Use of IP's...

[wdwjmp239]

Intellectual Property.

That's what I thought, but wanted clarification. Appreciate the reply, @lazyboy97o!

 

[playthattrumpet]

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.

I can understand your point. (BEFORE YOU CONTINUE THIS IS JUST MY OPINION AND DISAGREEMENT DOESN'T MEAN EITHER OF US ARE WRONG.) However, my problem isn't necessarily the presence of IP's in the park.

I take stronger issue with the lack of originality. For example, Frozen Ever After took the place of the beloved Maelstrom, but it offered nothing new to the experience. What I mean is it doesn't really tell a original story. It's basically a 2 hour wait just to get the same experience you would get from watching frozen. They don't tell a new story, they don't expand on the characters from frozen, and they don't really "immerse" riders into the world of frozen. So in my mind nothing is to be gained from the ride experience and it's just a waste of time and space in the park.

Another problem for me is timelessness. IP's come and go in popularity and as popularity drops rides need to be replaced. Look at Stitch's Great Escape for example. Lilo and Stitch is a fantastic movie and was really popular at the time of it's release. However, it faded into the back of peoples minds in about 10 years. It's not the first thing most people think of when they think Disney. Since the movie became less popular, the ride became less popular and eventually needed replacing (a strong argument could be made that the ride was never popular). This is the flaw with styling entire lands around IP's such as Pandora, Galaxy's Edge, and Toy Story Land. Not all movies are timeless classics so if they fade from popularity, Disney suddenly has a multi-million dollar land stuck on their hands that's based entirely around unpopular characters and needs changing. But entire Lands can't be changed so easily. It costs a lot of money and time. Thus, the problem with theming lands around IP's is that eventually the IP becomes outdated and the ENTIRE land has to be changed.

My final problem is theming. A lot of the time the IP doesn't make sense with the theming of the land it's placed in. Take the new Guardians of the Galaxy ride replacing Ellen's Universe of Energy at Epcot. It's positioned in the Future World section of the park which is supposed to show technology and science for the future. So how does Guardians of the Galaxy fit in with that theme? There's already a space themed pavilion in future world (Mission Space) so there's no need for a second one. (To be fair, there is a chance the ride will demonstrate some kind of futuristic technology and inspire guests with hope for the future. If so, I have no problem with the ride and look forward to it.)

The impression I get from IP's is Disney is too scared to try anything new and have it fail. They're scared to create original characters for rides for fear that they won't be liked. So they hide behind a safety net of using characters and stories that they already know are successful and will bring in revenue. The way I see it, original rides are more creative, more timeless, and better themed. If you create characters, a story, and an experience that only exist in one place on earth, they will last longer and be more memorable in the future when they are gone. When I think Disney parks, I think unique, innovative, and immersive. And in my eyes, IP's rarely meet that standard of excellence.