When did the IP idea really start?

[lazyboy97o]

Not really. I'm challenging the widespread-on-fan-sites-only notion that IP's are awful, dumbed down, uncreative shortcuts.

What’s dumbed down and uncreative is only copying what is popular and refusing to do anything elseAn Imagineer could come up with the objectively best story ever and it would not be considered.

They are the definitive version for now.

So? That doesn’t change the fact that when the movie was created they were not established Disney characters.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Not really. I'm challenging the widespread-on-fan-sites-only notion that IP's are awful, dumbed down, uncreative shortcuts.

I just want to reiterate that I do see value in IP-attractions, again, IJA is among one of my all-time favorites. But as a writer myself, I guess I just tend to get more perceived value from something created from scratch over something simply tailored to the whims of a CEO who says, "we have such and such movie coming out soon. How fast can we get something related to it up in the parks?" To me, the parks should be about more than simple movie promotion. But I understand that's not everyone's preference, and it certainly doesn't seem to be current-day Disney's.

 

[DanielBB8]

What’s dumbed down and uncreative is only copying what is popular and reusing to do anything. An Imagineer could come up with the objectively best story ever and it would not be considered.

An Imagineer’s best story would then be deemed best by popularity. Right? I just don’t see the point of reinventing the wheel. Popularity decides what is best so a popular movie cuts down the legwork.

So? That doesn’t change the fact that when the movie was created they were not established Disney characters.

let’s fix this sentence. When the movie was created, they were established as Disney characters.

 

[Californian Elitist]

So why make a survey in the first place if they're meanimgless...sorry, I'm skeptical. If you've got a link with proof, I'd happily read it.

I already explained why Disney puts out these surveys.

 

[lazyboy97o]

let’s fix this sentence. When the movie was created, they were established as Disney characters.

So why is not true When the attraction was created, they were established as Disney characters?

 

[DanielBB8]

So why is not true When the attraction was created, they were established as Disney characters?

Attractions may not necessarily have characters, but movies do. Disney’s attractions backstory is all about a narrative, but they often might not have characters in the end product. You can go on the rides forever and not know who the characters are since they are in the abstract.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

What’s dumbed down and uncreative is only copying what is popular and refusing to do anything elseAn Imagineer could come up with the objectively best story ever and it would not be considered.


So? That doesn’t change the fact that when the movie was created they were not established Disney characters.

I hope you're not just arguing for the sake of argument. I can't tell yet.

Nobody here is supporting "refusing to do anything else an Imagineer could come up with." I've already explicitly stated otherwise. But you keep going round and round the same circle.

There is nothing inherently better about either as an attraction. But people aren't flocking to both parks next year en masse to see a generic space story.

Yes, if someone "loves" the parks, then they must attend at least one reality luncheon in which they acknowledge the fact that part of loving the parks = the parks must make money to continue, and that is a primary and worthy focus. All these new things and refurbishments cost a fortune.

Regarding your "So?" line: that's not making any sense to me. When the movie was created, they were not established Disney characters...and? You're proving the point that using an existing property can still be built upon creatively, and that most of Disney's most successful ones were borrowed. Further building upon that by creating an attraction is the natural progression.

I just want to reiterate that I do see value in IP-attractions, again, IJA is among one of my all-time favorites. But as a writer myself, I guess I just tend to get more perceived value from something created from scratch over something simply tailored to the whims of a CEO who says, "we have such and such movie coming out soon. How fast can we get something related to it up in the parks?" To me, the parks should be about more than simple movie promotion. But I understand that's not everyone's preference, and it certainly doesn't seem to be current-day Disney's.

What's funny to me about this POV is it is criticizing something so recent. It hasn't been very long since they started trying to put current properties into the parks ASAP. That slowness could easily have been seen as weakness by investors and so forth.

Why wouldn't they take advantage of what they have created on screen to give some new family a reason to visit the parks for the first time (and potentially become long time repeat guests?)

That's the name of the game!

So why is not true When the attraction was created, they were established as Disney characters?

Were they? Wouldn't there be a trademark or something? Does the third drumming soldier from the left on IASW have a name?

An already known property is a draw, that's all it is. That's all there is to it. Creativity can pour into it from there, whether you're using a generic bird or lion or dog or an already known bird or lion or dog from a Disney film or TV show. Those who think otherwise, maybe their own creativity needs a shot in the arm. Think outside that restrictive box. Truly creative people can be creative with anything, known or unknown. You can put Simba into ANY story that could also use a generic lion.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

What's funny to me about this POV is it is criticizing something so recent. It hasn't been very long since they started trying to put current properties into the parks ASAP. That slowness could easily have been seen as weakness by investors and so forth.

Why wouldn't they take advantage of what they have created on screen to give some new family a reason to visit the parks for the first time (and potentially become long time repeat guests?)

That's the name of the game!

It is a more recent development, but I guess I see it being implemented more as a synergy-fueled knee-jerk reaction as opposed to a carefully thought out decision made for what is truly best for the parks overall. They changed TOT to GOTG in about 6 months not because it's what DCA needed, but because they simply wanted the property in the parks in time for the sequel. Pixar Pier was lined up just in time for Incredibles 2, etc.

Also, I truly hope it wouldn't take the latest park offering of the most current Disney film in the parks to finally get a family to experience it for the first time

 

[Tony the Tigger]

It is a more recent development, but I guess I see it being implemented more as a synergy-fueled knee-jerk reaction as opposed to a carefully thought out decision made for what is truly best for the parks overall. They changed TOT to GOTG in about 6 months not because it's what DCA needed, but because they simply wanted the property in the parks in time for the sequel. Pixar Pier was lined up just in time for Incredibles 2, etc.

Also, I truly hope it wouldn't take the latest park offering of the most current Disney film in the parks to finally get a family to experience it for the first time

Fair points.

We do need to recognize the business world is not what it once was. Everything is hyper-everything. If Disney doesn't compete on the level at which all the other big companies are competing - for better or worse - they'll be more likely to fail.

Investors don't understand this stuff.

Very often, corporate types don't understand this stuff.

I own a record store. Somebody who comes in and buys a Killswitch Engage album may think it's the best thing in the world, their favorite artist, etc. I've never heard a single song from them. I think it's lucky (read: good business) that I ordered that artist, based on statistics and customer input (usually) so I would have it when that person came in to shop.

I can never know all the artists. I don't even want to, and it's often not helpful except to be aware of the artist. There are other ways to find out what my customers want. Those ways are not always reliable. (Neither is ordering what I like - I could like something that is a commercial flop.)

I used to interact with my customers every day. That's not possible anymore. I rely on my folks to tell me what the customers tell them. I rely on sales reports to tell me what is moving and what is not. I rely on Amazon's sales rank system to tell me if something I've never heard of that is coming out this Friday has potential. (That's not always reliable, either!)

A company (even my tiny one) can try to please guests and legit get it wrong. We'll never be the fans you are. Neither will Disney. You can have higher ups at Disney who have a fondness for the brand, and may be able to tell you everything about Snow White, but nothing about the Incredibles. That will inform their decision-making. If they're smart, it will only inform part of their decision-making, and they will consider other sources of information (hello, guest surveys!) It's almost impossible to completely take your POV out of your decision-making, even if you consciously try to minimize it. I have a lot of leftover Mariah Carey "Butterfly" picture discs as a result. I'm OK with that. I sell a lot of Disney picture discs, sometimes at very little mark up, just because I love Disney and want that merch represented in my store.

I can't completely fault a monstrosity of a machine like the Disney corporation for trying and failing. The people at the top are not Imagineers. Again, it was lightning in a bottle with Walt and Roy working in tandem, and with Walt being the one ultimately in charge of executing his own vision. I think if I got hit by a Magical Express tomorrow, my current employees would be able to sort of hit the mark in continuing what I had taught them, but they wouldn't get it all the way I want it, as they don't now, and the company eventually drifts. Hopefully it wouldn't drift so far that the people who liked it don't come anymore, at least not right away. We are so far from Walt's touch now, and that was a "magic" touch. Not just anybody can do that, and the game has changed by leaps and bounds since then.

Also, I think there's this temporary moment where they bought Lucasfilm, built Pandora, invested in Shanghai, etc., and were stretching themselves out financially, not yet knowing how well the movie side would do this year. You can't count on that before it happens; it might not happen.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Fair points.

We do need to recognize the business world is not what it once was. Everything is hyper-everything. If Disney doesn't compete on the level at which all the other big companies are competing - for better or worse - they'll be more likely to fail.

Investors don't understand this stuff.

Very often, corporate types don't understand this stuff.

I own a record store. Somebody who comes in and buys a Killswitch Engage album may think it's the best thing in the world, their favorite artist, etc. I've never heard a single song from them. I think it's lucky (read: good business) that I ordered that artist, based on statistics and customer input (usually) so I would have it when that person came in to shop.

I can never know all the artists. I don't even want to, and it's often not helpful except to be aware of the artist. There are other ways to find out what my customers want. Those ways are not always reliable. (Neither is ordering what I like - I could like something that is a commercial flop.)

I used to interact with my customers every day. That's not possible anymore. I rely on my folks to tell me what the customers tell them. I rely on sales reports to tell me what is moving and what is not. I rely on Amazon's sales rank system to tell me if something I've never heard of that is coming out this Friday has potential. (That's not always reliable, either!)

A company (even my tiny one) can try to please guests and legit get it wrong. We'll never be the fans you are. Neither will Disney. You can have higher ups at Disney who have a fondness for the brand, and may be able to tell you everything about Snow White, but nothing about the Incredibles. That will inform their decision-making. If they're smart, it will only inform part of their decision-making, and they will consider other sources of information (hello, guest surveys!) It's almost impossible to completely take your POV out of your decision-making, even if you consciously try to minimize it. I have a lot of leftover Mariah Carey "Butterfly" picture discs as a result. I'm OK with that. I sell a lot of Disney picture discs, sometimes at very little mark up, just because I love Disney and want that merch represented in my store.

I can't completely fault a monstrosity of a machine like the Disney corporation for trying and failing. The people at the top are not Imagineers. Again, it was lightning in a bottle with Walt and Roy working in tandem, and with Walt being the one ultimately in charge of executing his own vision. I think if I got hit by a Magical Express tomorrow, my current employees would be able to sort of hit the mark in continuing what I had taught them, but they wouldn't get it all the way I want it, as they don't now, and the company eventually drifts. Hopefully it wouldn't drift so far that the people who liked it don't come anymore, at least not right away. We are so far from Walt's touch now, and that was a "magic" touch. Not just anybody can do that, and the game has changed by leaps and bounds since then.

Also, I think there's this temporary moment where they bought Lucasfilm, built Pandora, invested in Shanghai, etc., and were stretching themselves out financially, not yet knowing how well the movie side would do this year. You can't count on that before it happens; it might not happen.

You're all right, Tony.

All of what you just said I agree with. Oh, and Killswitch Engage is a decent band that has a few good songs...if you're into that style of music, which I am.

I know its easy to get caught up in thinking we as guests get to shape Disneyland in our own image, but the truth is, we can't. Pixar Pier will likely delight vast numbers people, but I won't be one of them. Do I understand why they're building it though ? Yes.

At the end of the day, I still stick by the Disney I have been influenced and shaped by in the past and have *hopes* that they haven't completely lost sight of their roots. Only time will tell.

 

[DanielBB8]

It is a more recent development, but I guess I see it being implemented more as a synergy-fueled knee-jerk reaction as opposed to a carefully thought out decision made for what is truly best for the parks overall. They changed TOT to GOTG in about 6 months not because it's what DCA needed, but because they simply wanted the property in the parks in time for the sequel. Pixar Pier was lined up just in time for Incredibles 2, etc.

Also, I truly hope it wouldn't take the latest park offering of the most current Disney film in the parks to finally get a family to experience it for the first time

You make it sound like the GOTG sequel is the conclusion of why they decided to do the TOT conversion. It was stated many times that it is merely the beginning of long term changes to DCA (Superheroes) that are absolutely necessary to keep the park relevant and popular. So why offer half the story? That’s what’s wrong with these arguments. They are half baked.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

You make it sound like the GOTG sequel is the conclusion of why they decided to do the TOT conversion. It was stated many times that it is merely the beginning of long term changes to DCA (Superheroes) that are absolutely necessary to keep the park relevant and popular. So why offer half the story? That’s what’s wrong with these arguments. They are half baked.

So in your opinion, they opened GOTG mere weeks after Vol 2 came out because it was what was overall best for the park?? And furthermore, how was simply re-skinning one E-Ticket going to make that much of a difference in increasing attendance? Their summer of heroes promotion was lackluster at best.

What Disney SHOULD have done, was create a Guardians attraction from the ground up, when they were ready to get the ball rolling on the rest of Marvel Land so we wouldn't be left with a singular eyesore of a landmark for years.

Similarly, they're opening Pixar Pier half-finished simply to cash in on some of that Incredibles 2 hype.

I'm not arguing that DCA doesn't need help, because it clearly does. But let's not kid ourselves and think that the hurried opening of these new attractions, alongside the release dates of their respective sequels, is pure coincidence. Both the Guardians and Incredibles properties deserved better.

 

[DanielBB8]

So in your opinion, they opened GOTG mere weeks after Vol 2 came out because it was what was overall best for the park?? And furthermore, how was simply re-skinning one E-Ticket going to make that much of a difference in increasing attendance? Their summer of heroes promotion was lackluster at best.

What Disney SHOULD have done, was create a Guardians attraction from the ground up, when they were ready to get the ball rolling on the rest of Marvel Land so we wouldn't be left with a singular eyesore of a landmark for years.

Similarly, they're opening Pixar Pier half-finished simply to cash in on some of that Incredibles 2 hype.

I'm not arguing that DCA doesn't need help, because it clearly does. But let's not kid ourselves and think that the hurried opening of these new attractions, alongside the release dates of their respective sequels, is pure coincidence. Both the Guardians and Incredibles properties deserved better.

Isn’t this the definition of putting words in my mouth? I didn’t say this at all. And for the second bolded sentence: facepalm. Missing the point quite obviously.

I clearly said “It was stated many times that it is merely the beginning of long term changes to DCA (Superheroes) that are absolutely necessary to keep the park relevant and popular.” None of what I said squares with what you said is my opinion. Phooey.

The ground up attraction is still coming.

Mission Breakout is the mere beginning of Superheroes Land that will help DCA in the long term as it was stated numerous times. You just go ahead and regurgitate your half digested theories. They make no sense, but you keep saying it. BTW, the new Superheroes meet and greets with Black Panther, Thor, Captain America, Black Widow, and Gamora continue to be very popular.

 

[Disney Irish]

So in your opinion, they opened GOTG mere weeks after Vol 2 came out because it was what was overall best for the park?? And furthermore, how was simply re-skinning one E-Ticket going to make that much of a difference in increasing attendance? Their summer of heroes promotion was lackluster at best.

What Disney SHOULD have done, was create a Guardians attraction from the ground up, when they were ready to get the ball rolling on the rest of Marvel Land so we wouldn't be left with a singular eyesore of a landmark for years.

Similarly, they're opening Pixar Pier half-finished simply to cash in on some of that Incredibles 2 hype.

I'm not arguing that DCA doesn't need help, because it clearly does. But let's not kid ourselves and think that the hurried opening of these new attractions, alongside the release dates of their respective sequels, is pure coincidence. Both the Guardians and Incredibles properties deserved better.

I will agree on part of what you said, yes they should have built to new GotG attraction. However understanding the business side, and the amount of time it takes for development of these attractions just didn't lend itself to a new GotG attraction. As the rest of "Super Hero AdventureLand" is still barely just announced. I mean just look at how long its taking just to get from when GotG:MB was converted to a full land is going to be, 5-6 years at least. Imagine had GotG:MB hadn't happened, we'd still be waiting for something Marvel related. That would have been what almost 15 years since they bought Marvel until a Marvel attraction came to DLR. That is just not acceptable from a business, shareholder, or even fan perspective. It may not have been the best way to introduce a Marvel attraction, but it was needed.

 

[DanielBB8]

I will agree on part of what you said, yes they should have built to new GotG attraction. However understanding the business side, and the amount of time it takes for development of these attractions just didn't lend itself to a new GotG attraction. As the rest of "Super Hero AdventureLand" is still barely just announced. I mean just look at how long its taking just to get from when GotG:MB was converted to a full land is going to be, 5-6 years at least. Imagine had GotG:MB hadn't happened, we'd still be waiting for something Marvel related. That would have been what almost 15 years since they bought Marvel until a Marvel attraction came to DLR. That is just not acceptable from a business, shareholder, or even fan perspective. It may not have been the best way to introduce a Marvel attraction, but it was needed.

I’m glad you agree IN PART with what HE SAID. I didn’t say any of it. LOL

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

I will agree on part of what you said, yes they should have built to new GotG attraction. However understanding the business side, and the amount of time it takes for development of these attractions just didn't lend itself to a new GotG attraction. As the rest of "Super Hero AdventureLand" is still barely just announced. I mean just look at how long its taking just to get from when GotG:MB was converted to a full land is going to be, 5-6 years at least. Imagine had GotG:MB hadn't happened, we'd still be waiting for something Marvel related. That would have been what almost 15 years since they bought Marvel until a Marvel attraction came to DLR. That is just not acceptable from a business, shareholder, or even fan perspective. It may not have been the best way to introduce a Marvel attraction, but it was needed.

But wasn’t there already a sizeable gap between when Disney bought Marvel to when they opened GOtG??? In that sense, MB feels like a Hail Mary just to get something up. They should have gotten it right the first time.

 

[Disney Irish]

But wasn’t there already a sizeable gap between when Disney bought Marvel to when they opened GOtG??? In that sense, MB feels like a Hail Mary just to get something up. They should have gotten it right the first time.

Yeah there was 8 years or so. I had this same discussion over in one of the Marvel threads, don't know if you were part of it or not.

Part of the issue is trying to figure out which characters they could use due to the UNI contract. The other part was trying to figure out what they could do with the land that was available. Now this is just my opinion, but I think part of it was TDO was running things. So they always look at WDW first, since the UNI contract was at play this delayed things a lot. Then when the change from Staggs to Chapeak happened then that is when things started to move. TDO was no longer calling the shots and everything came back to TDA. And then we got what we got.

So blame TDO, bad land management at DCA, and the UNI contract. Oh and add in the EGateway project issues as part of it too.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Yeah there was 8 years or so. I had this same discussion over in one of the Marvel threads, don't know if you were part of it or not.

Part of the issue is trying to figure out which characters they could use due to the UNI contract. The other part was trying to figure out what they could do with the land that was available. Now this is just my opinion, but I think part of it was TDO was running things. So they always look at WDW first, since the UNI contract was at play this delayed things a lot. Then when the change from Staggs to Chapeak happened then that is when things started to move. TDO was no longer calling the shots and everything came back to TDA. And then we got what we got.

So blame TDO, bad land management at DCA, and the UNI contract.

I do!

I should probably just back out of this thread now, lest I trigger anyone who lacks reading comprehension any further.

 

[Disney Irish]

I do!

I should probably just back out of this thread lest I trigger anyone who lacks reading comprehension.

Yeah I wish TDA had gotten control back a lot sooner. We may not have some of the issues we do with DLR. But oh well things are the way they are, and hindsight being 20/20 and all, etc.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Nobody here is supporting "refusing to do anything else an Imagineer could come up with." I've already explicitly stated otherwise. But you keep going round and round the same circle.

Everyone who says Disney is engaged in the best course of action is supporting that view, Disney’s view. You can’t say Disney is right but then deny support of their strategy when it is spelt out.

Yes, if someone "loves" the parks, then they must attend at least one reality luncheon in which they acknowledge the fact that part of loving the parks = the parks must make money to continue, and that is a primary and worthy focus. All these new things and refurbishments cost a fortune.

Nobody is unaware that the parks are a business.

Regarding your "So?" line: that's not making any sense to me. When the movie was created, they were not established Disney characters...and? You're proving the point that using an existing property can still be built upon creatively, and that most of Disney's most successful ones were borrowed. Further building upon that by creating an attraction is the natural progression.

Once again, I don’t have an issue with building upon prior work. I have a problem with a dictate that quality of story is irrelevant.

I rely on my folks to tell me what the customers tell them.

The people at the top are not Imagineers.

The huge difference here is that you respect your employees, you listen to them. What you do not do is ignore them because you think they are idiots who work at a stupid record store. The top people don’t need to be Imagineers but they should respect the Imagineers and the people who run the parks.

I will agree on part of what you said, yes they should have built to new GotG attraction. However understanding the business side, and the amount of time it takes for development of these attractions just didn't lend itself to a new GotG attraction. As the rest of "Super Hero AdventureLand" is still barely just announced. I mean just look at how long its taking just to get from when GotG:MB was converted to a full land is going to be, 5-6 years at least. Imagine had GotG:MB hadn't happened, we'd still be waiting for something Marvel related. That would have been what almost 15 years since they bought Marvel until a Marvel attraction came to DLR. That is just not acceptable from a business, shareholder, or even fan perspective. It may not have been the best way to introduce a Marvel attraction, but it was needed.

Understanding it from a business side would mean actually fixing the business’ huge problem regarding project delivery. Guardians of the Galaxy —Mission: BREAKOUT! and Pixar Pier are about Chapek doing what Lasseter could not (attractions opening with movies), and getting “new” projects completed faster and cheaper without having to actually address those problems.

Yeah there was 8 years or so. I had this same discussion over in one of the Marvel threads, don't know if you were part of it or not.

Part of the issue is trying to figure out which characters they could use due to the UNI contract. The other part was trying to figure out what they could do with the land that was available. Now this is just my opinion, but I think part of it was TDO was running things. So they always look at WDW first, since the UNI contract was at play this delayed things a lot. Then when the change from Staggs to Chapeak happened then that is when things started to move. TDO was no longer calling the shots and everything came back to TDA. And then we got what we got.

So blame TDO, bad land management at DCA, and the UNI contract. Oh and add in the EGateway project issues as part of it too.

Yeah I wish TDA had gotten control back a lot sooner. We may not have some of the issues we do with DLR. But oh well things are the way they are, and hindsight being 20/20 and all, etc.

Team Disney Orlando was not running Disneyland Resort until recently nor was there any issue with Universal.