Use of IP's...

Homer fan

Homer fan

Active Member
Original Poster
I know most Disney superfans dislike the use of IP's at the parks, especially when they overlay an "original " concept for an IP. But the other side of this is, Disney has tons of successful and magical IP's and it can be argued they don't use them enough!

In 2004, my wife and I went to Disney, after not having gone since we were kids. One thing that stuck out to me was the lack of IP usage. Here you have parks owned by a company that has produced legendary characters over the last century, yet many of the attractions were (and still are), so-called original attraction ideas. To me, this was disappointing. I had imagined the parks to be a utopian mix of all these magical characters I grew up with all over the parks, but that wasn't the case. Only in the last decade or so has Disney really started to take advantage of their IP's in the parks more. Now that I have kids and go to the parks more often, I get excited for my kids that they will get to meet a character or ride on a ride of a character/movie they love.

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.
 
dmatt87

dmatt87

Well-Known Member
drizgirl said:
I might be alone in my gripe here, but my gripe is that they are inundating the parks with recently acquired IP's. If it was classic Disney stuff, I probably wouldn't have issue with it.
Click to expand...
There needs to be a mix, but a lot of very popular Disney films have been produced in the last few years, and those IP's are there for the new generation that's growing up with them, and not what we had when we were kids.
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
drizgirl said:
I might be alone in my gripe here, but my gripe is that they are inundating the parks with recently acquired IP's. If it was classic Disney stuff, I probably wouldn't have issue with it.
Click to expand...
Well, just be patient, the current generation as well as all the rest that follow will recognize those IP's as Disney Classics just like you and the rest of us think of characters like Peter Pan, Cinderella, Pinocchio, Mary Poppins and many others are Disney classic characters and overlook the fact that they were the IP of people that were not part of the Disney family when they came up with them. In short, as I have been saying for a long time now, everything you see in Disney is an IP. Some like Mickey, Donald, Figment, Dreamfinder are Disney IP's, others were Disney acquired IP's that they paid for to use. It is much ado about nothing at all. If it is entertaining and well done, why does it matter what payroll the original thought came from?
 
D

drizgirl

Well-Known Member
Goofyernmost said:
Well, just be patient, the current generation as well as all the rest that follow will recognize those IP's as Disney Classics just like you and the rest of us think of characters like Peter Pan, Cinderella, Pinocchio, Mary Poppins and many others are Disney classic characters and overlook the fact that they were the IP of people that were not part of the Disney family when they came up with them. In short, as I have been saying for a long time now, everything you see in Disney is an IP. Some like Mickey, Donald, Figment, Dreamfinder are Disney IP's, others were Disney acquired IP's that they paid for to use. It is much ado about nothing at all. If it is entertaining and well done, why does it matter what payroll the original thought came from?
Click to expand...

It's my own opinion, and I have no interest in being patient. Just sharing my feelings on it. To me it just feels like a flood of recently acquired IPs in the parks lately.
 
Homer fan

Homer fan

Active Member
Original Poster
Goofyernmost said:
Well, just be patient, the current generation as well as all the rest that follow will recognize those IP's as Disney Classics just like you and the rest of us think of characters like Peter Pan, Cinderella, Pinocchio, Mary Poppins and many others are Disney classic characters and overlook the fact that they were the IP of people that were not part of the Disney family when they came up with them. In short, as I have been saying for a long time now, everything you see in Disney is an IP. Some like Mickey, Donald, Figment, Dreamfinder are Disney IP's, others were Disney acquired IP's that they paid for to use. It is much ado about nothing at all. If it is entertaining and well done, why does it matter what payroll the original thought came from?
Click to expand...
That is my point exactly! Thanks
 
Homer fan

Homer fan

Active Member
Original Poster
drizgirl said:
It's my own opinion, and I have no interest in being patient. Just sharing my feelings on it. To me it just feels like a flood of recently acquired IPs in the parks lately.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to something specific? I think we can all agree Frozen is already a "classic" and will always be thought of in the vain of other Disney classics. Star Wars has essentially been a Disney IP, long before it was acquired. Marvel is the only one where I would agree, doesn't "feel" like Disney.

But, as I mentioned above, I think the parks should be more of a celebration of Disney IP's, not less. They should have more entire lands dedicated to IP's. Why not create lands using all their IP's for Animal Kigdom? Instead we have continents, the same names used at most zoo's. Why not have Jungle Book land? Tarzan land? Surely that would be more original than Asia or Africa.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Homer fan said:
I don't get your point? Beauty and the Beast is Disney
Click to expand...
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.
 
Homer fan

Homer fan

Active Member
Original Poster
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...
So it's not themed entertainment to have whole lands dedicated to an IP, but is more themed entertainment to have a hodgepodge of "original" stories mixed all over the parks? You're telling me Tomorrowland dedicated to some futuristic IP wouldn't be as exciting as having 10 different "original" IP's mixed into the land?
 
D

drizgirl

Well-Known Member
Homer fan said:
Are you referring to something specific? I think we can all agree Frozen is already a "classic" and will always be thought of in the vain of other Disney classics. Star Wars has essentially been a Disney IP, long before it was acquired. Marvel is the only one where I would agree, doesn't "feel" like Disney.

But, as I mentioned above, I think the parks should be more of a celebration of Disney IP's, not less. They should have more entire lands dedicated to IP's. Why not create lands using all their IP's for Animal Kigdom? Instead we have continents, the same names used at most zoo's. Why not have Jungle Book land? Tarzan land? Surely that would be more original than Asia or Africa.
Click to expand...

I know this won't be popular, but I consider Star Wars one of the recent "acquisition IPs". Admittedly though, I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, and most of my Star Wars exposure came about before the association with Disney took off.

I just remember when New Fantasyland was proposed and there was a hugh and cry for balance in the parks with "all that princess stuff". Yet I don't hear anyone calling for balance now with all this sci-fi/fantasy stuff.

As I said though, perfectly willing to accept that I might just be the outlier.

ETA: You left Avatar off the list.
 
Last edited:
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Homer fan said:
So it's not themed entertainment to have whole lands dedicated to an IP, but is more themed entertainment to have a hodgepodge of "original" stories mixed all over the parks? You're telling me Tomorrowland dedicated to some futuristic IP wouldn't be as exciting as having 10 different "original" IP's mixed into the land?
Click to expand...
Its a problem because it is not viewed as legitimate storytelling. Would Beauty and the Beast have been better and more exciting with Mickey Mouse? Would Moana have been better if it stared Elsa? You dismiss anything that is not based on a film.
 
Homer fan

Homer fan

Active Member
Original Poster
lazyboy97o said:
Its a problem because it is not viewed as legitimate storytelling. Would Beauty and the Beast have been better and more exciting with Mickey Mouse? Would Moana have been better if it stared Elsa? You dismiss anything that is not based on a film.
Click to expand...
I'm not dismissing anything based on film, I'm just saying I don't see the issue with properties that are based on film. If executed well, it will have mass appeal. The same can be said for attractions that are totally original.

My point is, if you ask someone who has never been to a Disney park, what they would expect when they go, I guarantee almost everyone would expect parks filled with Disney IP's. That is what I expected. You could argue the parts of the parks that don't have IP's lack cohesiveness.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Homer fan said:
I'm not dismissing anything based on film, I'm just saying I don't see the issue with properties that are based on film. If executed well, it will have mass appeal. The same can be said for attractions that are totally original.

My point is, if you ask someone who has never been to a Disney park, what they would expect when they go, I guarantee almost everyone would expect parks filled with Disney IP's. That is what I expected. You could argue the parts of the parks that don't have IP's lack cohesiveness.
Click to expand...
You have dismissed themed entertainment in your choice of words. Describing experiences not based on a film as lesser, such as lacking cohesion because you don't acknowledge the story being told in those spaces.

That expectation is recent and created by a leadership team similarly dismissive of themed entertainment. Nobody was shocked that Buzz and Woody were not in Inside Out even though they were expecting a Pixar film. Nobody was confused that Mickey was not in Zootopia even though it is a Disney film.
 
CaptainAmerica

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
lazyboy97o said:
You have dismissed themed entertainment in your choice of words. Describing experiences not based on a film as lesser, such as lacking cohesion because you don't acknowledge the story being told in those spaces.
Click to expand...
It all breaks down when you pull the strings, which is why I don't bother worrying about it. Jungle Cruise is intellectually inconsistent even within the attraction itself.
 
S

Sneezy62

Well-Known Member
I think most of the complaints you see about Intellectual Property in parts of the parks are really shorthand complaints about the dumbing down of the parks. A classic Fantasyland ride like It's a Small World is a social commentary about the way in which cultures around the world all share a common theme. Understanding each other will bring us closer together and essentially make the world smaller. It's a classic '60s utopian ideal.

10 years later WDW based half a theme park on that utopian ideal of bringing cultures together. Quite the intellectual undertaking for a mere profit oriented corporation. The profits and ideas went on to help propel other units of the corporation to a new golden age. All is good...except that things were slipping in the park. Other projects took resources away from updating those intellectual ideals. The world changed. The park did not. The audience started to see it not as a living breathing idea but as a museum

The hard thing would have been to have kept up the high standards for the cast working in say the France Pavilion. The hard thing would have been to imagine new interesting ways to explain and present French culture as it changed from the '80s to the 2010s. The hard thing would have been to continue to present French cuisine and art in relevant ways.

Or just do an Aurora meet and greet, stick a cartoon AA rat on a tray of cheese and call it a day.

How about a presentation...ride,show,live cast,whatever...that shows how " La Belle Et La Bete" ( yes a real French classic) became a Disney classic. Not just " OK Belle's French let's jam everything thing we can about her into the pavilion. Disney IP is great! Use it in ways that make sense.
 
Last edited:

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

Back
Top Bottom