I think they mean Jim Mcphee. Senior VP of Disney World. But they don't have as much creative control as you might think. They are mainly tasked with the day to day.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
What do you think of the EPCOT Central Spine redesign?
- Thread starter EpcotMark
- Start date
I think they mean Jim Mcphee. Senior VP of Disney World. But they don't have as much creative control as you might think. They are mainly tasked with the day to day.
MrHappy
Well-Known Member
My understanding, mostly based on @larandtra, posts in the MacPhee thread, is that he will at least create less obstacles and a better internal process to vet ideas. I assume there was too much red tape and hidden agendas blocking any sort of free thinking or ideas to flourish. The role of MacPhee isn't so much "creative control" but perhaps more of a sane influence. So while IP integration into the parks continue to be the creative challenge, MacPhee will help see to it that they are used properly and in good taste.
shortstop
Well-Known Member
Many, including myself, feel there is a direct contradiction between the old “nostalgia” feel and IPs.
Also, I don’t think the SVP of WDW has the power to dictate new attraction builds.
I don't see how the Senior VP of Operations will have much input into the direction of any given theme park. I'm 100% open to learning how it could, but right now, based on the information I've read, I don't see it.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
You would be correct.
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
It just continues to baffle me how we can't keep the theme of this park in tact while honoring the mandate in some regards. The biggest issue I have with so many of these IPs are misuse and misplacement - eroding the spirit of the park. I mean, look at DisneySea. Arguably the best of the bunch for many. The majority of their headliner attractions have been "non-IP" (or at least non-current IP). They have their characters, but they are mostly relegated to a children's area, theater shows/parades/etc.
More importantly, it's the laziness in the storytelling that gets me. It's not about IPs. It's using the IPs in obvious, recycled ways that has no place in Epcot. I mean, look at the Frozen short before Coco. For many, it was panned. It was pretty, but uninspiring and sort of trite. Much like the critiques lodged at FEA (leaving aside placement, even). If I've never seen Frozen, the ride makes absolutely no sense. If I have seen Frozen, it's at best a silly Frozen short brought to life with a few cool animatronic effects. The originality in the ride sits second fiddle to the overall experience. That's why this all feels so cheap.
Film IPs as a vehicle to tell a new, original story that fits into its context can be amazing. But, it's the experience itself that must be original/inspiring/new/etc. And, it has to be grand enough or creative enough to make sense to someone without context. If the attraction wouldn't make any sense if it used different/original characters, it's probably not a successful attraction. I'd venture to say the "best" attractions Disney has done lives up to that standard.
More importantly, it's the laziness in the storytelling that gets me. It's not about IPs. It's using the IPs in obvious, recycled ways that has no place in Epcot. I mean, look at the Frozen short before Coco. For many, it was panned. It was pretty, but uninspiring and sort of trite. Much like the critiques lodged at FEA (leaving aside placement, even). If I've never seen Frozen, the ride makes absolutely no sense. If I have seen Frozen, it's at best a silly Frozen short brought to life with a few cool animatronic effects. The originality in the ride sits second fiddle to the overall experience. That's why this all feels so cheap.
Film IPs as a vehicle to tell a new, original story that fits into its context can be amazing. But, it's the experience itself that must be original/inspiring/new/etc. And, it has to be grand enough or creative enough to make sense to someone without context. If the attraction wouldn't make any sense if it used different/original characters, it's probably not a successful attraction. I'd venture to say the "best" attractions Disney has done lives up to that standard.
bcoachable
Well-Known Member
I know George K is not quite in the exact same position, but I remember him interveaning in tower negotiations when guardians was rumored to be headed there for Wdw...
HauntedMansionFLA
Well-Known Member
Insult all you want but the Disney IP’s are coming to the EPCOT park. What direction Disney takes. No of us know. I assume the park will be as many are calling it Magic Kingdom 2.0 in a few years. GotG will be the attraction that brings the IP’s into the park full steam. Frozen and Nemo were the ones that were positive reactions from the fans and got the ball rolling. I would love for 20,000 leagues to come back but it’s not. It just one of those things that you have to realize there is change and to just Let It Go.
Ill go back to watching now. There is a lot more to the SVP move that has ripple effects across the board. There is a reason they move someone into a spot that they likely had better candidates for. When a new person takes a role, sometimes the role is molded for them for a very specific reason. And when the right people benefit and support it by getting a bigger voice, then it makes even more sense. Hence, ripple effect. Anyway, carry on.
CosmicDuck
Well-Known Member
I don't think most of the people in here understand or appreciate the business realities of an entertainment behemoth like Disney in the year 2018.
"Originality", as it pertains to new park attractions and theming, is the luxury of new and unproven parks. It's no surprise that most recent, original ideas fare all currently in the Tokyo parks, which are not Disney owned and therefore under no impetus to synergize as much IP as possible.
Disney is a global conglomerate with tendrils stretching in every direction. Each division in each part of the world is vying for money to expand in their own direction. To make a convincing argument, they need to convince brass that their project can synergize with as many different divisions as possible. WDI and TDO are absolutely no different. As much as you guys would like to believe otherwise, original attractions are not going to draw in crowds. Yes, Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean are awesome, but those were created back when Disneyland had something to prove.
I'm not at all against original attractions, but a kid in Malaysia who is coming to Disneyland/Disneyworld for their first vacation is going to be counting down the days to ride the Big Hero 6 ride or the Inside Out one. Not the incredible E-ticket based entirely on something they don't recognize.
It's crazy to me to hear people complain about new attractions and money being spent on the parks. Think back to a decade or more ago when the parks literally almost didn't change. ANY money being spent on the parks is a good thing, because the second a new CEO steps in and realizes that they can continue to raise prices without spending any parks money, they absolutely will pull the plug. I don't think an original E/D/C attraction will ever come to either coasts again, so I think continuing to beat that drum really isn't going to help anything, least of all your personal expectations. Embrace good use of IP, and just be grateful money is still pouring into the parks at all.
You won't always (or ever) like the changes, but at least the parks get to continue to change and evolve instead of stagnate and die.
"Originality", as it pertains to new park attractions and theming, is the luxury of new and unproven parks. It's no surprise that most recent, original ideas fare all currently in the Tokyo parks, which are not Disney owned and therefore under no impetus to synergize as much IP as possible.
Disney is a global conglomerate with tendrils stretching in every direction. Each division in each part of the world is vying for money to expand in their own direction. To make a convincing argument, they need to convince brass that their project can synergize with as many different divisions as possible. WDI and TDO are absolutely no different. As much as you guys would like to believe otherwise, original attractions are not going to draw in crowds. Yes, Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean are awesome, but those were created back when Disneyland had something to prove.
I'm not at all against original attractions, but a kid in Malaysia who is coming to Disneyland/Disneyworld for their first vacation is going to be counting down the days to ride the Big Hero 6 ride or the Inside Out one. Not the incredible E-ticket based entirely on something they don't recognize.
It's crazy to me to hear people complain about new attractions and money being spent on the parks. Think back to a decade or more ago when the parks literally almost didn't change. ANY money being spent on the parks is a good thing, because the second a new CEO steps in and realizes that they can continue to raise prices without spending any parks money, they absolutely will pull the plug. I don't think an original E/D/C attraction will ever come to either coasts again, so I think continuing to beat that drum really isn't going to help anything, least of all your personal expectations. Embrace good use of IP, and just be grateful money is still pouring into the parks at all.
You won't always (or ever) like the changes, but at least the parks get to continue to change and evolve instead of stagnate and die.
I think they do.
A lot also have a larger understanding of the company outside of the last eight years.
Welcome to WDWMagic.
CosmicDuck
Well-Known Member
Thanks! I've been lurking a long time but just decided to start engaging instead of just watching from the sidelines.
I guess you're right, I just phrased it incorrectly. I think most people here do understand, but most don't appreciate the business realities. I feel like the vast majority of complaints I read or see are completely divorced from what is realistically possible. Obviously I would like a 5th gate compromised entirely of E-tickets but I know enough to know that's not in the realm of possibility.
You're obviously infinitely more knowledgeable on the subject than I am, but I honestly believe asking for non-IP/original E-ticket attractions are beyond the realm of possibility for the Disney of today.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
I don't buy that. Yes, people want Disney IP and it should be there. But not everything has to be. If you look at the top attractions in each park, very few have to do with popular IP -
MK- Splash Mountain (may as well not be IP), Space Mountain, Big Thunder. Pirates is now IP but that was done in reverse.Junglw Cruise. Only 7 Dwarfs makes use of well known IP.
Epcot: Soarin, Test Track, Mission Space, Spaceship Earth. Only Frozen is IP.
DHS:. The park for IP
DAK:. Kilimanjaro Safari, Everest, Dinosaur. Only Pandora is really IP and it isn't even a Disney IP (well not yet) and it's more about the actual ride than the IP.
That doesn't mean IP shouldn't be in the parks or isn't it most certainly is and should be. But what made Disney Parks successful was that they were telling both original stories and stories based on prominent characters from films in a bit of a balanced way. That's getting skewed now towards IP (and lazy use of IP at that) and the parks are worse for it. I don't see it as a binary choice. Both are needed and both are possible even in the current climate, it's just that Disney doesn't see it that way.
MrHappy
Well-Known Member
I expect Disney to keep a well executed and diverse portfolio of attractions. I fear the "cool" IP today, will be viewed as silly tomorrow (Hi GOTG). A mix of IP and "evergreen" attractions should be the goal.
The issue is not that they cant do it. The issue is that the average guest (and even some hardcore Disney fanatics) will pee their pants if an attraction has the title of a popular movie in it. Most Disney fans prefer to settle for what they want, rather than be amazed by the possibility of something they could not imagine.
At this point, and especially from what I witness on these forums, I cant even blame Disney anymore. If they did dare to announce an original attraction, they would most likely be inundated with hostile emails demanding they put Star Lord or BH6 in it.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
Really? I don't think this is true. Most people who go to Disney aren't that passionate, and just want to have a good vacation with good rides, and most of the fans on here and elswhere who do care enough want more non-IP attractions.
Disney cares only to extract maximum dollars from the guest wallet/bank account. If GotG is a way they can do that, and do it cheaper than developing an original attraction, that's what they're going to do. It's no longer about doing something that will blow the guest's minds, it's about giving the guests what they think they want, and that's movie IP - Johnny Depp!!! Star Lord!!! Pixar!!! Because that makes Disney money. And because Universal did it with HP, now Disney thinks that's the only way to make money.
P&R is Disney's golden goose these days, and they are going to force the goose to lay as many golden eggs as possible.
P&R is Disney's golden goose these days, and they are going to force the goose to lay as many golden eggs as possible.
Skydance is an older name.
michmousefan
Well-Known Member
Some of the drone work in the PyeongChang opening ceremony looked rather impressive... I'd hope that Disney is working hard on developing their drone tech beyond the demo that they exhibited at Disney Springs a while ago...
Disney aren’t.