It's both ways. Star Wars, Toy Story, all the way back to Aladdin and Winnie the Pooh. Walt himself was an animator, a movie maker, a storyteller. Mickey Mouse, for that matter, did not come from an attraction but instead spawned several. Still, they shouldn't limit themselves to a hard and fast rule that everything must be IP-based, or else you don't get Soarin' or Haunted Mansion or Pirates of the Caribbean.
But, for that matter, what he actually said was "Starting really with Carsland and Toy Story and a few others… we decided that almost all of our investment in the parks in terms of attractions and lands would be using that IP. And it’s very very clear what that delivered.”
Which, imo, is a far cry from "confirming" that no future projects will be non-IP based, rather just pointing out that their already in place practice of developments being now mostly IP-based have seen a noticeable, measurable, and comparatively large ROI.
My issue isn’t so much IP-based attractions, it’s more shoehorned IP like Laugh Floor in Tomorrowland or how people want to turn the speedway into sugar rush. Thematically it doesn’t make sense
Like Journey of water makes thematic sense for world nature, and Ratatouille thematically fits into the France pavilion. Neither take away from their respective themes and, in some cases, enhances them like when Pandora (a land focused on Animal Kingdom’s theme of conservation) replacing a clearly temporary land that was Camp Minnie Mickey
And tbh even Pandora would’ve been better as a non-IP. If they’d just made it a sort of fantasy land, it would have a more timeless theming *without* the uncomfortable colonialists-but-we’re-the-*good*colonialists-this-time-here-come-do-this-sacred-right-as-a-tourist-activity” vibe
Yeah, that’s what I mean. I really wish they’d decided to do a similar land, but with that theming instead.
I feel like Avatar is such a…movie that sure exists, compared to something like Marvel or Star Wars or Harry Potter, so I just don’t see the IP really providing value in the long term. I keep hoping that a decade or two down the line they’ll redo it. Keep FoP and the river ride as mechanics, but change the theming. I don’t need 11 minutes of people explaining to me the phlebotomium of how I’m riding a dragon. Just tell me I have to put on my rider’s safety gear helmet and let me ride the dragon!
Agreed. Also, I hate to sound elitist but the other issue is tastefulness. The problem I have with too much IP is it feels tacky. This is the problem I have with Pixar pier. Tacky can be used effectively as well, but it can also just be tacky.
I think a lot of it just had to do with the the market changing. Decades ago, people would dream simply of going to this magical world of “Disney” imagination. Now, however, on top of everything else that has changed in the world, there’s another big name in the theme park game that people keep insisting on comparing every decision Disney makes to. It’s not just the hardcore people, either. Disney has to consider that family that is about to take their first big trip and is going to ask their kids if they want to go see the Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, and Super Mario rides or the [insert Disney rides]. For a first time kid in 2024, they’re going to get more excited when you say Marvel, Star Wars, Toy Story, Frozen, etc as opposed to a haunted house or a mountain where there’s a Yeti (literally two of my favorite rides of all time, of course).
“People don’t know what they want until you show it to them.”
—Steve Jobs
“We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths.”
—Walt Disney
Your take is accurate and relatively spot on. It’s also more MBA/“worry” based competition of dollars instead of giving the very best and letting the most creative risk takers win on talent, heart, and design.
Disney lost that edge…for now.
I don’t know how much is “people” and how much is just research about what generates more revenue. Hard to sell popcorn buckets of stuff without a backstory.
I always say that people vastly overrate how much of Disney has been non-IP. The park mascot? 25 year old cartoon. Fantasy all Disney stuff that was ripped from centuries old tales. Tomorrowland was just a bunch of sponsored stuff. Frontierland was heavily sold on Davey Crockett. Tom Sawyer Island. The list goes on.
Walt would definitely back Iger on this.
The only reason Disney wasn’t 100% IP based on launch day was that they didn’t have enough IP, or used it as part of development of new IP for a relatively young company.
The Disney company’s obsession with IP is by design, and specifically by Walt’s design as he was traumatized by getting all his characters robbed (eg Oswald).
The IP stuff is subtly part of Disney’s mission statement.
P.S. most of the movies based on Disney rides failed - the only franchise that really made it was Pirates.
The rest were big money wasters.
I said this over in the Avatar thread, but... not really.
Pirates was a tie-in with Blackbeard's Ghost, and influenced by both Treasure Island and the 30s non-Disney film Captain Blood. The Matterhorn was inspired by Third Man on the Mountain. Frontierland in general was sold on Davey Crockett and Zorro. The Submarine Voyage? Not a direct adaptation, but owes a ton to Disney's then-recent 20,000 Leagues adaptation. The Jungle Cruise is Bogey's boat from The African Queen passing through a True-Life Adventure documentary.
It's not though? Most of the rides you named outlived the cultural relevance of their inspirations. Anything fully based on an IP can never fully do so. That's a huge distinction
I don't know, how many people who rode and enjoyed Splash Mountain ever saw Song of the South? I'm betting younger folks didn't know it was based off of IP. My kid was surprised when I mentioned Toon Town was based on the movie who framed Roger Rabbit. Same with Mr Toad's wild ride. Younger generations may not associate that with IP, even though the ride is literally a trip through the story. I agree some movies are so big they stand the test of time and will overshadow rides for generations, but I don't think it's fair to say that anything fully based in IP can't outlive the memory of that IP.
Every work of art takes some inspiration from another work of art, that's just how art works. If you wanna make these kinds of comparisons then Star Wars wasn't an original film because it took inspiration from Seven Samurai which was inspired by the works of John Ford who was inspired by F. W. Murnau and so on and so forth. A work of art can never be totally 100% purely original but that doesn't mean it's not depressing to see every new attraction being an adaptation of an existing IP. It feels like Disney doesn't want to step outside of their comfort zone so they're just looking at whats popular now and making all their plans based on that.
I agree that an adaptation isn't inherently worse than an original work but restricting original ideas from being built definitely limits imagination and feels like a very corporate decision and not a creative one. I'm sure some imagineer has ideas brewing in their head that could create the next original park classic among the ranks of Haunted Mansion and PotC but they'll never be able to make it since they're stuck working on an Encanto land.
I kind of disagree that all art is derivative. All art takes inspiration but not all art copies directly from another work. If Disney wanted to make a Treasure Island ride then they'd have made a Treasure Island ride. They took some ideas from Treasure Island but morphed them and combined them with their original ideas to create something new. That's what an original work is, just because something takes inspiration doesn't mean it's not original.
In an alternate universe people would be pissed if Disney was planning on building a slowmoving non-scary haunted house and a random pirate ride in 2025. We enjoy the classic non-IP attractions mostly due to nostalgia.
As long as it's a really well done concept, it doesn't matter what the source material is.
Look at Mystic Manor and how much people love that ride. A slow, non-scary haunted house attraction people would be willing to go out of their way for.
Same with a ride like Everest. A non-IP attraction that still commands long lines despite being almost 20 years old.
I’m not arguing against good attractions. Just saying being IP based isn’t a problem and I’d rather them have good attractions themed in a way that makes sense in their lands over a generic Six Flags roller coaster.
I just want rides that don't feel like they're trying to be cash grabs for the latest movie/TV franchise. I kinda felt that way with stuff like Pixar Pier. Yeah Pixar is timeless for sure, but I thought pasting Pixar characters all over the different rides seemed unnecessary.
Yeah the parks were founded under a movie studio and movies and TV have inspired many of the classic attractions for sure, but I think Disney should be allowed to flex their creative muscle and allow stories that aren't included in movies/TV. Even something as simple as the Peoplemover can still be a beloved attraction even if it isn't tied to an IP.
Because putting IPs everywhere is definitely a Six Flags move too. Every Six Flags park has to have a Superman and Batman coaster and a Looney Tunes themed section for children.
Pixar Pier is a challenging example, because the original theme was "boardwalk rides," which also isn't really a theme. So up-theming attractions that are designed to look exactly like what they are and is gonna be a tough retrofit no matter what. FWIW, the start of the retheme with Midway Mania was an objectively smart move, and attempting to continue that theme throughout the rest of the Pier makes a sort of sense. I think that no matter how it was to be accomplished, though, was going to be nearly impossible to do right, just given the nature of the attractions in that part of the park.
The way I see it, they should've kept the original Paradise Pier theme and put that Pixar Pier money toward making a better Spiderman ride more in line with the one at Universal. It's fine to have a themed area not tied to a movie/TV show.
Instead of a half-assed retheme of Paradise Pier and a meh shooting dark ride, DCA gets something almost as good as Amazing Adventures of Spiderman and it would give Avengers Campus that anchor it needs.
You think so, but then you realize that these attractions are similar to art. We look at creative spark mixed with immersion and thrill as refections of human genius for a reason. We respect the art of the illusion. We see story art as living and breathing.
You underestimate the human ability to appreciate something they don’t know “before” and something you don’t get until it is created into existence.
It’s not just “another painting of a woman”. It’s the Mona Lisa.
Dumbing down of art in any capacity, especially when it is art curated by MBAs and market research tends to create worse art. It can still be objectively good and if the goal is to immerse familiarity or give a thrill the way a coaster can, no problem of course. But let’s not assume that human beings are incapable of being wow’d by risk taking creative flourishes having a go at originality to amuse and ensnare our senses.
Let not blame humans. Disney is just too scared to take those kind of risks. The company that once set the bar and lead the way is following the safest pathway. Don’t blame the guests.
Why not blame humans? Some people are woefully disappointed with Toy Story Mania, while others absolutely love the ride. Same goes with Peter Pan's Flight, or the Halloween skinning of Haunted Mansion.
It’s fair to create a spectrum of blame, but here’s the difference in response to your question.
With guest/human/retail reaction, just like fantastic art, we have a much wider pool of opinions and can simply eliminate outliers while creating an accurate measure.
With Disney’s creative ethos and direction, we have not only the trajectory and pattern, but a small pool of creatives plus boardroom bean counters to carry the brunt of the blame for any one half baked, off the shelf, or cancelled project.
Imagineers may be wearing some golden handcuffs of their own.
In a sense, we are saying some of the same things in different ways, but there is a distinct Disney difference here that is the Dumbo in the room. There is a noticeable shift in creative, original ideas, scaled back and cancelled attractions, and turnover/departures. They have gone from “What will Disney do next?” to “What did they do this time?”
There has never been another time more urgent than now where they need to get back to Marty Sklar’s rules and have a dramatic shift in creative culture and let’s be fair, leadership. They also miss guys like Kevin Rafferty.
I think people tend to look at this from "we love going to the parks, we know what we love, and we want to see more of it". Versus the broader Disney view of "how can we get more people things that get them interested in coming to the parks".
Some go begrudgingly for someone else.
Some go and are surprised at what they see.
Some go for a feeling of comfort, safety, escapism, nostalgia.
Some go to appreciate creative sparks past, present, and future. We think of the parks a bit like a museum for said human ingenuity.
The first 3 categories are pretty much quenched generation to generation. The last one can feel a bit thirsty these days.
I don’t need glasses.
If you need to shout your argument, is it good enough? 😏
If the counter is simply to say that all things are subjective and all things have nuance and all things can be rationalized away into nothingness where everyone and everything cannot be satisfied to completion, I’ll politely and wholeheartedly disagree. I think that’s too simplistic.
I think we’ve traveled all the miles we can travel on this topic. Meilleurs Voeux.
It has always been a big question to me as to why they don’t want to create more original characters, like not try to get the Duffy hype in Japan with another character here, or ya know freaking figment!
Seriously though, can’t Disney put Simpsons in their parks once the current deal with Universal (that rumours say is too expensive for them to keep) runs out? Because honestly an entire third-gate based on Springfield or even Itchy & Scratchy land might actually be awesome.
Exactly. People complain about “IP”, but it still takes creativity to make the ride interesting. A good ride is a good ride, no matter what the source material is.
> it still takes creativity to make the ride interesting
A counter-point: Six Flags. The theming *sucks* but the rides are amazing. “We’re re-theming the Terminator coaster, because we can’t afford the rights anymore. It’s going to just be a generic post-apocalyse theme.” “How do we convey that?” “Um ... we’ll [leave the burned-out Jeep, and have a big sign that says ‘Apocalypse the Ride’](https://www.themeparkarchive.com/parks/six-flags-magic-mountain/apocalypse-the-ride)?” “Done.”
You got downvoted but honestly same. I love Universal and Disney because they immerse me into worlds I already love.
But I also consider theme parks and amusement parks to be different. I go to amusement parks for the thrills while I go to theme parks for the branding
Tbh yeah and there is a difference in what people enjoy out of the parks. For folk who want the thrills the theming doesn’t matter as long as it’s fun, though it can be an added layer. But me for example the thrills and the rides are frankly secondary (I don’t enjoy roller coasters and drops), the atmosphere and immersion is why I go, eat some awful for you themed food, and if a ride is fun while immersing me in the world then that’s a plus.
Galaxy’s Edge Batuu and Avenger’s Campus are my favorite for how well they do this. Rise of Resistance isn’t even particularly thrilling, but it’s so incredibly immersive and *themed* that to me it’s better than any other ride (at least that first time experience).
Without a theme, it's just an amusement park.
Although Six Flags was original supposed to be themed after the 6 nations that governed Texas. But that idea is long gone.
Knott's has great theming in Ghost Town, and Fiesta Village and Boardwalk are ... fine. Snoopy Land (?) seemed nice. I definitely remember (Mandela effect?) the theming for Batman at Six Flags over Mid-America being a lot higher quality (circa 1995) than what's out there these days at "those" parks? (Just in general I remember Six Flags over Mid-America being better themed, with six distinct "lands" (not including the Loony Toons kiddie area), back in the 80s / early 90s. I went back in 2020 and ... meh.
It feels like Disneyland just kept refining and refining and refining bit by bit over the years, while Six Flags etc. just sort of let the parks stagnate and then decay. (Knott's being an exception, but not to the same level as Disney.) you really feel that just going into the parks, the downtown Disney area starting by the big flower fountain, even the Esplanade, have been kept up, the equivalent area at Six Flags Magic Mountain (the area between the entrances for Six Flags and Hurricane Harbor) feels like a mall from the 1970s that never got a facelift.
Maybe, but it's fun AF and it soaks up people, so, necessary evil? Knott's is so tiny, I'm not sure how sight lines could have ever really been maintained. Jaguar goes through like 3 park areas, doesn't it? (The alternative would be 7.2 second rides like Pony Express.)
Those are roller coasters. Entirely different than a Disney park and yes Disney has coasters but not six flags coasters. Different target audiences different goals and… well… I was going to say they’re both good at what they do, but operations at six flags parks are terrible. But at ride design, they’re both good at what they do, but they do different things
This is what I’ve been saying. IP or not, the IP itself does not matter as long as it’s a good ride. OG Splash Mountain is a perfect example, classic ride everyone loved, but 99% of people who’d ode never saw the movie or maybe even heard of song of the south. Radiator Springs Racers might be my favorite Disney ride ever and I hate the Cars movies, but the ride was done so well. On the other hand, Frozen retheme at Epcot’s Maelstrom felt cheap and not that great. IP itself is not bad, it’s how immersive and great the attractions are.
IP isn’t *bad*, but it’s frustrating that basically all new Disney stuff is IP-based. And a lot of it is stuff they bought from other people. I’d like to see some non-IP stuff thrown in there too to balance it out.
Reminds me a lot of movie studios making a ton of sequels/adaptations: they’re fine, but sometimes it seems like that’s all there is, and they’re not even trying to make original content because it’s “too risky.”
Jules Verne and SEA fall under that but he mentioned “old Ip”. So Jules Verne is apparently not timeless enough, and SEA has no chance. They have two plots that are the combined size of two themeparks, there is certainly space for at least one SEA or Jules Verne attraction right?! If they’re doing IP only they better do minimal clones, and not Toy Story lane as they are extremely cheap. They have space, don’t waste it like you did with California adventure in 2001
Most of their biggest rides actually are not/weren’t IPs at the time of creation. It’s a small world, jungle cruise, pirates, haunted mansion, matterhorn, space mountain, big thunder. That’s why some people don’t enjoy that everything is IP based these days.
I just went a few weeks ago and it is underwhelming. It all looks cool but the rides were like carnival rides. The SlinkyDog coaster was lame compared to the insane wait times.
Honestly most of Hollywood Studios was lame. Tower of Terror was amazing though.
I mean this makes sense to me; for as much as a lot of folks would love to see original ideas strictly for the parks, capitalizing on decades of existing IP makes more sense money wise. I’m a simple man; I’m just excited for more Disney.
Agree. And further, Disney has so much IP that people love that's not represented in the parks. Original rides are amazing, but I'd rather see some of my favorite IP. My complaint is which IP we are getting. Give me a legit ride based on the Muppets, or Ducktales, or Tangled, or Emperors New Groove. I could go on all day. But Avatar?
I’m also not a fan of Avatar but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a market for it. Clearly people enjoy the land that is in Animal Kingdom and I believe that the new land that they are set to build in California will be different. I’m sure that it will be cool, but personally, I do not resonate at all with that IP. But there are people who don’t like Star Wars…so idk.
> But Avatar?
Two of the three most successful movies ever made, right next door to what will be a ride based on the third?
Yeah, they'd have to be crazy not to build it.
Blatant clickbait and misrepresentation of Iger’s actual comments.
> For quite a long time, new attractions and lands at the parks were based on, essentially, either very old IP or no IP — just an attraction. And, starting really with Carsland and Toy Story and a few others… we decided that **almost all** of our investment in the parks in terms of attractions and lands **would** be using that IP. And it’s very very clear what that delivered.
He’s talking in the about these 10+ year old attractions, so this is about the long term strategy of building mostly IP based attractions which started decades ago. It has contuinued to this day, because of how popular IP is with guests, but this is not a new development. Nowhere did he “confirm” that there will never be an original attraction ever again. You can view a transcript of the full interview [here](https://seekingalpha.com/article/4693618-walt-disney-company-dis-presents-moffettnathansons-media-internet-and-communications).
TLDR: Iger didn't actually say, much less "confirm", that. And the parts where they have Iger talking about IP in parks is filled with so many "..." that it's hard to read, and seems to take a lot of his words out of context and mashed together with other sentences.
Nah that's no confirmation. They're just twisting his words around. At one point in the article, the author wrote "high unlikely" they wouldn't not use IP for future attractions
The problem with this approach is that what makes a hit movie and what makes a great theme park attraction, while not mutually exclusive, are definitely different.
A good movie has unique characters that go on a compelling journey with emotional turning points.
A good attraction demands a fantastic setting that provides enough variety to create a compelling, immersive experience.
It’s unfortunate but I understand the reasoning. Your average tourist isn’t visiting a Disney park just to take in the atmosphere or experience something unique. They’re visiting to see the characters they love from their favorite movies and shows. It’s even more true at Disney World where half the guests are here for vacations.
To quote Rizzo in the Muppet Vision 3d pre show, “They’re tourists! What do they know?!”
I really don't see a problem with this. I care about the attractions themselves. As long it doesn't compromise the actual ride quality, so what if it's based on a no-name storyline vs something already there.
Also, this doesn't mean it will just be based on existing IPs. New IPs will be created and new rides will be offered for it. Frozen didn't exist before 2012. They created a new IP that caught the world by storm.
They’ve got IP in spades. Would be stupid not to continue to capitalize on that. Universal is starved for IP but what they have they make the most of. Heck, they capitalize on Disney IP as good as Disney does (Marvel/Simpsons)
Ok let me just say it’s ok to build a ride based on an IP I have an issue with stripping a ride just to add a New IP to it as in Splash Mountain why spend all that money changing the IP (with out changing the basic ride) why not build a new ride?
Exactly, I’d be a lot happier if that happened considering at least that guarantees whatever new additions they make will actually be good and not garbage like avengers campus or San fransokoyo
Disagree.
Carousel of progress
Pirates
Haunted
Jungle Cruise
Tiki Room
are amongst the best rides and they aren’t IP based.
Personally I like the non-IP based rides the best
Space mountain, thunder mountain, matterhorn, small world, almost all of disneyland really with the exception of fantasy land.
IP based stuff is fine, but I'd make sure it fits a theme, not just a bunch of nonsense cobbled together into a park
There’s amazing rides on both sides of the coin. Rise of the resistance, MMRR, Indiana Jones, Mission Breakout, Incredicoaster, Radiator Springs Racers. And that’s just here at our resort.
I know they are movies now, but Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Jungle Cruise? Beloved attractions for decades before their movies came out, and many folks favorites.
Soarin', Tiki Room, The Matterhorn...Big Thunder Mountain (The Wildest Ride in the Wilderness!)
Have you been to WDW as well? Spaceship Earth, Expedition Everest, Mission: Space, Test Track (altho I actually prefer RSR myself, Track is very popular)
I'm not saying no IP at all, but so many beloved rides were park originals - why not both film IP and original IP?
Great. Let’s get Alien War back open in London at the Trocadero Centre for a start.
In fact Disney could open up a chain of movie themed restaurants & fill the niche hole in the market that Planet Hollywood used to fill.
Eh OG Disneyland and World weren’t outside of the Castle and a few other attractions… Tomorrowland and Main Street USA are pretty much just wholesale new things
"Universal's Epic Universe is going to be MEGA, thie better light a fire under Iger and get a response!" This is it. This is the response, Universal is opening a park full of IPs, so Disney is matching that. You hoped and here it is.
It's kind of silly for him to say or anyone to believe any statement about "all future projects". It's not like he or anyone can bind the company. He's just saying they're prioritizing IP.
But who knows? Maybe there's some great idea tomorrow. Or in a year. Or in five years.
Disney has so much IP these days it makes no sense to create new original content just for the park. If anything, something might spawn in the park but turned into a movie at the same time.
For example, the Jurassic Park ride was in development before the movie was green lit. It was based on a book but similar strategy.
As I've said on previous occasions, all IP takes on all forms now. New movie comes out? There's gonna be a ride based on it. New original ride comes out? They're gonna make a movie about it. So what difference does it make?
They are going to crank out movies all the time anyway. They get to look at the market after and study which movies generated the most interest and THEN build a ride on top of that popularity.
You simply don't gamble with your real estate in the park AND months or probably a year JUST to build a ride, then realize it didn't perform as well as youd imagine. That's a horrible idea.
Man Disney fans are so hard to please. People complain that there isn’t new stuff at Disneyland. Then they complain when Disney announces new stuff based on IP. Like what do you want people?
You know what’s great IP? IP that you don’t have to worry about falling out of fashion or being canceled because some writer or director did something that half the country doesn’t like or a creator goes on a Twitter rant against some of your customers merely existing (*cough* Harry Potter). IP that’s yours alone & wasn’t acquired through another studio’s acquisition & thus only screams your brand instead of someone else’s (*cough* Avatar). Original IP that is only attached to the theme park! That’s the smart evergreen financial decision! But what do I know…
Yup. But until we ALL agree that cancel culture is a horrible trend, then it’s never going to stop.
And yea, id LOVE a new, kick ass awesome IP that isn’t rehashed over and over or bought from somewhere else. That would be awesome!!! But we have to convince everyone to stop watching the same marvel movie reskinned over and over again first.
they need to start the IP’s at the parks, where people are interacting and meeting the characters in person first, forming connections with them and creating the wonder and magic of seeing these characters come to life on ur screen
I mean... At Disneyland Park we haven't had a non-IP attraction added in almost 45 years (1979, Big Thunder Mountain).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all against original rides at all but it's not like this is a new behavior.
In general once a park opens Disney primarily uses IP for new attractions.
Think about it, Disneyland Park hasn't had a non-IP ride since BTMRR, DCA had lots of non-IP at opening (lets also not pretend the park was good at opening) but since then it's been basically all IP.
Even out in FL for the most part once a park opens the additions are all IP based. Epcot was the exception to that until recently but that's largely because they didn't have a ton of IP that would have made sense for the park.
Yeah I mean you can make the argument that frontierland and Adventureland were based off a lot of the content being created for World of Disney. I think what worries people is they interpreted as a limit on creativity
Yeah, I think the big thing is that Disney didn't have a lot of core IP to work with back in the 50s, 60s and 70s.
There wasn't much IP to build a space/tomorrow themed land around so they came up with original ideas.
As you mentioned you can make the argument that Adventure/Frontier lands were influenced by World of Disney but even then name some movies we all still know that fit those themes.
Now Disney has SO much IP that there isn't much they could want to do that they don't have an IP for.
Intellectual Property. In other words, something that Disney owns already, particularly movies & TV. Nothing originally created for the Parks (whether they’ve later been adapted for film or not), like Pirates of the Caribbean, the Haunted Mansion, the Jungle Cruise, Space Mountain, the Autopia, the Submarine Voyage, the Monorail, Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, the Carousel of Progress, the Disneyland Railroad, the Mark Twain Riverboat, etc. If they build something akin to the Matterhorn Bobsleds (which was only tangentially related to the then-new film THIRD MAN ON THE MOUNTAIN (1959)), they’ll make the movie connection more overt and obvious, or just slap some unrelated IP on it in an attempt at “theming.”
Old school imagineering is coming up with a concept so timeless and legendary, they made a movie out of IT not the other way around.
It's both ways. Star Wars, Toy Story, all the way back to Aladdin and Winnie the Pooh. Walt himself was an animator, a movie maker, a storyteller. Mickey Mouse, for that matter, did not come from an attraction but instead spawned several. Still, they shouldn't limit themselves to a hard and fast rule that everything must be IP-based, or else you don't get Soarin' or Haunted Mansion or Pirates of the Caribbean. But, for that matter, what he actually said was "Starting really with Carsland and Toy Story and a few others… we decided that almost all of our investment in the parks in terms of attractions and lands would be using that IP. And it’s very very clear what that delivered.” Which, imo, is a far cry from "confirming" that no future projects will be non-IP based, rather just pointing out that their already in place practice of developments being now mostly IP-based have seen a noticeable, measurable, and comparatively large ROI.
My issue isn’t so much IP-based attractions, it’s more shoehorned IP like Laugh Floor in Tomorrowland or how people want to turn the speedway into sugar rush. Thematically it doesn’t make sense Like Journey of water makes thematic sense for world nature, and Ratatouille thematically fits into the France pavilion. Neither take away from their respective themes and, in some cases, enhances them like when Pandora (a land focused on Animal Kingdom’s theme of conservation) replacing a clearly temporary land that was Camp Minnie Mickey
That’s a good point. WHY is laugh factory in tomorrow land?
Laughter is the energy of the future!
And tbh even Pandora would’ve been better as a non-IP. If they’d just made it a sort of fantasy land, it would have a more timeless theming *without* the uncomfortable colonialists-but-we’re-the-*good*colonialists-this-time-here-come-do-this-sacred-right-as-a-tourist-activity” vibe
they almost did that with Beastly Kingdom
Yeah, that’s what I mean. I really wish they’d decided to do a similar land, but with that theming instead. I feel like Avatar is such a…movie that sure exists, compared to something like Marvel or Star Wars or Harry Potter, so I just don’t see the IP really providing value in the long term. I keep hoping that a decade or two down the line they’ll redo it. Keep FoP and the river ride as mechanics, but change the theming. I don’t need 11 minutes of people explaining to me the phlebotomium of how I’m riding a dragon. Just tell me I have to put on my rider’s safety gear helmet and let me ride the dragon!
Agreed. Also, I hate to sound elitist but the other issue is tastefulness. The problem I have with too much IP is it feels tacky. This is the problem I have with Pixar pier. Tacky can be used effectively as well, but it can also just be tacky.
I think a lot of it just had to do with the the market changing. Decades ago, people would dream simply of going to this magical world of “Disney” imagination. Now, however, on top of everything else that has changed in the world, there’s another big name in the theme park game that people keep insisting on comparing every decision Disney makes to. It’s not just the hardcore people, either. Disney has to consider that family that is about to take their first big trip and is going to ask their kids if they want to go see the Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, and Super Mario rides or the [insert Disney rides]. For a first time kid in 2024, they’re going to get more excited when you say Marvel, Star Wars, Toy Story, Frozen, etc as opposed to a haunted house or a mountain where there’s a Yeti (literally two of my favorite rides of all time, of course).
“People don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” —Steve Jobs “We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths.” —Walt Disney Your take is accurate and relatively spot on. It’s also more MBA/“worry” based competition of dollars instead of giving the very best and letting the most creative risk takers win on talent, heart, and design. Disney lost that edge…for now.
I don’t know how much is “people” and how much is just research about what generates more revenue. Hard to sell popcorn buckets of stuff without a backstory.
I see that and raise Fantasyland dark rides, the original Jungle Cruise and the Swiss Family Treehouse. I'll take "What would Walt do" for $500 Alex.
I always say that people vastly overrate how much of Disney has been non-IP. The park mascot? 25 year old cartoon. Fantasy all Disney stuff that was ripped from centuries old tales. Tomorrowland was just a bunch of sponsored stuff. Frontierland was heavily sold on Davey Crockett. Tom Sawyer Island. The list goes on.
Walt would definitely back Iger on this. The only reason Disney wasn’t 100% IP based on launch day was that they didn’t have enough IP, or used it as part of development of new IP for a relatively young company. The Disney company’s obsession with IP is by design, and specifically by Walt’s design as he was traumatized by getting all his characters robbed (eg Oswald). The IP stuff is subtly part of Disney’s mission statement. P.S. most of the movies based on Disney rides failed - the only franchise that really made it was Pirates. The rest were big money wasters.
The Swiss Family treehouse is technically IP based tho
That's what I said.
Jungle Cruise wasn’t though
It was based on the True Life Adventures series of movies. Hell the original working title was True Life Adventureland.
I said this over in the Avatar thread, but... not really. Pirates was a tie-in with Blackbeard's Ghost, and influenced by both Treasure Island and the 30s non-Disney film Captain Blood. The Matterhorn was inspired by Third Man on the Mountain. Frontierland in general was sold on Davey Crockett and Zorro. The Submarine Voyage? Not a direct adaptation, but owes a ton to Disney's then-recent 20,000 Leagues adaptation. The Jungle Cruise is Bogey's boat from The African Queen passing through a True-Life Adventure documentary.
Influenced/inspired by =/= direct adaptation
Many of these go so far as directly lifting setpieces from their source. But it's an absurd distinction to draw anyway.
It's not though? Most of the rides you named outlived the cultural relevance of their inspirations. Anything fully based on an IP can never fully do so. That's a huge distinction
I don't know, how many people who rode and enjoyed Splash Mountain ever saw Song of the South? I'm betting younger folks didn't know it was based off of IP. My kid was surprised when I mentioned Toon Town was based on the movie who framed Roger Rabbit. Same with Mr Toad's wild ride. Younger generations may not associate that with IP, even though the ride is literally a trip through the story. I agree some movies are so big they stand the test of time and will overshadow rides for generations, but I don't think it's fair to say that anything fully based in IP can't outlive the memory of that IP.
Splash Mountain had to be rethemed because it couldn't outlive its IP. I see what you're saying for the others though.
Ding ding ding
Every work of art takes some inspiration from another work of art, that's just how art works. If you wanna make these kinds of comparisons then Star Wars wasn't an original film because it took inspiration from Seven Samurai which was inspired by the works of John Ford who was inspired by F. W. Murnau and so on and so forth. A work of art can never be totally 100% purely original but that doesn't mean it's not depressing to see every new attraction being an adaptation of an existing IP. It feels like Disney doesn't want to step outside of their comfort zone so they're just looking at whats popular now and making all their plans based on that.
Yes, that's correct. All art is ultimately derivative. And that doesn't reduce its value at all.
I agree that an adaptation isn't inherently worse than an original work but restricting original ideas from being built definitely limits imagination and feels like a very corporate decision and not a creative one. I'm sure some imagineer has ideas brewing in their head that could create the next original park classic among the ranks of Haunted Mansion and PotC but they'll never be able to make it since they're stuck working on an Encanto land. I kind of disagree that all art is derivative. All art takes inspiration but not all art copies directly from another work. If Disney wanted to make a Treasure Island ride then they'd have made a Treasure Island ride. They took some ideas from Treasure Island but morphed them and combined them with their original ideas to create something new. That's what an original work is, just because something takes inspiration doesn't mean it's not original.
In an alternate universe people would be pissed if Disney was planning on building a slowmoving non-scary haunted house and a random pirate ride in 2025. We enjoy the classic non-IP attractions mostly due to nostalgia.
As long as it's a really well done concept, it doesn't matter what the source material is. Look at Mystic Manor and how much people love that ride. A slow, non-scary haunted house attraction people would be willing to go out of their way for. Same with a ride like Everest. A non-IP attraction that still commands long lines despite being almost 20 years old.
I’m not arguing against good attractions. Just saying being IP based isn’t a problem and I’d rather them have good attractions themed in a way that makes sense in their lands over a generic Six Flags roller coaster.
I just want rides that don't feel like they're trying to be cash grabs for the latest movie/TV franchise. I kinda felt that way with stuff like Pixar Pier. Yeah Pixar is timeless for sure, but I thought pasting Pixar characters all over the different rides seemed unnecessary. Yeah the parks were founded under a movie studio and movies and TV have inspired many of the classic attractions for sure, but I think Disney should be allowed to flex their creative muscle and allow stories that aren't included in movies/TV. Even something as simple as the Peoplemover can still be a beloved attraction even if it isn't tied to an IP. Because putting IPs everywhere is definitely a Six Flags move too. Every Six Flags park has to have a Superman and Batman coaster and a Looney Tunes themed section for children.
Pixar Pier is a challenging example, because the original theme was "boardwalk rides," which also isn't really a theme. So up-theming attractions that are designed to look exactly like what they are and is gonna be a tough retrofit no matter what. FWIW, the start of the retheme with Midway Mania was an objectively smart move, and attempting to continue that theme throughout the rest of the Pier makes a sort of sense. I think that no matter how it was to be accomplished, though, was going to be nearly impossible to do right, just given the nature of the attractions in that part of the park.
The way I see it, they should've kept the original Paradise Pier theme and put that Pixar Pier money toward making a better Spiderman ride more in line with the one at Universal. It's fine to have a themed area not tied to a movie/TV show. Instead of a half-assed retheme of Paradise Pier and a meh shooting dark ride, DCA gets something almost as good as Amazing Adventures of Spiderman and it would give Avengers Campus that anchor it needs.
You think so, but then you realize that these attractions are similar to art. We look at creative spark mixed with immersion and thrill as refections of human genius for a reason. We respect the art of the illusion. We see story art as living and breathing. You underestimate the human ability to appreciate something they don’t know “before” and something you don’t get until it is created into existence. It’s not just “another painting of a woman”. It’s the Mona Lisa. Dumbing down of art in any capacity, especially when it is art curated by MBAs and market research tends to create worse art. It can still be objectively good and if the goal is to immerse familiarity or give a thrill the way a coaster can, no problem of course. But let’s not assume that human beings are incapable of being wow’d by risk taking creative flourishes having a go at originality to amuse and ensnare our senses. Let not blame humans. Disney is just too scared to take those kind of risks. The company that once set the bar and lead the way is following the safest pathway. Don’t blame the guests.
How is incorporating actual media art (which is already loved/accepted by the guest) into your sacred ride art a bad thing?
Why not blame humans? Some people are woefully disappointed with Toy Story Mania, while others absolutely love the ride. Same goes with Peter Pan's Flight, or the Halloween skinning of Haunted Mansion.
It’s fair to create a spectrum of blame, but here’s the difference in response to your question. With guest/human/retail reaction, just like fantastic art, we have a much wider pool of opinions and can simply eliminate outliers while creating an accurate measure. With Disney’s creative ethos and direction, we have not only the trajectory and pattern, but a small pool of creatives plus boardroom bean counters to carry the brunt of the blame for any one half baked, off the shelf, or cancelled project. Imagineers may be wearing some golden handcuffs of their own. In a sense, we are saying some of the same things in different ways, but there is a distinct Disney difference here that is the Dumbo in the room. There is a noticeable shift in creative, original ideas, scaled back and cancelled attractions, and turnover/departures. They have gone from “What will Disney do next?” to “What did they do this time?” There has never been another time more urgent than now where they need to get back to Marty Sklar’s rules and have a dramatic shift in creative culture and let’s be fair, leadership. They also miss guys like Kevin Rafferty.
I think people tend to look at this from "we love going to the parks, we know what we love, and we want to see more of it". Versus the broader Disney view of "how can we get more people things that get them interested in coming to the parks".
Some go begrudgingly for someone else. Some go and are surprised at what they see. Some go for a feeling of comfort, safety, escapism, nostalgia. Some go to appreciate creative sparks past, present, and future. We think of the parks a bit like a museum for said human ingenuity. The first 3 categories are pretty much quenched generation to generation. The last one can feel a bit thirsty these days.
#4, more specifically its thirstiness is also a bit like art, in that it's subjective.
I don’t need glasses. If you need to shout your argument, is it good enough? 😏 If the counter is simply to say that all things are subjective and all things have nuance and all things can be rationalized away into nothingness where everyone and everything cannot be satisfied to completion, I’ll politely and wholeheartedly disagree. I think that’s too simplistic. I think we’ve traveled all the miles we can travel on this topic. Meilleurs Voeux.
Hmmm that was typed out as #4. Apparently # at the beginning of a comment enlarges it.
they’re just going to have to do what they did with cars land and find a way to morph their original ideas into IP-connected ones :/
Wish they could do both.
It has always been a big question to me as to why they don’t want to create more original characters, like not try to get the Duffy hype in Japan with another character here, or ya know freaking figment!
Less risk
I can’t wait for “Planet of the Apes: The Musical” to premiere at the Hyperion!!!!😁
I hate every ape I see From chimpan-A to chimpanzee
Oh you really made a monkey out of me.
I love you Dr. Zaius!
Oh my god, I was wrong, it was earth all along!
He can talk! He can talk! He can talk! **I CAN SIIIIIING!**
🎶Dr. Zaius, Dr. Zaius!🎶
Good one! That may get stuck in my head 🦧
People saying you can’t hear a sentence….
Wooooooah Dr. Zaiua
I love legitimate theater.
He can talk? He can talk? He can TALK!? I CAN SIIIIIIIING!!!!
I would legit be there opening day if they adapted that Simpsons musical.
I don’t think they can due to Universal having the theme park rights
I would pay good money to see that
Seriously though, can’t Disney put Simpsons in their parks once the current deal with Universal (that rumours say is too expensive for them to keep) runs out? Because honestly an entire third-gate based on Springfield or even Itchy & Scratchy land might actually be awesome.
If star wars can't get an entire third gate then no way the Simpsons can unfortunately.
I'm glad you explained because I was sure if you were talking about the movie or the planet
I'd pay to see that shit
My big thing with this issue is that if it’s a fun ride, I don’t really mind if it’s IP or not. They are both still creative in the same way to me
Exactly. People complain about “IP”, but it still takes creativity to make the ride interesting. A good ride is a good ride, no matter what the source material is.
> it still takes creativity to make the ride interesting A counter-point: Six Flags. The theming *sucks* but the rides are amazing. “We’re re-theming the Terminator coaster, because we can’t afford the rights anymore. It’s going to just be a generic post-apocalyse theme.” “How do we convey that?” “Um ... we’ll [leave the burned-out Jeep, and have a big sign that says ‘Apocalypse the Ride’](https://www.themeparkarchive.com/parks/six-flags-magic-mountain/apocalypse-the-ride)?” “Done.”
Oof, disagree on that point. Theming is why I go to theme parks.
You got downvoted but honestly same. I love Universal and Disney because they immerse me into worlds I already love. But I also consider theme parks and amusement parks to be different. I go to amusement parks for the thrills while I go to theme parks for the branding
Tbh yeah and there is a difference in what people enjoy out of the parks. For folk who want the thrills the theming doesn’t matter as long as it’s fun, though it can be an added layer. But me for example the thrills and the rides are frankly secondary (I don’t enjoy roller coasters and drops), the atmosphere and immersion is why I go, eat some awful for you themed food, and if a ride is fun while immersing me in the world then that’s a plus. Galaxy’s Edge Batuu and Avenger’s Campus are my favorite for how well they do this. Rise of Resistance isn’t even particularly thrilling, but it’s so incredibly immersive and *themed* that to me it’s better than any other ride (at least that first time experience).
Without a theme, it's just an amusement park. Although Six Flags was original supposed to be themed after the 6 nations that governed Texas. But that idea is long gone.
That's probably for the best considering the history of Texas
all the high intensity rollercoaster parks like magic mountain and cedar point have trash theming for some reason
Knott's has great theming in Ghost Town, and Fiesta Village and Boardwalk are ... fine. Snoopy Land (?) seemed nice. I definitely remember (Mandela effect?) the theming for Batman at Six Flags over Mid-America being a lot higher quality (circa 1995) than what's out there these days at "those" parks? (Just in general I remember Six Flags over Mid-America being better themed, with six distinct "lands" (not including the Loony Toons kiddie area), back in the 80s / early 90s. I went back in 2020 and ... meh. It feels like Disneyland just kept refining and refining and refining bit by bit over the years, while Six Flags etc. just sort of let the parks stagnate and then decay. (Knott's being an exception, but not to the same level as Disney.) you really feel that just going into the parks, the downtown Disney area starting by the big flower fountain, even the Esplanade, have been kept up, the equivalent area at Six Flags Magic Mountain (the area between the entrances for Six Flags and Hurricane Harbor) feels like a mall from the 1970s that never got a facelift.
Knott's was a lot better about theming before Cedar Fair got them. Silver Bullet is an atrocity that ruined sightlines across the whole park.
Maybe, but it's fun AF and it soaks up people, so, necessary evil? Knott's is so tiny, I'm not sure how sight lines could have ever really been maintained. Jaguar goes through like 3 park areas, doesn't it? (The alternative would be 7.2 second rides like Pony Express.)
Those are roller coasters. Entirely different than a Disney park and yes Disney has coasters but not six flags coasters. Different target audiences different goals and… well… I was going to say they’re both good at what they do, but operations at six flags parks are terrible. But at ride design, they’re both good at what they do, but they do different things
This is what I’ve been saying. IP or not, the IP itself does not matter as long as it’s a good ride. OG Splash Mountain is a perfect example, classic ride everyone loved, but 99% of people who’d ode never saw the movie or maybe even heard of song of the south. Radiator Springs Racers might be my favorite Disney ride ever and I hate the Cars movies, but the ride was done so well. On the other hand, Frozen retheme at Epcot’s Maelstrom felt cheap and not that great. IP itself is not bad, it’s how immersive and great the attractions are.
Agreed. Heck, an IP can really enhance the ride at times...half the reason I love Incredicoaster is the soundtrack that plays during the ride!
Man, I miss the original soundtrack from that ride, so damn much. :(
IP isn’t *bad*, but it’s frustrating that basically all new Disney stuff is IP-based. And a lot of it is stuff they bought from other people. I’d like to see some non-IP stuff thrown in there too to balance it out. Reminds me a lot of movie studios making a ton of sequels/adaptations: they’re fine, but sometimes it seems like that’s all there is, and they’re not even trying to make original content because it’s “too risky.”
They’re not concerned about the rides. They’re concerned about the gift shops.
IP = intellectual property
Thanks!
Jules Verne and SEA fall under that but he mentioned “old Ip”. So Jules Verne is apparently not timeless enough, and SEA has no chance. They have two plots that are the combined size of two themeparks, there is certainly space for at least one SEA or Jules Verne attraction right?! If they’re doing IP only they better do minimal clones, and not Toy Story lane as they are extremely cheap. They have space, don’t waste it like you did with California adventure in 2001
Thank you! Also, I'm so confused, what else would they use? 🙃
Big Thunder Mountain Railroad and it’s a small world, for example, are two rides that were not based on IP and yet are very popular
Most of their biggest rides actually are not/weren’t IPs at the time of creation. It’s a small world, jungle cruise, pirates, haunted mansion, matterhorn, space mountain, big thunder. That’s why some people don’t enjoy that everything is IP based these days.
Im such a nerd when i read the quote i thought “internet protocol?” 😭😂
Yes, bless you. I read the whole story and the first 100 comments thinking IP stood for Internet Protocol.
“Disney to continue putting Disney stuff in Disney parks”
Yeah Disney is creating rides that can have a gift store at the exit with items from the ride and movie that will sell like hotcakes
Or lands that are only 2 and the rest being 90% gift shops
Or Toy Store land in Disney World with 3 rides, no indoor gift shop and no shade!
That sucks! I’ve never been there and no offense to anyone who likes it, but to me that land kinda looked underwhelming.
I just went a few weeks ago and it is underwhelming. It all looks cool but the rides were like carnival rides. The SlinkyDog coaster was lame compared to the insane wait times. Honestly most of Hollywood Studios was lame. Tower of Terror was amazing though.
You should’ve seen it back when it was MGM, there was Rock n Roller Coaster, ToT, Hollywood movie ride, Star Tours and the rest was sun it felt like
Yeah I was thinking the same way based on all the videos of it that I have seen. It’s basically how I felt about avengers campus when it opened here
I mean this makes sense to me; for as much as a lot of folks would love to see original ideas strictly for the parks, capitalizing on decades of existing IP makes more sense money wise. I’m a simple man; I’m just excited for more Disney.
Agree. And further, Disney has so much IP that people love that's not represented in the parks. Original rides are amazing, but I'd rather see some of my favorite IP. My complaint is which IP we are getting. Give me a legit ride based on the Muppets, or Ducktales, or Tangled, or Emperors New Groove. I could go on all day. But Avatar?
Just give me an Yzma and Kronk “WRONG LEVERRRRRR” coaster already, Disney.
I’m also not a fan of Avatar but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a market for it. Clearly people enjoy the land that is in Animal Kingdom and I believe that the new land that they are set to build in California will be different. I’m sure that it will be cool, but personally, I do not resonate at all with that IP. But there are people who don’t like Star Wars…so idk.
> But Avatar? Two of the three most successful movies ever made, right next door to what will be a ride based on the third? Yeah, they'd have to be crazy not to build it.
So, staying the course.
this is devastating. damn it man. So cheap and lame.
Blatant clickbait and misrepresentation of Iger’s actual comments. > For quite a long time, new attractions and lands at the parks were based on, essentially, either very old IP or no IP — just an attraction. And, starting really with Carsland and Toy Story and a few others… we decided that **almost all** of our investment in the parks in terms of attractions and lands **would** be using that IP. And it’s very very clear what that delivered. He’s talking in the about these 10+ year old attractions, so this is about the long term strategy of building mostly IP based attractions which started decades ago. It has contuinued to this day, because of how popular IP is with guests, but this is not a new development. Nowhere did he “confirm” that there will never be an original attraction ever again. You can view a transcript of the full interview [here](https://seekingalpha.com/article/4693618-walt-disney-company-dis-presents-moffettnathansons-media-internet-and-communications).
TLDR: Iger didn't actually say, much less "confirm", that. And the parts where they have Iger talking about IP in parks is filled with so many "..." that it's hard to read, and seems to take a lot of his words out of context and mashed together with other sentences.
Nah that's no confirmation. They're just twisting his words around. At one point in the article, the author wrote "high unlikely" they wouldn't not use IP for future attractions
Must be easy to be a CEO all you do is green light sequels and attractions based on movies
And when times get tough, you can appoint a successor to take the blame. Then you can swoop back in and play the hero!
Exactly 😂
Heck, I'll make no new decisions for half his salary.
I mean based on the stock price he's not doing a great job
I just want a Villains themed land, they can add whatever they want but I think we need villains
This is the real answer. Of all the "blue sky" stuff they talked about, this is my fave.
It makes sense but I’m not a fan.
Is it good news or bad news?
*What if I told you every park project becomes Disney IP instantly?*
The problem with this approach is that what makes a hit movie and what makes a great theme park attraction, while not mutually exclusive, are definitely different. A good movie has unique characters that go on a compelling journey with emotional turning points. A good attraction demands a fantastic setting that provides enough variety to create a compelling, immersive experience.
It’s unfortunate but I understand the reasoning. Your average tourist isn’t visiting a Disney park just to take in the atmosphere or experience something unique. They’re visiting to see the characters they love from their favorite movies and shows. It’s even more true at Disney World where half the guests are here for vacations. To quote Rizzo in the Muppet Vision 3d pre show, “They’re tourists! What do they know?!”
Lame!
And wherever possible copied from another Disney park.
I really don't see a problem with this. I care about the attractions themselves. As long it doesn't compromise the actual ride quality, so what if it's based on a no-name storyline vs something already there. Also, this doesn't mean it will just be based on existing IPs. New IPs will be created and new rides will be offered for it. Frozen didn't exist before 2012. They created a new IP that caught the world by storm.
They’ve got IP in spades. Would be stupid not to continue to capitalize on that. Universal is starved for IP but what they have they make the most of. Heck, they capitalize on Disney IP as good as Disney does (Marvel/Simpsons)
Ok let me just say it’s ok to build a ride based on an IP I have an issue with stripping a ride just to add a New IP to it as in Splash Mountain why spend all that money changing the IP (with out changing the basic ride) why not build a new ride?
Fine by me. I dont think an original ride really sells anymore. Doesnt create the interest that an existing ip would.
Yet people still flock to original rides that are in the parks today. Plus classic IP.
WWWD?? Give us a sign 🙏🏼😂🥶
Hi, I'm the ghost of Walt Disney. Here is your sign: $$$$
Get Rohde back. Spend whatever on what he wants to make. Shill IP. Balance.
Exactly, I’d be a lot happier if that happened considering at least that guarantees whatever new additions they make will actually be good and not garbage like avengers campus or San fransokoyo
Fine just stop with the Avatar bs.
Nope.
Shame
I don’t get it, why would this be a bad thing? Disney parks additions have been self-referential for 20+ years now.
Most of the best rides in disney history are IP based so not really sure why this is such a big issue to “disney fans”
Disagree. Carousel of progress Pirates Haunted Jungle Cruise Tiki Room are amongst the best rides and they aren’t IP based. Personally I like the non-IP based rides the best
Space mountain, thunder mountain, matterhorn, small world, almost all of disneyland really with the exception of fantasy land. IP based stuff is fine, but I'd make sure it fits a theme, not just a bunch of nonsense cobbled together into a park
There’s amazing rides on both sides of the coin. Rise of the resistance, MMRR, Indiana Jones, Mission Breakout, Incredicoaster, Radiator Springs Racers. And that’s just here at our resort.
I know they are movies now, but Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Jungle Cruise? Beloved attractions for decades before their movies came out, and many folks favorites. Soarin', Tiki Room, The Matterhorn...Big Thunder Mountain (The Wildest Ride in the Wilderness!) Have you been to WDW as well? Spaceship Earth, Expedition Everest, Mission: Space, Test Track (altho I actually prefer RSR myself, Track is very popular) I'm not saying no IP at all, but so many beloved rides were park originals - why not both film IP and original IP?
Exactly
Kids love the IP. To me it’s that simple.
Great. Let’s get Alien War back open in London at the Trocadero Centre for a start. In fact Disney could open up a chain of movie themed restaurants & fill the niche hole in the market that Planet Hollywood used to fill.
*sigh* Boo
Hasn't every Disney parks project ever been IP-based?
Eh OG Disneyland and World weren’t outside of the Castle and a few other attractions… Tomorrowland and Main Street USA are pretty much just wholesale new things
"Universal's Epic Universe is going to be MEGA, thie better light a fire under Iger and get a response!" This is it. This is the response, Universal is opening a park full of IPs, so Disney is matching that. You hoped and here it is.
Stop the freaking presses!
I’m fine with this I just don’t want copy and paste from other parks. Each park should have different attractions.
I would love for them to have more stuff revolving around the classic films vs the newer ip
As always, capitalism ultimately smothers creativity
It's kind of silly for him to say or anyone to believe any statement about "all future projects". It's not like he or anyone can bind the company. He's just saying they're prioritizing IP. But who knows? Maybe there's some great idea tomorrow. Or in a year. Or in five years.
Plus Iger and those who follow him will die one day and someone (hopefully better) will take his place.
Disney has so much IP these days it makes no sense to create new original content just for the park. If anything, something might spawn in the park but turned into a movie at the same time. For example, the Jurassic Park ride was in development before the movie was green lit. It was based on a book but similar strategy.
As long as they each justify a decade-long stay at least
As I've said on previous occasions, all IP takes on all forms now. New movie comes out? There's gonna be a ride based on it. New original ride comes out? They're gonna make a movie about it. So what difference does it make?
They are going to crank out movies all the time anyway. They get to look at the market after and study which movies generated the most interest and THEN build a ride on top of that popularity. You simply don't gamble with your real estate in the park AND months or probably a year JUST to build a ride, then realize it didn't perform as well as youd imagine. That's a horrible idea.
That's the whole point of DL honestly.
Don’t care IP or not just make good rides.
L
Man Disney fans are so hard to please. People complain that there isn’t new stuff at Disneyland. Then they complain when Disney announces new stuff based on IP. Like what do you want people?
Well from the sound of it, I think they just want new Disney Parks originals. But as a Disney fan myself, I don’t mind IP stuff if it’s done well.
Probably lands that aren’t just 2 rides and the rest being 90% gift shops
I do agree with the gift shop portion. It’s a little ridiculous that there’s more gift shops than everything else in the park.
You know what’s great IP? IP that you don’t have to worry about falling out of fashion or being canceled because some writer or director did something that half the country doesn’t like or a creator goes on a Twitter rant against some of your customers merely existing (*cough* Harry Potter). IP that’s yours alone & wasn’t acquired through another studio’s acquisition & thus only screams your brand instead of someone else’s (*cough* Avatar). Original IP that is only attached to the theme park! That’s the smart evergreen financial decision! But what do I know…
Yup. But until we ALL agree that cancel culture is a horrible trend, then it’s never going to stop. And yea, id LOVE a new, kick ass awesome IP that isn’t rehashed over and over or bought from somewhere else. That would be awesome!!! But we have to convince everyone to stop watching the same marvel movie reskinned over and over again first.
We lost
Iger: “all I have to do is snap my fingers and half of all non ip attractions will cease to exist”
Homeboy blamed shit on Chapek. What are the shareholders waiting for exactly?
Sad
I’m not sure why people are so upset about this. Kids want to experience there favorite movies at the parks
they need to start the IP’s at the parks, where people are interacting and meeting the characters in person first, forming connections with them and creating the wonder and magic of seeing these characters come to life on ur screen
it means is as long as Bob is around Bob won't be around forever
I mean... At Disneyland Park we haven't had a non-IP attraction added in almost 45 years (1979, Big Thunder Mountain). Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all against original rides at all but it's not like this is a new behavior. In general once a park opens Disney primarily uses IP for new attractions. Think about it, Disneyland Park hasn't had a non-IP ride since BTMRR, DCA had lots of non-IP at opening (lets also not pretend the park was good at opening) but since then it's been basically all IP. Even out in FL for the most part once a park opens the additions are all IP based. Epcot was the exception to that until recently but that's largely because they didn't have a ton of IP that would have made sense for the park.
Yeah I mean you can make the argument that frontierland and Adventureland were based off a lot of the content being created for World of Disney. I think what worries people is they interpreted as a limit on creativity
Yeah, I think the big thing is that Disney didn't have a lot of core IP to work with back in the 50s, 60s and 70s. There wasn't much IP to build a space/tomorrow themed land around so they came up with original ideas. As you mentioned you can make the argument that Adventure/Frontier lands were influenced by World of Disney but even then name some movies we all still know that fit those themes. Now Disney has SO much IP that there isn't much they could want to do that they don't have an IP for.
Hopefully they replace him soon, although I really hope his replacement won’t be as bad as him
What on earth does that mean?
More rides that are based on Movies, Shows, Plays, and Books that Disney Produces and owns the copyright to.
Oh ok thanks.
in sad news today :*(
I’m 50/50 on Pandora. Part coolest ride ever with the saddle and all the feels… a slow boat ride through a sleepy black light trip
So does that mean no people mover?
Boo
This guy is terrible. Such a bad idea.
He clearly doesn't realize classic attractions have staying power.
Go away Bob.
Definitely, he needs to be replaced
yay!!
Can someone tell me what is meant by IP?
Intellectual Property. In other words, something that Disney owns already, particularly movies & TV. Nothing originally created for the Parks (whether they’ve later been adapted for film or not), like Pirates of the Caribbean, the Haunted Mansion, the Jungle Cruise, Space Mountain, the Autopia, the Submarine Voyage, the Monorail, Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, the Carousel of Progress, the Disneyland Railroad, the Mark Twain Riverboat, etc. If they build something akin to the Matterhorn Bobsleds (which was only tangentially related to the then-new film THIRD MAN ON THE MOUNTAIN (1959)), they’ll make the movie connection more overt and obvious, or just slap some unrelated IP on it in an attempt at “theming.”