that Disney ruled in attendance before they aggressively focused on intellectual property. You can't say B caused A when B occurred after A.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But why is Disney a right of passage? It's at least partially because of Disney characters and their stories. Which drives my point home, in a way.

Because Disney created a great experience. The obsession with characters came afterwards.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I think the same could easily be said about Transformers (I mean, the last two movies were awful and it's not like the first one was all that great), yet Universal is still building a ride. And people seem to be excited by it.

If the Pandora expansion provides good attractions and a well themed land, people won't care about the movie it is based on. If it sucks as a theme park land, then it won't matter if the upcoming movies make a crapload of money and become part of the cultural consciousness. A good ride is a good ride.

Look at how many people say they don't care for Cars, but still enjoy Cars Land immensely.

Before Transformers was a film, it was a television show, toys for young boys. There is an awareness of what Transformers is, and Dark Side of the Moon grossed 1.1 billion, and wasn't all that of a horrible film even though I don't care for Shia LeBeouf's character. Transformers will be "rebooted" with a new storyline, characters, so I think Uni made a good decision.

The original Cars film did good box office, plus the characters are very likable, and you instantly *get* Carsland. A world where Cars are the people, got it.

Avatar has been forgotten by the general public, IMHO, . . . I saw it twice, can't really remember the details and don't care to. I'm sure there will be tons of Avatar references in Avatarland (if it gets built), but most folks won't care. I can't name the protagonist in Avatar, the characters are forgettable. What Avatar had was a great computer generated world . . . big deal, the new Star Wars film will have the next gen level of CGI, and will likely look even better than Avatar.

 

[JustInTime]

Because Disney created a great experience. The obsession with characters came afterwards.

You are thinking too narrow. I'm not talking about character meet and greets. I'm talking about rides based off characters. Disney was known for it's films first and foremost. That is what drove attendance and still does. Look at all the character based attractions Disneyland has when it first opened:

http://www.yesterland.com/dl1955.html

So, I disagree.

 

[JustInTime]

What I'm saying is that Disney ruled in attendance before they aggressively focused on intellectual property. You can't say B caused A when B occurred after A.

I think you should look into Disneyland's original attractions.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

But why is Disney a right of passage? It's at least partially because of Disney characters and their stories. Which drives my point home, in a way.

Agree.

Disney is still a major filmaker, in fact, with Star Wars, they may become the best filmaker around. Though of course, the classic Disney films, animated/live action, are what gives Disney parks the "heart" that guests flock to experience, young and old. There simply isn't the same vibe from Universal films, i.e. to make "family films" that resonate deeply with the public. Universal can build some good rides, but there isn't the sense of the Disney culture when you go to a Universal park it is all sort of hodge-podge of films and properties.

I'm not sure that adults are turning away from Disney as a lot of adult Disney fans grew up on Disney, and feel quite at home in the parks.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

What I'm saying is that Disney ruled in attendance before they aggressively focused on intellectual property. You can't say B caused A when B occurred after A.

Not true.

A ton of Disney live action/animated films came before the parks. Guests clamored, and complained, when they couldn't see Tinker Bell in Disneyland months after the park opened, so Disney put in a Tinker Bell walkaround character. Always has been, and probably always will be, the synergy between the films and the parks.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You are thinking too narrow. I'm not talking about character meet and greets. I'm talking about rides based off characters. Disney was known for it's films first and foremost. That is what drove attendance and still does. Look at all the character based attractions Disneyland has when it first opened:

http://www.yesterland.com/dl1955.html

So, I disagree.

If counting 8 of 36. 22%.

 

[Lee]

But why is Disney a right of passage? It's at least partially because of Disney characters and their stories. Which drives my point home, in a way.

Disney is a rite if passage because it was at one time the only player in the game. If you wanted to go on a family vacation with the kids, that's where you went. It's almost a cliche.
Forty years later, it's ingrained in the (inter)national psyche.
The IPs, at this point are almost secondary, except for a very few instances (Cars maybe, Potter...)

IP out of the equation, people will go where the best rides are.

Because Disney created a great experience. The obsession with characters came afterwards.

Sadly.
True. Experience trumps story/IP/characters.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

You are thinking too narrow. I'm not talking about character meet and greets. I'm talking about rides based off characters. Disney was known for it's films first and foremost. That is what drove attendance and still does. Look at all the character based attractions Disneyland has when it first opened:

http://www.yesterland.com/dl1955.html

So, I disagree.

Lazyboy is one of the posters who sometimes likes to endlessly argue a weak point, with confusing/nonsensical posts. Don't get upset, but realize that these posts are trolling from a certain point of view.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Stale is also very much an "in the eye if the beholder" deal.
For one example, to me, Mummy is much less stale than Peter Pan.

With Disney, as fans we tend to consider all the old animated features as "classics", while to the general public...they're just...well...old animated features. That, to many, makes Shrek less stale than say..Snow White.

Except Shrek is a horrible, horrible attraction - but that's because it was poor execution to begin with, it has nothing to do with stale IP. Having said that, your overall point is well taken and one you, me, any anyone else with common sense has made time and time again. The Intellectual Property itself is really only important from a marketing standpoint. A quality attraction can be made around just about any Intellectual Property.

 

[BryceM]

What are you even talking about? I am not saying Disney invented theme parks. What I am saying is that Disney has less stale properties then Universal and attendance numbers back that up. People would rather see characters they love on decent rides then ones they don't care about on great rides. Naturally not everyone agrees so they chose which park to visit. But one is chosen more than the other. The history of the theme park is irrelevant to my point.

Everyone is different. I'm more fond of Gru and his daughters than Peter Pan, but I'm also more fond of Ariel than the characters from Twister. However, that doesn't change my opinion of the rides and the parks as a whole. A good attraction is a good attraction.

 

[Lee]

People would rather see characters they love on decent rides then ones they don't care about on great rides.

See...I don't buy that at all.

 

[RSoxNo1]

But why is Disney a right of passage? It's at least partially because of Disney characters and their stories. Which drives my point home, in a way.

Disney is a right of passage because the early days of it's existence put that in the mindset of many Americans. I think it's reasonable to say that the homogenization and blatant cash grabs have resulted in the parks evolving and a Disney vacation is no longer viewed as a "right of passage". I think Disney has hurt the brand to the point where a Disney World trip is no longer romanticized the same way it used to be.

 

[JustInTime]

Disney is a rite if passage because it was at one time the only player in the game. If you wanted to go on a family vacation with the kids, that's where you went. It's almost a cliche.
Forty years later, it's ingrained in the (inter)national psyche.
The IPs, at this point are almost secondary, except for a very few instances (Cars maybe, Potter...)

IP out of the equation, people will go where the best rides are.

Sadly.
True. Experience trumps story/IP/characters.

I think it's easier for you to say because you don't care about the characters. And yes, IP if taken out of the equation people flock to the park with the best rides. And there you just proved my point. People currently chose the park with the better IP than the rides. Which is all i've been trying to say.

And we are seeing Harry Potter change that because it has both. Classic IP and an amazing ride. Something we haven't seen in a while in the west coast.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

True. Experience trumps story/IP/characters.

True?

Disneyland made Mickey Mouse popular? Story is important, look at Pixar, they made billions telling great stories, which were then turned into attractions where the story continued. This is the synergy between the parks and the films, but without the parks, Disney, and others, could still tell compelling stories. Iger bought Pixar because the Mouse House didn't make great animated family films anymore, and didn't have the characters theme park guests love to see more of. So, not having the story/IP/characters has costed Disney billions, though of course with Pixar it was worth it.

 

[RSoxNo1]

People would rather see characters they love on decent rides then ones they don't care about on great rides.

See...I don't buy that at all.

The thing is, people are stupid. What you are talking about is the level of quality of a ride, but guest movement is often hard to predict. Ultimately yes, a well executed attraction will remain popular and stand the test of time. But initially, people will gravitate towards properties that they are more familiar with.