WDW Awakens ...

[ford91exploder]

The fact that Iger learned entirely the wrong lesson from Cars Land is well documented.

Towards the end Eisner wanted to fire Iger because of his utter lack of creativity and perhaps more to the point his utter disdain for the creative process. Iger is a concrete thinker which is one reason he is so stuck on IP everywhere. He thinks things are popular BECAUSE of the IP as in carsland would be a failure if it did not tie into the 'Cars' IP.

 

[ford91exploder]

I never really knew much about the running scene until recently since I now have two co-workers who are runners. The entry fee on a lot of these runs isn't that much, and part of it often goes to charity. It's a hobby for them, and people spend far more money then the cost of these races on their hobbies.

[Edit]: Note that I am not talking about the Disney races, like all things at Disney you pay a premium for these.

The entry fees also go to things like insurance, first aid stations and police and fire coverage (Think traffic control and EMS)

 

[hopemax]

And as for Star Wars in Disneyland...I don't actually have a problem with the idea. I worry greatly about the execution, and I hate the location within the park. But my reasoning for Star Wars is that if you asked a 6-10 year old in the 50s and 60s what they "played," the answers given would be many of the things that Disneyland ended up containing: Cowboys and Indians, Spaceman, African explorers, Errol Flynn swashbucklers, Davy Crockett etc. Ask the same question to kids today, and the answers will unavoidably be heavily laden with Branded IP, with Star Wars being the king of the hill for 40 years. 40 years before Disneyland, another IP controlled the hearts and minds of young children; the Wizard of Oz series, and although MGM had the rights to the first book, we know who had rights to the rest of them. Even though no films were made or attractions built, there was intent. They didn't spend the money to purchase the rights, and NOT use them. The clock ran out on Walt and Oz, but if it hadn't, it would be hard to argue with no Star Wars, if Oz was present. Oz, Davy Crockett, Star Wars, Harry Potter are the crown jewels of children's branded IP for their generation. Walt was a savvy man, and he would have been all over all of them; not just the one he was responsible for. Edit - Peter Pan would probably also fit the bill for something very popular and contemporary to Walt Disney's life, that was appropriated by Walt Disney. He didn't just retell "dusty" old stories and fairytales.

I have a problem with EVERYTHING needing to be Disney branded IP, but Star Wars is different. It's as much of a cultural touchstone as any of those themes I mentioned above. And, IMO, it's silly to leave it out because the ratio of branded to non-branded themes that resonate with people today are heavily tilted toward branding, with the reason for that having a lot to do with how successful Walt Disney was with his own business. Without the Disney model of marketing and synergy strategies of the 50's and 60s, do we even get to the point, 60 years later when everything is so brand oriented? The Davy Crockett craze, the original Star Wars craze they're cut from the same cloth and paved the way for everything else IP driven.

 

[alissafalco]

The saddest thing about that pathetic piece of work is what it represents in terms of the values of the corporate hierarchy behind it: from the people who created it, to the people who approved it, to the people who hired them, to the people who hired the people who hired them... and all the way up.

That's so bad.... Smh

 

[aladdin2007]

That's so bad.... Smh

its temporary, but scary to think of whats to come since the stave church is closing for a month, no telling what they will do.

 

[Mike S]

That's historically untrue. From Disneyland's opening day through its first 30 years, non-branded attractions were 'way more than 50% of all attractions. (Seriously. Count 'em.) Branded attractions were largely confined to Fantasyland. And even then they stood as their own entities, adapted from Disney movies to the new entertainment form of Disneyland -- not paint-by-number promotions of whatever was currently hot at the box office.

Walt-era Disneyland certainly used brand synergy, but not at the expense of the main show, which was Disneyland itself. Examples abound, from the inclusion of an Alice in Wonderland ride (even though the movie didn't do well) and exclusion of a Cinderella ride (even though the movie was a huge hit), to a Frontierland with very little presence of Davy Crockett (a mega-hit at the time). And all of the most famous, iconic attractions of that era were non-IP (Mark Twain, Jungle Cruise, Rocket to the Moon, Monorail, Submarines, Tiki Room, Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln, Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Small World, Space Mountain, the list goes on).

It wasn't until the advent of Eisner and his "Disneyland is all about turning movies into rides" business model that the IP saturation bombing began. His successors continue it to this day, with the jamming of Star Wars Land like an oversize suppository into Disneyland's west side.

The first branded attraction to break the mold was Splash Mountain. Like Alice I don't think Song of the South was a huge hit either.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I never really knew much about the running scene until recently since I now have two co-workers who are runners. The entry fee on a lot of these runs isn't that much, and part of it often goes to charity. It's a hobby for them, and people spend far more money then the cost of these races on their hobbies.

[Edit]: Note that I am not talking about the Disney races, like all things at Disney you pay a premium for these.

I think the notion of the "charity race" is the biggest scam of all. If I write a check to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society for $100, they get $100. If I pay a $100 entrance fee for a race, there are expenses associated with hosting the race so less than $100 actually ends up with the charity. You're better off to just donate money and then go run the course on your own or in a group that doesn't make you pay.

 

[UncleMike101]

The saddest thing about that pathetic piece of work is what it represents in terms of the values of the corporate hierarchy behind it: from the people who created it, to the people who approved it, to the people who hired them, to the people who hired the people who hired them... and all the way up.

IMO, those who designed and approved this spend entirely too much time in Colorado or are regulars at the MCDs in CA.

 

[Thessair]

Movie theaters typically loose money selling tickets to films. Their profits are realized through concession sales, which is why they are so darned expensive.

Regal, America's largest theater chain, had operating income of $319M on revenue of $3.127B, an operating margin of 10.2%.

Disney's Studio Entertainment realized operating income of $1,973B on revenue of $7.366B, an operating margin of 26.8%.

If you want to blame someone for high popcorn prices, then blame companies like Disney who squeeze theater chains dry.

Thanks for this. As someone who used to run a small theatre, it always tweaks my nerves when people assume high concession prices are simply the result of greed.

 

[ford91exploder]

Thanks for this. As someone who used to run a small theatre, it always tweaks my nerves when people assume high concession prices are simply the result of greed.

Well they ARE to an extent but not on the Theater Owners part, It's the greed of the Movie Production companies and distributors who force theater owners to have to charge those high concession prices in order to stay in business. Once upon a time a theater owner could make a modest profit on ticket sales alone and concessions simply were 'gravy' so to speak but now the fees demanded by hollywood along with the prices the theater is 'allowed' to charge makes high priced concessions a necessity to stay in business.

 

[Thessair]

Well they ARE to an extent but not on the Theater Owners part, It's the greed of the Movie Production companies and distributors who force theater owners to have to charge those high concession prices in order to stay in business. Once upon a time a theater owner could make a modest profit on ticket sales alone and concessions simply were 'gravy' so to speak but now the fees demanded by hollywood along with the prices the theater is 'allowed' to charge makes high priced concessions a necessity to stay in business.

Very true. I should have been more specific and said greed on the part of theatre owners/management.

 

[ford91exploder]

Very true. I should have been more specific and said greed on the part of theatre owners/management.

I understood, Heck we used to have 5 theaters in my town now we have only a Regal Multiplex which only shows 'big' films, My favorite theater was one which showed indie films as well as the Big films I got to see Star Wars there for the first time. And yes the owner was a film fan.

 

[Thessair]

I understood, Heck we used to have 5 theaters in my town now we have only a Regal Multiplex which only shows 'big' films, My favorite theater was one which showed indie films as well as the Big films I got to see Star Wars there for the first time. And yes the owner was a film fan.

I miss theatres that showed indie and foreign films, myself. Ours was torn down a few years ago to build a Whole Foods. Now we're stuck with an AMC, a Regal (only half converted to stadium seating), and a last run house that is nearly as expensive as the first run locations. Sadly, the theatre I first saw Star Wars in in my hometown was leveled years ago. As an old fart I really miss the experience of seeing films when I was a kid, despite all the technological and comfort improvements in cinemas of the last couple of decades.

 

[ford91exploder]

And as for Star Wars in Disneyland...I don't actually have a problem with the idea. I worry greatly about the execution, and I hate the location within the park. But my reasoning for Star Wars is that if you asked a 6-10 year old in the 50s and 60s what they "played," the answers given would be many of the things that Disneyland ended up containing: Cowboys and Indians, Spaceman, African explorers, Errol Flynn swashbucklers, Davy Crockett etc. Ask the same question to kids today, and the answers will unavoidably be heavily laden with Branded IP, with Star Wars being the king of the hill for 40 years. 40 years before Disneyland, another IP controlled the hearts and minds of young children; the Wizard of Oz series, and although MGM had the rights to the first book, we know who had rights to the rest of them. Even though no films were made or attractions built, there was intent. They didn't spend the money to purchase the rights, and NOT use them. The clock ran out on Walt and Oz, but if it hadn't, it would be hard to argue with no Star Wars, if Oz was present. Oz, Davy Crockett, Star Wars, Harry Potter are the crown jewels of children's branded IP for their generation. Walt was a savvy man, and he would have been all over all of them; not just the one he was responsible for. Edit - Peter Pan would probably also fit the bill for something very popular and contemporary to Walt Disney's life, that was appropriated by Walt Disney. He didn't just retell "dusty" old stories and fairytales.

I have a problem with EVERYTHING needing to be Disney branded IP, but Star Wars is different. It's as much of a cultural touchstone as any of those themes I mentioned above. And, IMO, it's silly to leave it out because the ratio of branded to non-branded themes that resonate with people today are heavily tilted toward branding, with the reason for that having a lot to do with how successful Walt Disney was with his own business. Without the Disney model of marketing and synergy strategies of the 50's and 60s, do we even get to the point, 60 years later when everything is so brand oriented? The Davy Crockett craze, the original Star Wars craze they're cut from the same cloth and paved the way for everything else IP driven.

Star Wars would have been a better fit in DCA or as a 3rd gate which actually is what it deserved, I'll get lots of hate for this but I think instead of doing Star Wars 'lands on both coasts Disney should have selected ONE and gone all out and built a fully developed Star Wars universe instead of two half baled ones.

 

[ford91exploder]

I miss theatres that showed indie and foreign films, myself. Ours was torn down a few years ago to build a Whole Foods. Now we're stuck with an AMC, a Regal (only half converted to stadium seating), and a last run house that is nearly as expensive as the first run locations. Sadly, the theatre I first saw Star Wars in in my hometown was leveled years ago. As an old fart I really miss the experience of seeing films when I was a kid, despite all the technological and comfort improvements in cinemas of the last couple of decades.

Then you will probably understand why one of my favorite films is 'Cinema Paradiso'.

 

[ford91exploder]

I miss theatres that showed indie and foreign films, myself. Ours was torn down a few years ago to build a Whole Foods. Now we're stuck with an AMC, a Regal (only half converted to stadium seating), and a last run house that is nearly as expensive as the first run locations. Sadly, the theatre I first saw Star Wars in in my hometown was leveled years ago. As an old fart I really miss the experience of seeing films when I was a kid, despite all the technological and comfort improvements in cinemas of the last couple of decades.

Whole Foods - a town near us is getting a 'Whole Foods' in a brand new 'Lifestyle Center' shades of Soda Sopa... It's replacing a iconic department store and hotel.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Disneyland has always been 90%+ branded from its inception.

Have we reached such levels of snobbery that something branded must inherently be awful and rejected?

You're twisting and contorting the notion of branded experiences to get your high count. Disneyland for decades would have been a complete failure if its goal was the same sort of brand marketing that defines Disney's current, contemptuous view of themed entertainment.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

You're twisting and contorting the notion of branded experiences to get your high count. Disneyland for decades would have been a complete failure if its goal was the same sort of brand marketing that defines Disney's current, contemptuous view of themed entertainment.

I can't fathom how you can make this argument when the most egregious example of the kind of brand marketing you're attacking is Cars Land, which is also some of the most cohesive and robust themed entertainment that WDI has put out in a decade. Pandora appears to be going the same direction.

Granted, all of this goes out the window if they stick Guardians in WDW's Tower, but based on the available evidence I think it's you that's being "contemptuous" in your dismissal of branded IP as a component of themed entertainment. A Star Wars Land doesn't automatically become less intellectually honest than Generic Themed Space Land just because it has the words "Star Wars" on the front of it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I can't fathom how you can make this argument when the most egregious example of the kind of brand marketing you're attacking is Cars Land, which is also some of the most cohesive and robust themed entertainment that WDI has put out in a decade. Pandora appears to be going the same direction.

Granted, all of this goes out the window if they stick Guardians in WDW's Tower, but based on the available evidence I think it's you that's being "contemptuous" in your dismissal of branded IP as a component of themed entertainment. A Star Wars Land doesn't automatically become less intellectually honest than Generic Themed Space Land just because it has the words "Star Wars" on the front of it.

Cars Land is emblematic of problems because of why it happened. It was only built because of toys, not storytelling, and it burnt through the clout of John Lasseter to happen. Pandora similarly had to be championed by Cameron. Without those external personalities exerting influence these lands would not have happened as fully formed experiences. Even Star Wars is the one case where Wall Street wants to be wowed. Disney's process is toxic and that doesn't change if gems occasionally come out of it.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Cars Land is emblematic of problems because of why it happened. It was only built because of toys, not storytelling, and it burnt through the clout of John Lasseter to happen. Pandora similarly had to be championed by Cameron. Without those external personalities exerting influence these lands would not have happened as fully formed experiences. Even Star Wars is the one case where Wall Street wants to be wowed. Disney's process is toxic and that doesn't change if gems occasionally come out of it.

But where are all the duds? The biggest sin of the type you're describing is the rumor that maybe Guardians of the Galaxy will find their way into a "cheap overlay" (whatever that means, can't say I've ever seen one) of Tower of Terror. A toxic process would tend to produce toxic product, but all I see are the gems that you dismiss as all too rare. Even New Fantasyland, for all its flaws, looks and feels like it belongs squarely in the Magic Kingdom and squarely in Fantasyland.