Y'all should ...

[Mawg]

But there is a potential plus side to using outside properties, you open up the possibility of brining in guests who might not have come to Disney before, or maybe not very often. If you stick with Disney properties you will most likely only tap into Disney fans who are already coming to the parks.

Another plus is you keep your competition from using the outside properties.

 

[Mawg]

I really like the Jungle Cruise idea I saw on here. The whole attraction could be in one large cage so that parrots and amazon birds could fly freely, monkeys could be loose, you could have manatee, jaguars, crocs. Mix in some animatronic hippos and a Piranha scene a dark tunnel scene and maybe a small plume.

 

[Bolna]

I think looking only at ownership, which so many fans seem to do these days, makes the issue ridiculous for either side. What I think matters is the typology of content. Is the content, be it created by Disney or not, "Disneyesque?" Is it something that people would naturally associate with the ideas of Disney? Even Disney owns content that they do not associate with the Disney brand.

I never got the ownership discussion. After all so many of the Disney characters were not invented by Disney either, they come from fairytales and books, so they are not owned by Disney. Disney owns only the look they created for those characters. And I agree very much with your explanation of typology of content.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I never got the ownership discussion. After all so many of the Disney characters were not invented by Disney either, they come from fairytales and books, so they are not owned by Disney. Disney owns only the look they created for those characters. And I agree very much with your explanation of typology of content.

THANK YOU.

 

[Bolna]

THANK YOU.

You are welcome! I guess it comes from growing up with the traditional German fairytale versions of a lot of the Disney films, like Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and even Rapunzel before I ever saw the Disney version that I am very much aware of that fact.

 

[M.rudolf]

Please give me any additions to any park muppets,Pixar Disney classic,avatar, Indy, Star Wars, beastly,mythical, or just about any property that they use taste in theming and give us an old school Disney experience. I'm willing to give anything a chance. If you do something amazing does the character have to be from a classic Disney film. How many characters were actually created by Disney most were grimms tales, folk tales or from novels

 

[Californian Elitist]

You are welcome! I guess it comes from growing up with the traditional German fairytale versions of a lot of the Disney films, like Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and even Rapunzel before I ever saw the Disney version that I am very much aware of that fact.

Right. I bet we can count on one or two hands how many Disney characters are actually original characters. We should really do that and see how many we come up with. Even during the Renaissance era. Beauty and the Beast, somewhat The Lion King, Hunchback, Pocahontas, Aladdin, Mulan... Tarzan! Unoriginal!

 

[RSoxNo1]

Let's clear some things up:

- The holdup with Star Wars has to be on Lucas' side. There's no way Disney would sink $500 mil into a property like Avatar and not consider Star Wars first. I've never heard what exactly the holdup is, but it's either (a) the money Lucas wants, (b) the money Lucas wants Disney to invest in the expansion, or (c) that Lucas wants Star Wars to be its own gate.
From what I understand about the development of Star Tours 2, Lucas was very accommodating. So I doubt creative control really comes into play here (besides basic approval and concepts).
It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that Avatar was a way to get Lucas back to the bargaining table. It also wouldn't surprise me to see Disney buy Lucasfilm. I believe we're still 10-15 years away from that happening though.

I assume this is true, Star Wars is too obvious a franchise to not be explored further.

- Disney doesn't NEED Cameron or Avatar AT ALL. They have plenty of properties they can turn to (both internally and externally) if Avatar doesn't happen.
But Cameron desperately needs Disney. If plans fall through at WDW, he's dead in the water. Uni has Potter, Transformers,Jurassic Park and Marvel. If they wanted another property, I'd think Lord of the Rings is much more proven (of course they could always pick it up just to spite Disney).
Is Six Flags going to spend $500 mil and develop something in the same league as Disney or Uni? No way. Cedar Fair? No chance.

I'd be interested to see what they have for internal properties that are comparable or better than Avatar? Aside from Pixar I don't see a property that they own that is enough to anchor an entire land.

Lord of the Rings and Star Wars are the most obvious franchises, but it seems that there are issues there.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Nope one hint this person has ties to a really huge director more successful than the king of the world

Andy Serkis is going to be the new CEO of Disney?

 

[prfctlyximprct]

Whatever they choose, I'll be okay, But I want attractions. Not meet and greets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[M.rudolf]

Andy Serkis is going to be the new CEO of Disney?

He's been a hobbit,a chimp and a CEO in the movies. He probably could pull it off better than the actors they have now

 

[spacemt354]

Right. I bet we can count on one or two hands how many Disney characters are actually original characters. We should really do that and see how many we come up with. Even during the Renaissance era. Beauty and the Beast, somewhat The Lion King, Hunchback, Pocahontas, Aladdin, Mulan... Tarzan! Unoriginal!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_theatrical_feature_films Here's the list for you.

 

[Californian Elitist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_theatrical_feature_films Here's the list for you.

Thanks!

 

[M.rudolf]

I assume this is true, Star Wars is too obvious a franchise to not be explored further.


I'd be interested to see what they have for internal properties that are comparable or better than Avatar? Aside from Pixar I don't see a property that they own that is enough to anchor an entire land.

Lord of the Rings and Star Wars are the most obvious franchises, but it seems that there are issues there.

The issue with Lucas and Disney is from both sides it's stems from the Eisner days

 

[Magenta Panther]

Please give me any additions to any park muppets,Pixar Disney classic,avatar, Indy, Star Wars, beastly,mythical, or just about any property that they use taste in theming and give us an old school Disney experience. I'm willing to give anything a chance. If you do something amazing does the character have to be from a classic Disney film. How many characters were actually created by Disney most were grimms tales, folk tales or from novels

And here we go again...

There's a difference between acquisition and artistry. For instance, Disney's version of Pinocchio is original enough that if you try to use his likeness without the Mouse's permission, you lose your cheese, even though he's based on the works of Carlo Collodi. But how can that be, when Disney didn't create Pinocchio???? Because THAT Pinocchio is the Disney version, brought to life through art and not merely acquisition. And that makes a hell of a difference. Your attitude is similar to someone who buys a painting, hangs it in his house and then claims to have created it. Given your attitude, can Disney now claim that they created the Muppets, because it bought them?

I think most people who go to a Disney park want to see Disney-created or adapted characters, not stuff that's bought and crammed into the park willy-nilly. The resurrection of DCA from a non-Disney-themed park to a Disney-themed park, and its amazing success, should be a lesson to those who think a Disney park is just about all the neat-o rides. Disney Parks are supposed to have more going for them than that. But if their identity keeps getting diluted by off-property non-Disney offal, then what pray tell will make them any different than Universal or Six Flags?

 

[M.rudolf]

And here we go again...

There's a difference between acquisition and artistry. For instance, Disney's version of Pinocchio is original enough that if you try to use his likeness without the Mouse's permission, you lose your cheese, even though he's based on the works of Carlo Collodi. But how can that be, when Disney didn't create Pinocchio???? Because THAT Pinocchio is the Disney version, brought to life through art and not merely acquisition. And that makes a hell of a difference. Your attitude is similar to someone who buys a painting, hangs it in his house and then claims to have created it. Given your attitude, can Disney now claim that they created the Muppets, because it bought them?

I think most people who go to a Disney park want to see Disney-created or adapted characters, not stuff that's bought and crammed into the park willy-nilly. The resurrection of DCA from a non-Disney-themed park to a Disney-themed park, and its amazing success, should be a lesson to those who think a Disney park is just about all the neat-o rides. Disney Parks are supposed to have more going for them than that. But if their identity keeps getting diluted by off-property non-Disney offal, then what pray tell will make them any different than Universal or Six Flags?

Retread my post I said nothing about willy nilly. What will make them different world class theming and attention to detail. California adventure wasn't a loss due to the characters it's because Disney didn't pay attention to the details. Am I a purist in magic kingdom probably, but in the other parks not as much. I am all for a experience that is exemplary, be a Disney classic or a new character. I'll keep an open mind. If it adds to a park at this point it would be a plus

 

[Taylor]

And here we go again...

There's a difference between acquisition and artistry. For instance, Disney's version of Pinocchio is original enough that if you try to use his likeness without the Mouse's permission, you lose your cheese, even though he's based on the works of Carlo Collodi. But how can that be, when Disney didn't create Pinocchio???? Because THAT Pinocchio is the Disney version, brought to life through art and not merely acquisition. And that makes a hell of a difference. Your attitude is similar to someone who buys a painting, hangs it in his house and then claims to have created it. Given your attitude, can Disney now claim that they created the Muppets, because it bought them?

I think most people who go to a Disney park want to see Disney-created or adapted characters, not stuff that's bought and crammed into the park willy-nilly. The resurrection of DCA from a non-Disney-themed park to a Disney-themed park, and its amazing success, should be a lesson to those who think a Disney park is just about all the neat-o rides. Disney Parks are supposed to have more going for them than that. But if their identity keeps getting diluted by off-property non-Disney offal, then what pray tell will make them any different than Universal or Six Flags?

I think Disney has a great balance between non-Disney properties and Disney creations in there parks. Do I think they are using some of there creations to there best ability no I don't, but that just goes with the territory

 

[danlb_2000]

Retread my post I said nothing about willy nilly. What will make them different world class theming and attention to detail

I agree with this. If Disney produces a high quality, well themed and detailed attraction I don't think it will matter to the majority of the guests whether it's a Disney property or not. I can't imagine anyone who has ridden Temple of the Forbidden Eye and thinks that it doesn't belong in the park because it's not a property that Disney created.

 

[GoofGoof]

And here we go again...

There's a difference between acquisition and artistry. For instance, Disney's version of Pinocchio is original enough that if you try to use his likeness without the Mouse's permission, you lose your cheese, even though he's based on the works of Carlo Collodi. But how can that be, when Disney didn't create Pinocchio???? Because THAT Pinocchio is the Disney version, brought to life through art and not merely acquisition. And that makes a hell of a difference. Your attitude is similar to someone who buys a painting, hangs it in his house and then claims to have created it. Given your attitude, can Disney now claim that they created the Muppets, because it bought them?

I think most people who go to a Disney park want to see Disney-created or adapted characters, not stuff that's bought and crammed into the park willy-nilly. The resurrection of DCA from a non-Disney-themed park to a Disney-themed park, and its amazing success, should be a lesson to those who think a Disney park is just about all the neat-o rides. Disney Parks are supposed to have more going for them than that. But if their identity keeps getting diluted by off-property non-Disney offal, then what pray tell will make them any different than Universal or Six Flags?

Why are the muppets not Disney? They were not created by Disney, but they are part of the family now.

To your point on DCA, the biggest part of the revival is Carsland, based on a Pixar movie that came out 1 month after Disney acquired Pixar. It was an acquired movie with acquired characters. Who cares? Disney made a fantastic land out of the movie. If they make a fantastic land out of Muppets (Muppets Studios) or Star Wars or Indy who cares if they didn't create the characters as long as the attention to detail is there and it's done well.

 

[M.rudolf]

I agree with this. If Disney produces a high quality, well themed and detailed attraction I don't think it will matter to the majority of the guests whether it's a Disney property or not. I can't imagine anyone who has ridden Temple of the Forbidden Eye and thinks that it doesn't belong in the park because it's not a property that Disney created.

The funny thing is a lot of Disneys great rides have absolutely nothing to do with Disney classic characters