lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
What percentage of your sales are cover bands?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
When did the IP idea really start?
- Thread starter Darkbeer1
- Start date
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
What percentage of artists don’t do a cover song? Or an album of cover songs? What percentage don’t begin by playing cover songs?
EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
I'd rather start with a blank slate then be forced to shoehorn something in.
Hatbox Ghostbuster
Well-Known Member
So would I.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
But that isn’t only doing covers. You’ve declared that the cover band is just as creative as whomever they are covering.
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
This is a lazy way of looking at things, and may reflect on your own level of creativity, not mine.
I guess Snow White, The Little Mermaid, Winnie The Pooh, etc. were not creative, because Walt poached almost every story he ever told (and the company continued that tradition.)
But it's more specific when it comes down to making attractions, and the eyeroll-inducing overreaction to the dreaded "IP's"
If you're making a jungle attraction, what makes it less creative to use Tarzan as a focal point? The story/movie were already not original.
One could argue it's easier to make a jungle attraction without using Tarzan, because you have no story tying you to specific plot points.
One could just as easily argue this attraction takes place before or after the movie, allowing for almost as much leeway as using a generic jungle.
But the bottom line is, in this unique case, the attraction is at a Disney theme park, therefore Disney-related IP's are expected and universally belong. By all means do some other attractions if you have a great idea. Then turn that into a movie. That's what it's all about. That's the way business is now. It's matured from what it was in the 1950's. It's more efficient; it has to be or it won't succeed in this day and age.
Hatbox Ghostbuster
Well-Known Member
I'm going to address your post as I numbered them, but to start, I think we have differing views on what we mean by saying something is "creative".This is a lazy way of looking at things, and may reflect on your own level of creativity, not mine.
1) I guess Snow White, The Little Mermaid, Winnie The Pooh, etc. were not creative, because Walt poached almost every story he ever told (and the company continued that tradition.)
But it's more specific when it comes down to making attractions, and the eyeroll-inducing overreaction to the dreaded "IP's"
2) If you're making a jungle attraction, what makes it less creative to use Tarzan as a focal point? The story/movie were already not original.
3) One could argue it's easier to make a jungle attraction without using Tarzan, because you have no story tying you to specific plot points.
One could just as easily argue this attraction takes place before or after the movie, allowing for almost as much leeway as using a generic jungle.
4) But the bottom line is, in this unique case, the attraction is at a Disney theme park, therefore Disney-related IP's are expected and universally belong. By all means do some other attractions if you have a great idea. Then turn that into a movie. That's what it's all about. That's the way business is now. It's matured from what it was in the 1950's. It's more efficient; it has to be or it won't succeed in this day and age.
1) I never said anything like that, and furthermore, I do believe IP attractions are creative. Indiana Jones is one of my favorite attractions.
2) Using Tarzan as a focal point wouldn't make an attraction less "creative" IN THE SENSE OF OVERALL QUALITY (assuming its handled well), but, and here's the key difference, it does become less "creative" IN THE SENSE OF DIFFICULTY OF CONCEPTION based on the fact that you are already starting out with a template, rather than a blank slate.
3) I disagree with that because someone has to ultimately create those plot points vs. using ones from a pre-existing story. One of the ultimate failings of IP-rides like The Little Mermaid in DCA is that they just serve as a highlight reel of the musical score and key scenes. But you can't include everything, and that's why the resolution feels so flat. It just...ends...and everything is back to normal.
4) Frankly, I think a lot of the success modern-day Disney is experiencing, is a direct result of the decades-long deep love felt for non-IP attractions like Haunted Mansion, Pirates, the various "Mountains" (minus Splash mostly), Jungle Cruise, etc. Not to mention the ENTIRETY of EPCOT Center. There's a reason they have been around as long as they have, but my beef with Disney, and largely the whole point of why people are frustrated with the current IP-cramfest, is because Disney shows zero initiative in making anything like them anymore, in favor of joke attractions like "the Incredicoaster".
Disney's P&R philosophy now is to no longer build attractions based on what makes good sense for the parks, but rather on what's "trending" and in theatres soon. And if you think that that strategy is what is going to keep them successful in this modern world, then I don't think we'll ever fully agree on this issue. And that's fine.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I'm just going to throw my opinion in here for one second.
I understand you point about "creativity" from an originality standpoint. However setting the "ride-thru retelling of stories" attractions like Mermaid aside. An IP based attraction uses the IP just as a jumping off point. Almost all attractions have a jumping off point. With Pirates for example the jumping off point was Pirate movies like Treasure Island. A Disney movie which came out 17 years before Pirates opened up. So taking existing characters, even from a source like history, books, or other mediums, is always going to be the jumping off point. Sometimes the jumping off point is even a company or product. Like CoP the jumping off point is GE. With ATIS the jumping off point was Monsanto. Once they have the jumping off point, then from there they make the story.
Some would say using pre-existing IP is even harder than a non-IP because guest have a preconceived notion of what the IP is suppose to look and feel like. So if they don't execute on that, then its a failure. Using Incredicoaster for a second, that is just using the Incredibles as a jumping off point to tell a new story.
Anyways, the point is that all attractions (both IP and non-IP) get their jumping off point from somewhere. Just a different view point on the topic.
Hatbox Ghostbuster
Well-Known Member
I get what you’re saying, and I agree, all attractions do start with a jumping off point.
All I’m trying to communicate is that it’s easier to start with a jumping off point that is say, “Indiana Jones” or “Toy Story” or “Frozen”, vs starting off with just “a haunted house” or “a roller coaster in a mountain” or “the jungle”.
Hatbox Ghostbuster
Well-Known Member
TROR
Well-Known Member
Not on you.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
And I understand that is your opinion, and I appreciate it. In my opinion attraction design is not that simple. I don't want to go down the long back and forth. So again I'll just say I understand your opinion, and I appreciate it.
PB Watermelon
Well-Known Member
And yet, in customer surveys when addressing the overhaul of California Adventure, cutomers said they wanted *more* rides and attractions based on films, not *less*. So, that's what they're doing now, re-dressing existing attractions to fit current movies and building rides based on existing movies. Might not be what Disney theme park buffs want, but apparently it's what the audience wants.
Hatbox Ghostbuster
Well-Known Member
Consider me a pessimist on this, but I think we all know that guest surveys are an inaccurate representation of what the majority of guests actually want. Disney also isn't stupid, and they can skew the questions to suit whatever narrative they're trying to push. Plus, since no one outside the company ever sees the results of those surveys, its quite possible that Disney, despite what the results actually said, will just do whatever they please in the end. The point is, with guest surveys, we just don't know.
Again, I know I'm taking a more pessimistic view here, and maybe I'm completely wrong. But unfortunately, we'll just never know for sure.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
People said Disney’s California Adventure did not “feel Disney.” It is only in the view that themed entertainment is nothing more than a subservient marketing platform does that equal this weird view that nothing new in a theme park is “Disney,” a view that declares the bulk of Disney’s themed entertainment work as problematic and “not Disney.”
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Since we have no data to prove otherwise, we cannot say the surveys are an inaccurate representation of guests. We have our opinions but they are just that opinions. We can say Disney is misleading the questions in order to get the results they want, but that is still just opinion. Until we have data to prove otherwise we just have to accept Disney at its word on this one.
I think you just have to accept that currently American audiences want IP based attractions at domestic parks. Blame TV, blame the internet, blame the media, but that is just what they want at this point in Disney park history. And until Disney sees numbers to state otherwise, that is what we will continue to get. The wish and hope will have to be that tastes of American audiences will change and they will want more non-IP based attractions in the future. And then hope that Disney will listen and move in that direction.
Hatbox Ghostbuster
Well-Known Member
Yes, everything related to guest surveys (both good and bad) is purely opinion based on no evidence.
As for audience wanting IP, yeah, it does seem that way. But remember, the audience is also dumb and truthfully deep down, doesn't know what it wants. I am always reminded of the Henry Ford quote where he says if he had asked his audience what they wanted at the time, they would have said "a faster horse". Point is, sometimes what people think they want isn't really the best thing for them. Now, I know we're talking theme parks here, but I think Disney once used to pave the way for themed entertainment innovation and presented audiences with something they hadn't seen before, and couldn't get anywhere else. I feel like that identity is slipping, and Disney is just trying to keep pace with its competitors in terms of the "ride the movies" park mantra. Again, looking at DL, its most of the non-IP attractions that are the most popular. Certainly the longest surviving. And I just frankly don't think that's a coincidence. DL audiences know to expect some unique stuff at the parks. I don't get why Disney is so afraid to give it to them anymore. Actually, I do know why they're afraid...because they have a risk-averse, profit-minded CEO who wouldn't even cross the street unless he was sure there was a pot of gold on the other side.
Last edited:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The problem with surveys and people saying they want more of something is that it ignores the symbolism of language. We use references to communicate ideas that lack definition.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Well I wouldn't call Iger risk adverse just because they aren't building non-IP attractions. Iger and Disney take calculated risks as do most CEOs of large corporations. And if they see data to show guests aren't going to be receptive to something they aren't going to do it.
Let me give you two scenarios:
A. If I told you, hey give me $100 and I will invest it and guarantee you will make 100x in return with little to no risk of losing money.
B. If I told you, hey give me $100 and I will invest it and you may make 100x in return with no guarantee or you may lose everything plus 100x more.
Which would you take? Likely A., the 100x with more guaranteed return. Because if you say B., then I have some investments I'd like to talk to you about.
That is the decision Disney is making everyday, they want the more guaranteed money, as would you if in the same position. That is what they have to do, Disney has over 200k employees to think about. This is not the same company that it was 64 years ago when it only had less than a thousand. Yes Walt took risks and luckily they paid off. If he did that now he'd lose his own company, and not just because of shareholders, banks would demand payments on debt immediately causing the company to collapse.
Its easy to sit back and criticize when we have no real decision making power or money and jobs on the line. But when its our responsibility and money and jobs are on the line we'd make a similar call.