• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

When did the IP idea really start?

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
#1
https://heleo.com/the-5-rules-for-making-a-hit/12732/

>>
One of the big questions for media companies right now is “how do I make money if my core product is endangered?” Broadcast television companies are thinking about this. Even movies have recognized that the North American cinema audience has basically flatlined and is not going to grow.


Kay Kamen was a mink hat salesman from the 1930s. He saw a Mickey Mouse cartoon and got an idea. He called up Walt and Roy Disney and he says, “Your cartoon is really brilliant, but your mouse can be more than a cartoon… The future of movies isn’t in the movie theater. It’s in department stores.” Kamen has this idea of turning Mickey Mouse into soap, tee-shirts, a Mickey Mouse watch—which became one of the most popular consumer products of 1932. Snow White, the biggest movie of 1937, sold more money in toys in two months than the movie made in its first two years. Kamen taught Disney that his core product was movies, but the future of his business was in all the things you could sell around the movie because people loved the first product.<<

Now you will never think of a mink hat in the same way ever again.
 
#2
Advertisement
https://heleo.com/the-5-rules-for-making-a-hit/12732/

>>
One of the big questions for media companies right now is “how do I make money if my core product is endangered?” Broadcast television companies are thinking about this. Even movies have recognized that the North American cinema audience has basically flatlined and is not going to grow.


Kay Kamen was a mink hat salesman from the 1930s. He saw a Mickey Mouse cartoon and got an idea. He called up Walt and Roy Disney and he says, “Your cartoon is really brilliant, but your mouse can be more than a cartoon… The future of movies isn’t in the movie theater. It’s in department stores.” Kamen has this idea of turning Mickey Mouse into soap, tee-shirts, a Mickey Mouse watch—which became one of the most popular consumer products of 1932. Snow White, the biggest movie of 1937, sold more money in toys in two months than the movie made in its first two years. Kamen taught Disney that his core product was movies, but the future of his business was in all the things you could sell around the movie because people loved the first product.<<

Now you will never think of a mink hat in the same way ever again.
To me this doesn't really seem like the IP-mandate epidemic we're dealing with today, but rather just the start of marketing and branding and merchandising.
 

SteamboatJoe

Well-Known Member
#4
I can't help but wonder what the park, and by extension it's spinoffs,would've originally looked like if Walt and Co. were working with today's stable of IPs when first developing it.
 

truecoat

Well-Known Member
#5
I think the real question would be when did the non-IP period end? Even though the last state side attraction would probably be EE at AK, they still added non-ip to Shanghai and HKDL.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
#7
I can't help but wonder what the park, and by extension it's spinoffs,would've originally looked like if Walt and Co. were working with today's stable of IPs when first developing it.
Copying isn’t some grand idea that had to be figured out.

I think the real question would be when did the non-IP period end? Even though the last state side attraction would probably be EE at AK, they still added non-ip to Shanghai and HKDL.
Both parks that are not controlled by Disney.
 
#8
Truthfully, Disney was doing IP stuff at the time of Walt.
The better question to ask is when did it start becoming IP-only. And for that, I think we have to look at everything post-EE at DAK. So basically 2006. Just after Iger took over the helm...hmmm...#blameIger
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
#9
Truthfully, Disney was doing IP stuff at the time of Walt.
The better question to ask is when did it start becoming IP-only. And for that, I think we have to look at everything post-EE at DAK. So basically 2006. Just after Iger took over the helm...hmmm...#blameIger
Walt was not doing similar IP stuff. Many of the properties included in Disneyland were box office duds. Today isn’t about IP, it is about franchises. Attractions are determined by box office and merchandise, not their actual experience.
 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
#10
Both parks that are not controlled by Disney.
I think the true decision making points on both of those projects date back to 2008-2010. The IP they do utilize are very telling. So I'd still say 2010 is the end of that IP-free project period... coincidentally aligning with the first Hogsmead.
 

SteamboatJoe

Well-Known Member
#13
Walt was not doing similar IP stuff. Many of the properties included in Disneyland were box office duds. Today isn’t about IP, it is about franchises. Attractions are determined by box office and merchandise, not their actual experience.
This is true. Time and corporate revisions of history make it easy to forget that some of the films touted as classics now performed rather poorly when they were released and were not beloved by the company at the time.
 
#14
Walt was not doing similar IP stuff. Many of the properties included in Disneyland were box office duds. Today isn’t about IP, it is about franchises. Attractions are determined by box office and merchandise, not their actual experience.
I may be looking at this differently than you.
When we look at the parks, new attractions are being designed around IP, there's no denying that. This is something Walt did in his day (whether or not they were based on successful movies at the time, etc.) The difference between then and now though, is that Walt also took chances and oversaw successful NON-IP derived attractions. Walt was a creative visionary who had a stable of creative Imagineers with him to accomplish this goal.

Modern Disney (aka, Iger's era) does just the opposite. Nothing is being built, and many believe WON'T be built, that doesn't first start with an IP in mind to push. Everything is done to placate the shareholders and grow Disney as a brand name, not an actual company. Today's Disney will never create something that isn't based on a Disney-owned movie franchise, tv show, etc. A lot of people on here, myself included, take exception to this approach to the parks.
 
#15
I may be looking at this differently than you.
When we look at the parks, new attractions are being designed around IP, there's no denying that. This is something Walt did in his day (whether or not they were based on successful movies at the time, etc.) The difference between then and now though, is that Walt also took chances and oversaw successful NON-IP derived attractions. Walt was a creative visionary who had a stable of creative Imagineers with him to accomplish this goal.

Modern Disney (aka, Iger's era) does just the opposite. Nothing is being built, and many believe WON'T be built, that doesn't first start with an IP in mind to push. Everything is done to placate the shareholders and grow Disney as a brand name, not an actual company. Today's Disney will never create something that isn't based on a Disney-owned movie franchise, tv show, etc. A lot of people on here, myself included, take exception to this approach to the parks.

There is nothing inherently better, more creative, or more special about a non-IP attraction versus an IP attraction.

Some of you will have to find a new way to feel superior.
 
#19
Dude, if you honestly believe there is nothing inherently more creative about making a non-IP attraction from scratch over one based on a pre-existing movie...then we have nothing more to talk about. And then you have to go and bring feeling superior into it?
Clearly you do, not to mention smug.

Explain the vast difference in creativity required. Good luck.
 
#20
Clearly you do, not to mention smug.

Explain the vast difference in creativity required. Good luck.
I take it you're not a creative person. That's OK.

Simple math: Starting from nothing requires more than starting from something. If I know I want to create X attraction but I already know its going to be based on X movie, then I'm already a leg up and don't have to creatively make a whole new backstory with characters, environments, etc.

What is more involved, baking a batch of cookies from scratch or cutting open a tube of pre-made dough? In your opinion they're the exact same.

Also, nothing is more "smug" than your original post insinuating that people who prefer non-IP attractions do so out of some perceived feeling of superiority.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom