.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
deleted
- Thread starter iHeartDisneylandCats
- Start date
eliza61nyc
Well-Known Member
lol, may God have mercy on your soul! 
Any way a few points, I don't think the Marvel and Fox acquisitions were unnecessary at all. remember he was also charged with increasing the value of the company for the people who invested. acquiring those properties was brilliant and has done that. the stock had been sluggish for year (yeah I know people around here don't like it when you talk about the actually business side of the company but it is a business)
Right now the mouse company has a huge market share in the entertainment sector ( Lucasfilm, ABC, A&E, ESPN, Marvel, Disneyland and related properties, Lifetime, ABC Studios and a whole lot more ) and if they move into the streaming arena, which is what they seem to want to do. they will be a nice little empire.
Any way a few points, I don't think the Marvel and Fox acquisitions were unnecessary at all. remember he was also charged with increasing the value of the company for the people who invested. acquiring those properties was brilliant and has done that. the stock had been sluggish for year (yeah I know people around here don't like it when you talk about the actually business side of the company but it is a business)
Right now the mouse company has a huge market share in the entertainment sector ( Lucasfilm, ABC, A&E, ESPN, Marvel, Disneyland and related properties, Lifetime, ABC Studios and a whole lot more ) and if they move into the streaming arena, which is what they seem to want to do. they will be a nice little empire.
Last edited:
eliza61nyc
Well-Known Member
So I'm always a bit at odds with the entire "Walt's vision" thing because imo I really wonder if the modern day consumer actually knows or cares about "Walts supposed vision". I've never read anything on him nor do I have any interest to, and from these boards evidently I get that Walt wanted some place where supposedly all people could vacation at.
Whether we like it or not, kid like things tied to movies, not to say that there can't be a theme . Frozen sells and I know folks like to "Dismiss" kids opinions but moms and dads across the globe are plunking down crap loads of money for their little girls to look like a princess from a movie.
So I think going forward any CEO who comes in after Iger is going to not make the cut with old time purist. whether that's good or bad is for the future to decide.
Now I have absolutely no problem with IP. bring it on. I hate "old and stale" and that's what was happening in the parks. could they have put something else instead of GOTG? probably? but I'm happy that at least Guardians is coming and they got rid of the horrible Ellen travesty. (lol I'll get creamed for that.)
Will I miss Illuminations? definitely, it was one of my favorites but if the Ip laced replacement is good, I'll enjoy that also.
hypothetical question: Do you think the kids/youngins today know who walt disney was? or that there was a man behind the parks?
Whether we like it or not, kid like things tied to movies, not to say that there can't be a theme . Frozen sells and I know folks like to "Dismiss" kids opinions but moms and dads across the globe are plunking down crap loads of money for their little girls to look like a princess from a movie.
So I think going forward any CEO who comes in after Iger is going to not make the cut with old time purist. whether that's good or bad is for the future to decide.
Now I have absolutely no problem with IP. bring it on. I hate "old and stale" and that's what was happening in the parks. could they have put something else instead of GOTG? probably? but I'm happy that at least Guardians is coming and they got rid of the horrible Ellen travesty. (lol I'll get creamed for that.)
Will I miss Illuminations? definitely, it was one of my favorites but if the Ip laced replacement is good, I'll enjoy that also.
hypothetical question: Do you think the kids/youngins today know who walt disney was? or that there was a man behind the parks?
Last edited:
yoda_5729
Well-Known Member
I don't know all the business sides to the company. Naming who is to blame, and who's decision was it to do X, I'm not at all convinced I have the knowledge for. What I can say though, is that Walt Disney World will likely continue to exist for years. The attractions in it, should be designed with the mindset that they will also be around for years. I don't see as much stale and old, as much as I see classic and legendary.
Obviously the newer, popular properties should be represented to some degree in the parks. However, just because you are a hip, popular movie today, does not in any way say that 30 years from now, you'll be looked at the same way. With the money Disney invests in these attractions, that's the mindset you probably should have with them. Ultimately, once a movie loses it's "I'm the hip cool movie" tag, most don't have much more to fall back on. When Disney World was being built, Mickey Mouse was not appearing in any cartoons, nor was the Mickey Mouse Club a big deal. Does that mean we should downgrade Mickey, because he's stale and old? Or that when they were building Disney World they should have used one of the more popular characters at the time. Popularity with characters comes and goes. Mickey in recent times is seeing a come back due to the new cartoon, but no one knows what will succeed in comebacks and what won't. When we talk of fictional characters, they all have potential. It comes down to what have you actually done. Coco, or Moana for example have both done very well, and I'm sure Disney is happy and proud of them (as they should be). What have they done that Cinderella, Pinocchio or 101 Dalmatians hasn't? If they have done anything more, will that matter long term?
I've heard the argument about "well do kids even know who that is argument used," but I have never once seen a kid refuse to go on Twilight Zone Tower of Terror because they don't know what the Twilight Zone is. Dozens of the older properties are some of the longest lines in the park. You can't even watch the movie Splash Mountain is based on, and it's still having hour long wait times. If all the ride or show has to depend upon impressing people is the characters, it probably need to be reconsidered.
Themeing and story is important as it's the entire way imgineers design and fully immerse you into an attraction. At Epcot this is important in the World Showcase as the idea is to make you feel as if you are experiencing Paris or Venice. If you push too much Disney into those areas, it becomes something else. It becomes a fictionalized Paris as apposed to an attempt at the actual thing. If all of sudden they started putting Frozen snowmen on expedition everest, that'd be detrimental as it'd actually take you out of an atttraction, as the real Everest doesn't have Frozen snowpeople on it. I'm not suggesting they are thinking of that (hopefully they aren't), but it was the only Disney movie I could think of with the snow capped mountain reference. Maybe a better example, is if you placed cartoon animatronics of the JUngle Book into the Jungle Cruise. The Jungle Cruise animals are designed to look real. Baloo and Louie are not. Though it'd make sense as both take place in the jungle, you'd likely be doing far more damage to the attractions shelf life if you had a mix of actual and cartoon, then if you just left it alone. Would adding Baloo and Louie bring that many more people to an already long lined attraction? Yes, in recent times they have made the live action (cgi) Jungle Book, but not every guest would even recognize the characters without the characters talking, which is not what was envisioned for the ride.
There is nothing wrong with a child or adult for that matter, learning to experience something new and different, and possibly enjoying it, without knowledge that it's connected to a movie they like/dislike. I've ridden rides themed around movies I both have never seen, or disliked, becaue I knew just because there was a movie about it that I may have liked or disliked, doesn't effect what I'll think of the ride. Though every paying customer at Disney has a right to want and not want various things, as each person is looking for a different experience.
Last edited:
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
Sue_Vongello
Well-Known Member
Agree with a lot of what you said but disagree with Avatar being one of his best ideas. IMO this is one of his worst, if not his worst. Yes, I know people will say FOP is great (it is) and the Land is beautiful (it is) but there is no connection to the Avatar movies or characters.
The whole idea was an overreaction, a knee jerk brash move to counter the success of HP at Universal. All he did was grab the highest grossing movie presumably without doing a lick of research on its impact in the society (no avatar toys, costumes, etc ... a general apathy for the franchise).
Just because one of the rides is great and the land is pretty doesn’t make it a good idea. Imagine what they could have done or how you would have felt if it was a franchise that anyone actually cared about?
That was a major boneheaded move by Iger, and really showed how completely out of touch he is/was on what the fans wanted.
Last edited:
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
In my opinion, that's why it works. The movie and characters were mediocre, but the world was breathtaking. I don't want theme park attractions to be a rehash of the plotlines from beloved movies.
Big Thunder Mountain isn't a franchise anyone cares about. Neither are Space Mountain or Song of the South. But those attractions are beloved because of the placemaking.
See also: Tron.
Shouldigo12
Well-Known Member
Eh. Like someone else said earlier, I won't pretend like I know who made what decisions leading to this change in the park, so I won't argue any of what you said. However, I do know that for long time attractions really weren't being added to the parks during Iger's run. Only relativelt recently has anything new been added. That doesn't impress me. Like I said, I won't pretend like I have the slightest clue who gets the credit for specific attractions and business moves, but I know he had a big hand in that. As far as IP based rides go, I personally don't care. If it's a good ride, it's a good ride. Its not automatically terrible just because it was inspired as movie.
Sharon&Susan
Well-Known Member
I’ve heard before that Iger is the one with the IP mandate and Chapek wants more original IP attractions, as he realizes the merchandise potential of it.
yoda_5729
Well-Known Member
As stated above, I don't know much about the moving parts behind the scenes of Disney World in terms of who is in charge of what. From what I understand (and I could be wrong about this), Chapek was in charge of merchandising, and then when the Parks devision was lumped into merchandising, he became head of that as well. Though I do not like certain aspects of the IP being introduced more into Disney (especially in the locales that are trying to simulate the real world), I can understand from a merchandisers point of view why that would be an important thing to do. I don't like it, but I can understand it. My concern would be more for him being put in charge of the parks in the first place. From what I understand, he thinks of things like a merchandiser would, which is primarily focused around money, not art. Much of the theme parks, is, surprisingly influenced by art. That gets back to the other named person in this thread. I've always looked at companies as the buck stops with the head, and that's Iger. I think he has made a ton of good decisions over the course of his tenure from certain points a view, and I can understand why he did them. But if people are so upset over Chapek being head of the Parks, wouldn't that decision have ultimately rested with Iger?
TwilightZone
Well-Known Member
Actually, that one was mr. butt-grab's idea. Sure Chapek didn't help that idea become reality, though.
Sue_Vongello
Well-Known Member
I think we’re in agreement. My argument is still valid. The world and the land are beautiful. The movie and characters are mediocre. My point was Iger just grabbed something without understanding its place in the zeitgeist and sure it turned out well but imagine how much more beloved it would be if it was something that people care about?
Big Thunder (western), Space Mountain (space mountain), and Splash Mountain (classic Disney) are actually things people care about. So that’s why those work.
But I agree with you the land is beautiful and I don’t need attractions built around movie plots etc ... in the end I just don’t want decisions made rashly or impulsively that don’t reflect what people really want.
Shouldigo12
Well-Known Member
When you say BTM, space mountain, and splash mountain are things people care about, do you mean the rides or the inspiration for them?
I hear he did a lot of stock buy-backs. I wonder if there's anyone who can set me straight on whether that's a good or bad thing.
eliza61nyc
Well-Known Member
first I'm not a professional financier nor do I portray one on tv. so from what I've heard in order to get that fox deal to go through they promised fox about 500 million shares in order to have 25% interest in the company. it's basically just another way to pay for something. they paid cash for lucasfilm and now wish to keep a hold of their cash so they'll give fox some stock.
Now the bad side of this is that for a short time Disney stock will be diluted.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/12/16/why-isnt-walt-disney-paying-cash-for-the-21st-cent.aspx
Sue_Vongello
Well-Known Member
Both.
Shouldigo12
Well-Known Member
Well, I'll have to disagree with you about the inspiration part. Most people care about the rides; I doubt many people would be able to even tell what you the inspiration for the rides are.
THE 1HAPPY HAUNT
Well-Known Member
I have to ask, are you saying BIG THUNDER MOUNTAIN and SPACE MOUNTAIN were from a movie or movies or movie franchise or franchises before they were theme park rides because if so I have never heard that before??? I don't believe that is true and if it is please correct me.