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

[MadderAdder]

I would strongly suspect they are doing exactly that if Moana comes on board - they would make that into an "Oceana" (or something similar land). @ToTBellHop indicated that some animal exhibits would be part of this addition which would be great if it happens; if not from actual Polynesia, I would think they'd add animals from Australia proper.

And New Zealand please

 

[CaptainAmerica]

But I’m convinced that if Disney created that same attraction today (and they wouldn’t), many fans would be disappointed.

"It's not Disney enough and the kids were bored."

 

[UNCgolf]

But I’m convinced that if Disney created that same attraction today (and they wouldn’t), many fans would be disappointed.

Probably -- the fact that they wouldn't is one of the major things that disappoints me personally, though.

 

[UNCgolf]

The IP mandate is a real problem in terms of stifling creativity.

Of course they can't do any wholly original ideas, which is the worst part, but Disney has a giant IP catalog. The thing is, though, most of that catalog is unusable. The IP mandate doesn't mean use anything Disney owns, it means use anything Disney owns that's relatively recent or has demonstrated long-term market feasibility.

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.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

If they want to share costs, why not come to an agreement with OLC to duplicate some of their new builds?

They could just duplicate them. They don’t want to.

 

[SNS]

They could just duplicate them. They don’t want to.

It would probably be considered too expensive to clone them. Especially if the animatronics have proper faces.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

It would probably be considered too expensive to clone them. Especially if the animatronics have proper faces.

Which is also why I think the narrative that imagineering has no creativity isn’t true. It’s that Josh & Bob are demanding IP after IP in such specific ways that they are being backed into corners. WDI designs the attractions for Tokyo Disney Resort

 

[doctornick]

They could just duplicate them. They don’t want to.

I'm not sure it's that simple. We've heard reports on here in the past that OLC has been upset when they basically pay for R&D and Disney copies stuff for other parks. So that's why I said "come to an agreement" with OLC where they are sharing costs for new builds.

Also, don't mean to be a blasphemer here, but what has Tokyo built recent or is building that is so much better than what Disney has done domestically in recent years?

Edit:

Which is also why I think the narrative that imagineering has no creativity isn’t true. It’s that Josh & Bob are demanding IP after IP in such specific ways that they are being backed into corners. WDI designs the attractions for Tokyo Disney Resort

Everything Tokyo is and has been getting is IP based as well, so...?

(Except Soarin' I suppose but the domestic parks already have that ride and in fact it's an example of Tokyo cloning something from the US)

 

[UNCgolf]

I'm not sure it's that simple. We've heard reports on here in the past that OLC has been upset when they basically pay for R&D and Disney copies stuff for other parks. So that's why I said "come to an agreement" with OLC where they are sharing costs for new builds.

Also, don't mean to be a blasphemer here, but what has Tokyo built recent or is building that is so much better than what Disney has done domestically in recent years?

The Tokyo BatB ride, despite some obvious flaws, looks better than most of what's been built at WDW in the past decade. I'd take it over anything except maybe Rise (I haven't been on Rise). I like both Pandora rides, but I'd still take BatB over them.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

I'm not sure it's that simple. We've heard reports on here in the past that OLC has been upset when they basically pay for R&D and Disney copies stuff for other parks. So that's why I said "come to an agreement" with OLC where they are sharing costs for new builds.

Also, don't mean to be a blasphemer here, but what has Tokyo built recent or is building that is so much better than what Disney has done domestically in recent years?

OLC may be upset but unless they sign/negotiate an exclusivity clause, Disney can clone/copy attractions and tech anywhere else. Fantasy Springs looks fantastic! The new Beauty and the Beast ride is a little empty on the inside but has good bones and the beautiful castle outside, for examples

 

[Suspirian]

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.

 

[doctornick]

The Tokyo BatB ride, despite some obvious flaws, looks better than most of what's been built at WDW in the past decade. I'd take it over anything except maybe Rise (I haven't been on Rise).

I don't have a problem with anyone preferring it, but it's not a day and night superior ride to something like MMRR. And if Disney had wanted to build it domestically, they surely could have for the same kind of costs as the other recent trackless rides they have built (i.e. I don't think "not willing to spend money" is the difference between anything being built at TDL and at WDW/DLR).

 

[UNCgolf]

I don't have a problem with anyone preferring it, but it's not a day and night superior ride to something like MMRR. And if Disney had wanted to build it domestically, they surely could have for the same kind of costs as the other recent trackless rides they have built (i.e. I don't think "not willing to spend money" is the difference between anything being built at TDL and at WDW/DLR).

The use of AAs and physical sets (to an extent) does make it significantly better than MMRR to me, but obviously that's subjective.

Regardless, I agree that "not spending money" isn't the difference. They spent $500 million on Guardians. Where the money went is a separate question, but they were clearly okay with dropping a huge sum on an attraction.

 

[Suspirian]

Moana does not belong in Animal Kingdom.

It is a movie about humans. The focus is on humans. Moana is a human. Maui is a demigod. Yeah, there's a pig and a chicken and a giant crab, but that doesn't make the movie about animals.

Theres more

Moana isn't about conservation sure, but I think human relationships with animals and nature as a whole is a pretty prevalent theme in both the movie and DAK. The Te Fiti myth and Tala's connection with manta rays are indicative of that.

 

[Jrb1979]

I find that many of those of us who became fans in the 80s and 90s have fostered nostalgia for something that really only ever existed in our minds and memories (0 wait time, ”cheap” Disney vacations, no IP in the parks, amazing high-quality food, etc.). All these things may have happened at one time or another, but from the beginning, I don’t think these were typical.

Can current Disney ever please fans of a product that may never have actually existed?

For me the Disney of the 80's and 90's has much better quality rides then the majority of what is there now. My issue with a lot of the new stuff is that they are throwing IP on everything. The original Epcot was my favorite park mainly cause of the originality of the attractions and it felt different then the other parks.

I may be in the minority but my dream was always to see them finish World Showcase like it was planned. Germany would have the Rhine River cruise and Japan the My Fuji coaster. Watching different videos on what was planned for Epcot originally I was in awe. No I'm not happy with much they are doing. It feels like they are making all the parks an extension of MK.

 

[Kman]

I find it very uncreative that they don't create NEW IP in the parks and let the creativity flow the other way to movies, merchandise etc. They used to do this (i.e. Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Space Mountain etc.). Everyone already knows the major IP they are jamming in the parks now. There's nothing wrong with using some of it to create new attractions and merchandise; however, it would be far more creative to let the Imagineers develop new IP that could be the basis for new attractions and merchandise. Who knows what kind of revenue could be generated from their studio business with new movies etc. based on this IP? You would have creativity flowing both ways.

It's not surprising, on the other hand. If you look at Hollywood, for the most part, they are petrified of taking any risks. So many sequels and reboots etc. The studios are only interested in what is guaranteed to be a smashing success. I get the business side of it, but I don't find it overly creative. I stopped going to Marvel movies about eight years ago because I got tired of them. Same for Star Wars- I'm a fan, but I didn't go to all of the movies in the theatres. For both brands, I thought there were too many movies, and I didn't find the stories or theatrical experience compelling enough to spend money on them after a while. Frankly, I got tired of the franchises.

Sequels, reboots and existing IP have their place- no doubt. But some originality in the parks would be a nice change IMHO.

 

[DCLcruiser]

I find it very uncreative that they don't create NEW IP in the parks and let the creativity flow the other way to movies, merchandise etc. They used to do this (i.e. Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Space Mountain etc.). Everyone already knows the major IP they are jamming in the parks now. There's nothing wrong with using some of it to create new attractions and merchandise; however, it would be far more creative to let the Imagineers develop new IP that could be the basis for new attractions and merchandise. Who knows what kind of revenue could be generated from their studio business with new movies etc. based on this IP? You would have creativity flowing both ways.

It's not surprising, on the other hand. If you look at Hollywood, for the most part, they are petrified of taking any risks. So many sequels and reboots etc. The studios are only interested in what is guaranteed to be a smashing success. I get the business side of it, but I don't find it overly creative. I stopped going to Marvel movies about eight years ago because I got tired of them. Same for Star Wars- I'm a fan, but I didn't go to all of the movies in the theatres. For both brands, I thought there were too many movies, and I didn't find the stories or theatrical experience compelling enough to spend money on them after a while. Frankly, I got tired of the franchises.

Sequels, reboots and existing IP have their place- no doubt. But some originality in the parks would be a nice change IMHO.

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.

 

[Tom P.]

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.

 

[_caleb]

I find it very uncreative that they don't create NEW IP in the parks and let the creativity flow the other way to movies, merchandise etc. They used to do this (i.e. Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Space Mountain etc.). Everyone already knows the major IP they are jamming in the parks now. There's nothing wrong with using some of it to create new attractions and merchandise; however, it would be far more creative to let the Imagineers develop new IP that could be the basis for new attractions and merchandise. Who knows what kind of revenue could be generated from their studio business with new movies etc. based on this IP? You would have creativity flowing both ways.

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.

It's not surprising, on the other hand. If you look at Hollywood, for the most part, they are petrified of taking any risks. So many sequels and reboots etc. The studios are only interested in what is guaranteed to be a smashing success. I get the business side of it, but I don't find it overly creative. I stopped going to Marvel movies about eight years ago because I got tired of them. Same for Star Wars- I'm a fan, but I didn't go to all of the movies in the theatres. For both brands, I thought there were too many movies, and I didn't find the stories or theatrical experience compelling enough to spend money on them after a while. Frankly, I got tired of the franchises.

Sequels, reboots and existing IP have their place- no doubt. But some originality in the parks would be a nice change IMHO.

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.

 

[crazy4disney]

Which is also why I think the narrative that imagineering has no creativity isn’t true. It’s that Josh & Bob are demanding IP after IP in such specific ways that they are being backed into corners. WDI designs the attractions for Tokyo Disney Resort

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”