News Zootopia and Moana Blue Sky concepts for Disney's Animal Kingdom

[Ghost93]

They're not going to build a ride where the Rescuers, Robin Hood, or Bedknobs and Broomsticks is the featured IP even if the attraction design is incredible. If Tony Baxter designed Splash Mountain today -- and for the sake of the hypothetical we pretend Song of the South doesn't have the issues it actually has, since there are obviously other reasons it wouldn't be built -- it almost certainly wouldn't be built because the IP is too old and irrelevant.

To be fair, Song of the South had two profitable re-releases in the 1980s when Splash Mountain was greenlit, so at the time, Disney viewed it as a successful IP. All of the major live-action and animated films of the time — The Watcher in the Woods, Tron, Something Wicked This Way Comes, The Return to Oz, The Black Cauldron, the Great Mouse Detective, etc." were either flops or were underwhelming at the box office. Had the two 1980s re-releases of SOTS been disappointing, it's possible that Splash Mountain wouldn't have been themed around that movie.

 

[UNCgolf]

To be fair, Song of the South had two profitable re-releases in the 1980s when Splash Mountain was greenlit, so at the time, Disney viewed it as a successful IP. All of the major live-action and animated films of the time — The Watcher in the Woods, Tron, Something Wicked This Way Comes, The Return to Oz, The Black Cauldron, the Great Mouse Detective, etc." were either flops or were underwhelming at the box office. Had the two 1980s re-releases of SOTS been disappointing, it's possible that Splash Mountain wouldn't have been themed around that movie.

That's fair, although the 1986 Song of the South re-release made less money at the box office than The Great Mouse Detective and a Lady and the Tramp re-release, so it's not like it was wildly popular. That did make it an IP that was recently featured, though.

 

[Kman]

Would you spend $1B on a new ride, with an unknown character, and hope it was popular? No, you would select existing, popular characters, and see what kind of ride they could fit. That way you could instantly guarantee the ride was popular from the synergies between the existing IP and the new ride.

Shows and Movies can have flops. They are not giant buildings. The ride will be there for decades, it has to work.

I really liked Horizons, and still love Figment, but I understand why they do, what they do, today.

Just saying they used to do it. The fact that they spend what they do on their rides has been questioned and debated on this forum forever. The dollars are ridiculous. Maybe the difference is back in the day, they did not have the competition they have now- they can't afford a flop. That being said, they couldn't afford one in the '50-'60s either. A financial flop might have wiped out the parks and Disney as a company. That being said, today, they have almost unlimited resources to try some completely original ideas. I am just expressing my disappointment that they take the "easy" way out for the parks. They used to take more risks in the past- they had to as they were the only ones doing this. Now of course, they have competition, and it is easier to follow the crowd.

It probably also says something about society today. We need to be presented with the flashiest and most exciting attractions to even pay attention. Times have changed. I'm only in my 50's, but sometimes I feel like the "old man" talking about the "old days"! I like a lot of the new stuff- I'm just disappointed in the lack of willingness to chart new paths, I guess.

 

[Tom P.]

To be fair, Song of the South had two profitable re-releases in the 1980s when Splash Mountain was greenlit, so at the time, Disney viewed it as a successful IP. All of the major live-action and animated films of the time — The Watcher in the Woods, Tron, Something Wicked This Way Comes, The Return to Oz, The Black Cauldron, the Great Mouse Detective, etc." were either flops or were underwhelming at the box office. Had the two 1980s re-releases of SOTS been disappointing, it's possible that Splash Mountain wouldn't have been themed around that movie.

Off-topic but just a thumbs up for mentioning Watcher in the Woods, which I hardly ever see referenced. I've always had a fondness for that film. Scared me to death as a kid. I realize it's production was a mess and the ending, therefore, was a jumble. But it's a good example, along with Tron, to me of Disney trying to be daring and do something different which, unfortunately, they don't seem willing to do any more.

 

[Kman]

Dinoland USA was original IP. How much Chester and Hester merch did you buy?

To me the parks are just another platform for storytelling. So it’s irrelevant where the IP originates (movies, D+, parks) as long as its good and handled well. Disney sinks millions into developing IP, and like it or not, D+ is cheaper and lower risk than attractions.


Have you seen WandaVision? What about She-Hulk? Have you done the Starcruiser? These we all pretty creative uses of blockbuster-level IP. The problem is, more creative almost always = higher risk, smaller market, and lower payoff.

agree with you...I get it. It would definitely be riskier

Btw I have not seen those shows or done the Starcruiser (going back to WDW in 2023 in some time). Like I said I don't have any interest left in Marvel. I realize I may be an outsider on that. Just where I'm at.

 

[SNS]

Something to keep in mind is that while the use of IP is undoubtably profit based, there are fans who genuinely want to go through a recreation of a familiar location in their favorite movie rather then an original experience. Especially if it is accurate and high budgeted.

 

[_caleb]

I dunno folks. I think maybe it's just time to accept that we are a tiny subset of the people visiting the parks and that what we want is not what the average guest wants.

To take just one example, for the first time in history, Mickey's Not So Scary Halloween Party will be a total sell-out this year. Last I heard, I believe there was only one night remaining that was not completely sold out. And that is happening when the economy is very shaky, inflation is running rampant, ticket prices are higher than they've ever been and, according to people here, Disney is delivering an inferior product. Yet people are showing up and paying for it like never before.

I get that the whole "Disney is a business" argument is cliché at this point but, seriously, why would Disney be motivated to change strategies when people are beating down the doors to buy what they are selling? Love it or hate it, Disney is clearly giving the people what they want right now.

See, I think this blue sky presentation is an example of Disney actually is giving us superfans what we want–big ideas and insider information. They’ve just learned how to do it without the financial risk of any actual plans or construction.

 

[Ghost93]

I have a theory that the reason this is all still Blue Sky is that they're waiting to see how Strange World does in theaters as those characters could be used for a new Dinoland attraction.

While I think Strange World looks like a good movie, I don't think it will perform well financially. It gives off Atlantis/Treasure Planet vibes — both of which flopped upon release. It also will have a gay character, which will make it a target among right-wing YouTubers and activists. Also, it will be sandwiched in between Black Panther: Wakanda Forever and Avatar: the Way of Water — which might end up being the top two highest grossing movies of the year depending on if they are good or not.

 

[Kman]

Serious question… how/why does an IP hold back creativity for WDI unless my answer lies in your statement of “demanding it in certain ways”

totally agree- I believe if management adhered to the original vision of the parks and gave the Imagineers the budget and freedom to actually bring it to life, we would have many fewer concerns about the current direction. Wall Street and the shareholders are not interested in this, and therefore, neither is management. I think we are watching the natural progression of a large company in the market. The original vision is corrupted or forgotten in the interest of $$. You would have difficulty naming too many large publicly traded companies truly concerned with the customer experience- if they need to sacrifice any profit. I'm not talking about breaking even or losing money. I'm talking about sacrificing SOME profit. I actually believe a sacrifice would probably lead to MORE profit.

Who knows

 

[erasure fan1]

Serious question… how/why does an IP hold back creativity for WDI unless my answer lies in your statement of “demanding it in certain ways”

Most IPs wouldn't hold back creativity for the most part. The problem is shoehorning in my opinion. If Disney management mandates something like this blue sky nonsense where they say put Moana in the dinoland area. That is what stifles creativity. The imagineers need the freedom to create a ride, that fits whatever area you are doing, then work the ip into that. Not, we need Frozen in the parks and you need to put it in Norway, have at it.

 

[_caleb]

Something to keep in mind is that while the use of IP is undoubtably profit based, there are fans who genuinely want to go through a recreation of a familiar location in their favorite movie rather then an original experience. Especially if it is accurate and high budgeted.

I agree. But I think Disney would be foolish to try too hard to please that crowd. Film accuracy costs a lot, is never quite accurate enough, and won’t be noticed by the vast majority of guests.

See: Batuu vs. Tatooine.

 

[crazy4disney]

Most IPs wouldn't hold back creativity for the most part. The problem is shoehorning in my opinion. If Disney management mandates something like this blue sky nonsense where they say put Moana in the dinoland area. That is what stifles creativity. The imagineers need the freedom to create a ride, that fits whatever area you are doing, then work the ip into that. Not, we need Frozen in the parks and you need to put it in Norway, have at it.

See this is where i will respectfully disagree… using your Frozen example. You are telling me that was the best they were able to come up with?!? Come on after you see Elsa and go backwards you literally basically have black walls w some lighting. They could have easily done better there for starters…

 

[erasure fan1]

See this is where i will respectfully disagree… using your Frozen example. You are telling me that was the best they were able to come up with?!? Come on after you see Elsa and go backwards you literally basically have black walls w some lighting. They could have easily done better there for starters…

I'm sure they could have done better. But I'm sure they were told to shoehorn it in and you only have a basic budget. If there's one area that imagineering needs to take heat for creativity. It's how they accomplish the technical side of things. They need to find a better way to get things done with the money they are given, so you don't get dark empty spaces. Frozen was never going to be great. No matter what WDI did, it was always going to underwhelm since it had to be shoehorned in. Could it be better? Maybe. But it matters little since the scope of the old ride system was never going to live up to what Frozen deserves from a popularity standpoint.

 

[UNCgolf]

I agree. But I think Disney would be foolish to try too hard to please that crowd. Film accuracy costs a lot, is never quite accurate enough, and won’t be noticed by the vast majority of guests.

See: Batuu vs. Tatooine.

There also just aren't many IPs that are both big enough to be worth doing and have locations that are easily recognizable as from that specific IP. The Marvel movies are massive successes, but there's a reason they did Avengers Campus (for better or worse) -- there's really not any setting that's specifically Marvel (at least not that's been used enough to be worth doing).

Diagon Alley (along with Hogwarts, although Universal really botched that) is one of the few options that does work for both.

 

[crazy4disney]

I'm sure they could have done better. But I'm sure they were told to shoehorn it in and you only have a basic budget. If there's one area that imagineering needs to take heat for creativity. It's how they accomplish the technical side of things. They need to find a better way to get things done with the money they are given, so you don't get dark empty spaces. Frozen was never going to be great. No matter what WDI did, it was always going to underwhelm since it had to be shoehorned in. Could it be better? Maybe. But it matters little since the scope of the old ride system was never going to live up to what Frozen deserves from a popularity standpoint.

I agree Frozen deserved better 100% from a ride pov but again after all these years your telling me something could not have been added to those areas to plus the ride even tho i still think they could have done better from the start…

 

[Jrb1979]

I agree Frozen deserved better 100% from a ride pov but again after all these years your telling me something could not have been added to those areas to plus the ride even tho i still think they could have done better from the start…

Money. Why make it better when it's popular the way it is. Your average guest just cares that it's a Frozen ride.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Would you spend $1B on a new ride, with an unknown character, and hope it was popular? No, you would select existing, popular characters, and see what kind of ride they could fit. That way you could instantly guarantee the ride was popular from the synergies between the existing IP and the new ride.

Shows and Movies can have flops. They are not giant buildings. The ride will be there for decades, it has to work.

I really liked Horizons, and still love Figment, but I understand why they do, what they do, today.

They do what they do because they don’t understand the appeal of theme parks. They think they’re stupid entertainment for stupid people. Expedition Everest was a better return on investment than pretty much everything since but it was dismissed by Iger as “nondescript”.

 

[crazy4disney]

Money. Why make it better when it's popular the way it is. Your average guest just cares that it's a Frozen ride.

Thats fair and the obvious answer to many of Disney’s issues. Whats crazy tho is when you hear the staggering numbers from trusted insiders on what Pandora, SWL and GoTG cost to name a few than when it comes to simple additions like this and other problem areas this company acts like it doesnt have 2 nickels to rub together… mindblowing

 

[Animaniac93-98]

While I think Strange World looks like a good movie, I don't think it will perform well financially. It gives off Atlantis/Treasure Planet vibes — both of which flopped upon release. It also will have a gay character, which will make it a target among right-wing YouTubers and activists. Also, it will be sandwiched in between Black Panther: Wakanda Forever and Avatar: the Way of Water — which might end up being the top two highest grossing movies of the year depending on if they are good or not.

It's also now competing with Disenchanted for the attention of families which gets released to Disney+ the day after and doesn't require paying to go see it in a theater.

Strange World is going to bomb and I feel like Disney knows this and doesn't care at this point.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Off-topic but just a thumbs up for mentioning Watcher in the Woods, which I hardly ever see referenced. I've always had a fondness for that film. Scared me to death as a kid. I realize it's production was a mess and the ending, therefore, was a jumble. But it's a good example, along with Tron, to me of Disney trying to be daring and do something different which, unfortunately, they don't seem willing to do any more.

If nothing else, the financial failure of The Watcher in the Woods and other experimental Disney releases from the early 80s is what convinced Ron Miller to go ahead with Touchstone which provided the bulk of Disney movie revenue for the decade.

Now that Criterion is putting out Disney titles again, perhaps they can do for Watcher what Anchor Bay wanted to do 20 years ago and release the director's cut with extensive supplemental content.