Use of IP's...

KrzyKtty

KrzyKtty

Well-Known Member
I personally do not mind new IP, even acquired IP, integrated into the parks. Sometimes it is so magical to see your child overjoyed at being able to see their favorite Disney Character interact with them on some small level in the ride. Yes, I miss Maelstrom, but I am excited to see my daughter enjoy Frozen.

That being said, I think Disney is doing a dis-service to its imagineers. The Disney imagineers are legendary for their ability to create wonderful original rides based on new/never seen before ideas. When you start putting them into an IP box, you limit the creativity that Disney became famous for. I mean, some of their classic rides were so imaginative, story driven, and beloved that they were able to create movies off of the ride and not the other way around.

So while I don't mind integrating new IP into the parks at all, I don't want Disney to put themselves into a box either.
 
Last edited:
Homer fan

Homer fan

Active Member
Original Poster
KrzyKtty said:
I personally do not mind new IP, even acquired IP, integrated into the parks. Sometimes it is so magical to see your child overjoyed at being able to see their favorite Disney Character interact with them on some small level in the ride. Yes, I miss Maelstrom, but I am excited to see my daughter enjoy Frozen.

That being said, I think Disney is doing a dis-service to its imagineers. The Disney imagineers are legendary for their ability to create wonderful original rides based on new/never seen before ideas. When you start putting them into an IP box, you limit the creativity that Disney became famous for. I mean, some of their classic rides were so imaginative, story driven, and beloved that they were able to create movies off of the ride and not the other way around.

So while I don't mind integrating new IP into the parks at all, I don't want Disney to put themselves into a box either.
Click to expand...
I agree, you can have both. I just don't think IP's mark the end of the parks
 
Cmdr_Crimson

Cmdr_Crimson

Well-Known Member
Homer fan said:
I guess my question to all the "no IP" people is, why do you not want IP's in the park? At some point those were all original ideas as well. What makes Space Mountain better not being an IP, compared to it being based on a Disney movie? I mean, as long as the IP is one of these magical characters we all love, why is that a bad thing? Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

Let's be greatful the Stitch Space Mountain concept was never incorporated while it was planned for the DL version if it was successful it was to happen for MK's version....

tumblr_mrfu50F0vA1sp8qqio4_500.jpg
 
Homer fan

Homer fan

Active Member
Original Poster
Cmdr_Crimson said:
Let's be greatful the Stitch Space Mountain concept was never incorporated while it was planned for the DL version if it was successful it was to happen for MK's version....

tumblr_mrfu50F0vA1sp8qqio4_500.jpg
Click to expand...
But who says that wouldn't make Space Mtn an even more popular ride? People relate to characters and are more likely to relate to characters. A couple years ago, I went to Universal just to experience Springfield, because I'm a big Simpsons fan. If there is someone out there that is a big Stitch fan, they may come to Disney just to ride that ride, again, assuming it is done well. Don't get me wrong, I like Space Mtn the way it is, just saying it doesn't have to be considered bad because there is an IP attached.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Homer fan said:
But who says that wouldn't make Space Mtn an even more popular ride? People relate to characters and are more likely to relate to characters. A couple years ago, I went to Universal just to experience Springfield, because I'm a big Simpsons fan. If there is someone out there that is a big Stitch fan, they may come to Disney just to ride that ride, again, assuming it is done well. Don't get me wrong, I like Space Mtn the way it is, just saying it doesn't have to be considered bad because there is an IP attached.
Click to expand...
Again, you wouldn't be making such comments about a film. Nobody would suggest just adding a character from another film into a completely different film to try to make it more popular.
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
You don't get it because you don't consider themed entertainment as it's own, legitimate storytelling medium. A themed experience not based on a film is somehow lesser and not "Disney." That's the conflict. People who do not really like themed entertainment wanting the theme parks to be turned into something completely different, a branded franchise experience, and then telling people who do like themed entertainment to get over it.
Click to expand...
Until EPCOT came along what parts of the great Themed Disney experience didn't start out as either a film, animated or real life along with commercial ventures (see Monsanto). Mickey Mouse... film! 20K... film! Snow White... film. The tree house.... Film. There were, of course, a few exceptions like HM or PotC or CoP or Small World, but, mostly IP's created by someone else (not a Disney) and used as a quality entertainment theme. The whole concern about IP's, in my opinion, is just grabbed from the sky as something that isn't really a problem and attempting to make it one because of distorted thought about what should be. It, like my thoughts, are opinion, not fact.
 
Homer fan

Homer fan

Active Member
Original Poster
lazyboy97o said:
Again, you wouldn't be making such comments about a film. Nobody would suggest just adding a character from another film into a completely different film to try to make it more popular.
Click to expand...
THats fair. But I don't think there is an issue with non-IP attractions, I'm just saying, I don't see it as a bad thing and I think it's more than likely a good thing. Either way, it depends on how well it's done.
 
B

barkerbird

Active Member
My main gripe is acquired IPs that Disney bought just because they're popular (Avatar, Star Wars, Marvel) and just reaped the benefits to compete with Universal's Harry Potter World.

Disney has so many classics that have nearly no presence in the parks at all (Aladdin, The Incredibles, Monsters Inc., Cars, Hercules, Tarzan, Ducktales, Tangled, etc.). Then you have the attractions that brilliant imagineers created that fit into the parks, and have that sense of wonder that Walt Disney was famous for. To me, Star Wars and Avatar don't fit into that dynamic regardless of how popular/successful they are. Just because a product is popular, that doesn't mean Disney should buy it and slap it into that parks. That doesn't seem right to me.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Goofyernmost said:
Until EPCOT came along what parts of the great Themed Disney experience didn't start out as either a film, animated or real life along with commercial ventures (see Monsanto). Mickey Mouse... film! 20K... film! Snow White... film. The tree house.... Film. There were, of course, a few exceptions like HM or PotC or CoP or Small World, but, mostly IP's created by someone else (not a Disney) and used as a quality entertainment theme. The whole concern about IP's, in my opinion, is just grabbed from the sky as something that isn't really a problem and attempting to make it one because of distorted thought about what should be. It, like my thoughts, are opinion, not fact.
Click to expand...
Most of Disneyland was not film-based attractions when it opened. Afterwards the amount of work by WED Enterprises based on studio work only continued to decrease. It also ignores the motivations. Many of the classic film-based attractions were based on box office disappoints and would never have been built based on today's decision making process. The content isn't the problem, it is the decision making process. The idea that "Disney today wants IPs in the parks" is inaccurate and why people wonder why "deserving films" x, y and z are not in the parks. Disney's focus is on franchises. That is what is most important. It doesn't matter how great of an attraction could be created, it is whether or not there is a current franchise to support based on box office and merchandise sales.

Homer fan said:
THats fair. But I don't think there is an issue with non-IP attractions, I'm just saying, I don't see it as a bad thing and I think it's more than likely a good thing. Either way, it depends on how well it's done.
Click to expand...
IP is not synonymous with film. So this is the same problem of legitimacy. As a story telling medium, being done well should center on the story. It doesn't make sense for the story of a film to just add in characters from other stories, and the same applies to stories told in other mediums.
 
Last edited:
Animaniac93-98

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
Building attractions based exclusively on now-popular titles so you can "ride the movies" is what Universal's parks were founded on. It's why they initially chose to house them all in faux "soundstages", so that the interiors could be changed more easily to hype the latest blockbuster.

That's not what WDW or Disney parks were about. They were about building detailed envoriments based on cultural touchstones that could be explored in depth and supported with modern, efficient transportations systems and hotels and recreational activities with equally attractive appearences as the parks.

Disney is now copying Universal, and often building weaker movie-based rides (like Mermaid). For those of us aware of Disney's past potential, creative scope, and technological achivements, it's very disappointing.
 
B

barkerbird

Active Member
Animaniac93-98 said:
Building attractions based exclusively on now-popular titles so you can "ride the movies" is what Universal's parks were founded on. It's why they initially chose to house them all in faux "soundstages", so that the interiors could be changed more easily to hype the latest blockbuster.

That's not what WDW or Disney parks were about. They were about building detailed envoriments based on cultural touchstones that could be explored in depth and supported with modern, efficient transportations systems and hotels and recreational activities with equally attractive appearences as the parks.

Disney is now copying Universal, and often building weaker movie-based rides (like Mermaid). For those of us aware of Disney's past potential, creative scope, and technological achivements, it's very disappointing.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! My point exactly. I will compliment Disney by not heavily relying on screens. I appreciate their use of details, AAs, and backstory. I really hope this "3D" trend passes quickly. It's difficult for me to feel immersed in an attraction when I'm looking at a TV. I have one of those at home.
 
IMFearless

IMFearless

Well-Known Member
The issue for me is not the IPs themselves but the RELIANCE on them to support an attraction that is the problem.

A quality attraction needs to have an array of different components that come together perfectly to transport guests into a story. For me, Pirates, Mansion, Splash, Tower of Terror, Indiana Jones, all do this in spades. Whether or not they have an IP is of little consequence - the attraction is the attraction.

It is when the IP itself becomes the main attraction that you get a mediocre experience.
 
IMFearless

IMFearless

Well-Known Member
I am quietly optimistic about Avatar. I'm also glad they had the sense to leave ToT alone - that ride is a true masterpiece.
 
Animaniac93-98

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
IMFearless said:
I am quietly optimistic about Avatar. I'm also glad they had the sense to leave ToT alone - that ride is a true masterpiece.
Click to expand...

The smartest thing they did with Avatar, was distance the land from any of the movie narratives or characters. You're there to see Pandora and a seperate storyline was made to justify having thousands of tourists visit a planet that had a very poor first encounter with humans.

IJA and ToT have very little to do with their source material, but use that audience familiarity as a starting point for a totally new experience that works in a theme park enviroment.
 
wdwjmp239

wdwjmp239

Well-Known Member
Hello all,

I apologize if this is an old discussion and for the bumping of an old thread, but can someone tell me what IP means? I've been seeing this used a lot in discussion threads as of late and I seem to be losing meaning/context of what is being talked about. Appreciate the help! :)

Thank you! :D :D
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
ntn_haqqer said:
Hello all,

I apologize if this is an old discussion and for the bumping of an old thread, but can someone tell me what IP means? I've been seeing this used a lot in discussion threads as of late and I seem to be losing meaning/context of what is being talked about. Appreciate the help! :)

Thank you! :D :D
Click to expand...
Intellectual Property.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom