BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
This is what I've said ad nauseum.
Of course IP helps with marketing, and it can also prop up a mediocre attraction busy because of connection to the IP (see Frozen Ever After, although there are limits -- the Nemo IP hasn't really helped that ride). I understand why Disney wants to use it from a business perspective.
But from an overall design standpoint and in terms of creating the best possible attractions, being forced to use a pretty small library of IP (it's not like ALL Disney IP is truly available -- management isn't going to greenlight something big based on a minor/unpopular IP because it defeats the purpose of using preexisting IP) really constrains what can be done.
I mean I see why Disney likes IP so much from a marketing standpoint, but I don't know if I am in full agreement that an IP mandate is the obvious economic decision that some people on this board have made it out to be. Surely the most successful movie and character IPs will sell more merchandise than most park specific IPs will (see Tiana vs Splash, unfortunately), but the number of IPs that have that much of a marketing advantage over original park specific IPs has to be really small. So surely Disney can't rely solely on those for new lands ans attractions. Especially since the four parks rely on lands and attractions with diverse settings and themes, something that is not the case with Disney's library of hyper-popular IPs. I mean will TRON really sell all that much merchandise?
Now combine this fact with knowledge that Disney's film and streaming divisions aren't actively creating very much new IP, mostly remaking and adapting things that already exist and often with little success (from both a financial and especially a critical standpoint) and surely Disney's current business model can't be viable for that much longer.
It can also not be understated how detrimental it is for the artistic quality of the parks that Disney mandates every single land and attraction they build must be based on some already established film IP or character tie-in. There is obvious value to creative freedom in any art form, theme parks included, and outlawing creation in all its forms simply cannot yield the best artistic results for Disney's theme parks. Sure, various film IPs can fit in the parks to varying degrees, but they'll never be an optimal choice. An attraction designed specifically to supplement a park as best as possible, or a land based on themes of the park itself rather than the themes of some popular movie or TV show, using artistic languages not from the park itself but from some completely unrelated popular movie or TV show, will more times than not be superior to the already existing film/television IP that is determined to "fit" in the park, which will always just be a matter of "close enough."
Last edited: