MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
This “problem” isn’t unique to TWDC, and it won’t be changing anytime soon. No matter who’s at the helm of the company
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Zootopia and Moana Blue Sky concepts for Disney's Animal Kingdom
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Elijah Abrams
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
What is it with you and trying to shatter the hopes of users on this forum? I should report you for hurting feelings.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
Okay? I’m sorry that it’s the truth?
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
Presumptuous on the first count and incorrect on the second.
1. you are partly right, and that is because Disney's current business model is a function of late stage capitalism. (not to go too heavy on the buzzwords). Basically, as entertainment conglomerates have been allowed to accrue more and more intellectual property, and as the internet has encouraged fandoms to develop, companies like Disney and Universal have been confronted with an increased demand for sequels, adaptations, tie-ins, and spin-offs, while simultaneously these companies have been provided with a far larger supply of intellectual properties than they had before. As a result, companies like Disney have come to rely on established IPs to produce their content. This includes streaming, etc. as well as the parks. This means they create new IP less, because they don't have a need to.
In the past, this business model was unsustainable because entertainment companies simply didn't have enough IP in their libraries to make it work. But modern day Disney, Warner, Universal and so on just have too many different IPs for them to recycle over and over and over again. Stupid crap like Velma, just using an IP to capitalize off of the already established popularity of its brand.
However, I'd wager that this IP centric business strategy can't last forever, partly due to the overexposure and fatigue of these IPs that are just plastered everywhere. Something we already have strong evidence for in all of Disney's film divisions. It is entirely possible that in the future, Disney creates new IPs for their theme parks. I'd say it's a leap, don't get me wrong, but nevertheless it is much more plausible than you're giving it credit for.
2. No, as we have seen there is substantial variation in business approaches between different CEOs. Walt to Roy to Eisner to Iger to Chapek. They all had different strategies. So it's safe to say that a new CEO will have a strategy which is dissimilar to those that preceded them. It's not completely impossible that, in the distant future, leadership sees creating new IP in the parks as an option which is economically viable. Again you need to stop using absolutes because there's no way to predict the future like you are doing. "No matter who is at the helm" no matter who? No one on earth will ever think its a good idea to create anything new on any level within any Disney park ever again for the rest of time? Lol come on.
Last edited:
Elijah Abrams
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
No. You fear and believe that Disney’s strategy won’t change even after Iger finally leaves, for good this time.
I believe that, once a CEO better than Iger, and, IMO, with a mindset similar to Eisner and Wells, comes in (either a Dana Walden and Alan Bergman joint-lead, IMO, or someone else), Disney will be drastically changed, with new IP (both in film, TV, and parks), the end of remakes, and, IMO, the spread out use of the "Walt Disney" name in units like Disney Television Animation again. Never forget who started it all!
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
Shhh, it's the truth. Disney will never create an original attraction ever again. It's not unlikely, it's absolutely impossible. It hasn't happened yet but it's an abject fact with which none of us can argue.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
I didn’t say they would never create an original attraction again, I said they are going to continue on the same path.
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
No, you didn't. If you had, I would've agreed with you. But you felt the need to speak in absolutes, despite the inherent uncertainty when discussing what a company will do under completely different and unknown leadership, and more than a decade into the future.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
I’m sorry if I spoke as if it was concrete, but the influence of IP is not going to dissipate from the parks or media in general for at least another 10 years. The IPs print money and that is what keeps the companies going. I don’t think Disney will change drastically no matter who takes the reins after Iger, that is my opinion.
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
Elijah Abrams
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Nothing, not even an original attraction, is impossible if they believe they can!
Your opinions are not worth making.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
While we’re on the tangent… if Disney creates an attraction related to SEA (something like the Tokyo ToT or Mystic Manor) would you consider that an “original attraction” or “tied to an IP”?
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
It would be tied to an IP, seeing as SEA already exists. The IP it was tied to would just have its origins in the parks
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
I could say the same as yours. This is a discussion board. I don't see Alan Bergman & Dana Waldren being appointed Co-CEO's as you have suggested numerous times. Nor do I think that Disney is going to sell off their Fox assets, as you have suggest numerous times. Have I posted that your opinions are not worth making? No. I haven't.
The Wizarding World at Universal set this IP-based theme park attraction avalanche into motion. Opinon, no. This is a fact.
Disney & Universal have primarily built IP-based attractions since the Wizarding World opened. Opinion, no. Again, a fact.
Hollywood's intense infatuation with IPs has only grown since those two events occurred. Opinion, no. Again, this is a fact.
Disney, Universal, Paramount, etc all of the major movie studios are continuing to push and infuse the IP/Franchise craze. Yes, again this is true, but as I mentioned in my previous post, is because of money. These companies answer to their shareholders, who's only concern is money.
In 5, 10, maybe even 15 years, no matter who is at the helm of TWDC, will answer to the Board of Directors, who unless something changes in Hollywood, will continue to push the IP mandate.
Did I say Disney will never build an original attraction again? No. I didn't. Did I say they are continuing to push the IP mandate, and will continue to build IP attractions? Yes. Is this my opinion, in a way it is. But in another, it isn't. We have rumors/Blue Sky announcements of what is to come in the next 2-7 years, whether it be Disneyland Forward, or Beyond Big Thunder, those are all rooted in IP. Also on an unrelated note (IMO) they're not going to push "Walt Disney's" name back on to anything, Disney has spent the past decade removing it and simplifying it to just "Disney".
Suspirian
Well-Known Member
Its beyond pick and choosey on this forum for no other reason than not wanting more IP in the park which is understandable, but I wish that would just be admitted. Like you said there are several IPs already in the park AND recommended for the park that have less to do with DAK's supposed themes.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
I've posted this a few times, and so have others. Moana could really tie into any three of these things.
Suspirian
Well-Known Member
Not even really it literally ties into all three. Several things exist currently in the park that honestly are no different than Zootopia other than the animal not wearing clothes and living in a city lol.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
It literally does. However everyone will continue to argue on here that it doesn't. I don't feel Zootopia does, but Moana does based on several things.
Personal Call to Action & Physiological transformation through adventure: Moana's journey to return the heart of Teifiti
The Intrinsic Value of Nature is basically the basis of the story, "the island gives us what we need", we could all go on.
Elijah Abrams
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Then stop being so pessimistic. I am sick of this IP overuse Disney is making in their parks, and I think they need to get out of this corporate hellhole before the public gets worn out, and that should start with Iger's departure.
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
I agree with this but there is also a big if here, and that is "unless things change in Hollywood." Based on current trajectories you are correct that the IP mandate should continue for the parks. But if we look at the current trajectory of Disney's film divisions, and the diminishing returns of all these adaptation/spin-off films over the last couple years or so, I'd wager that Hollywood will see significant change sometime in the near future. And that could have unforeseen ramifications for the parks. Do I think the IP mandate will end any time soon, no I do not. But, it remains possible in my opinion if we're talking about the distant future, more than a decade out.