Is Anyone Surprised Disney’s $60 Billion Park Investments Will Be ‘Almost All’ IP?
During a recent interview, Disney CEO Bob Iger said the “turbocharged” $60 billion investment into Parks & Resorts will be almost entirely existing intellectual property. This post shares what he had to say plus what he and Josh D’Amaro have said in the past, discusses the approach, and why it’s controversial with fans.
The latest news comes via a question-and-answer session that Bob Iger participated in at the MoffettNathanson Media & Communications Summit. During that, Disney’s CEO once again discussed a range of topics, including how the company plans to spend $60 billion on theme parks in the next decade, as well as competition for Walt Disney World from Universal’s Epic Universe.
Iger also highlighted the performance of Parks & Resorts in the most recent quarter: “We had record revenue in all of our parks, record per capita spending, and record attendance in every one of our parks except Walt Disney World, which was still strong.” (As we’ve discussed countless times, pent-up demand arrived and subsided at Walt Disney World earlier than all other destinations. See Disney ‘Warns’ of Attendance Slowdown for more from the most recent earnings call about this.)
Turning to future growth, Iger explained that Disney’s bullishness on its Parks & Resorts business was thanks to it being a bright spot for the company that yields both results and stability. He said that the return on invested capital in Parks & Resorts over his tenure had been “extraordinary.”
Iger added that once Disney made the necessary changes to fix problem points and put the company in a position to turn things around from a free cash flow perspective–which is now happening–they had an opportunity to invest in future growth. “Why not invest in the in the business that has the highest returns?”
From there, Iger went through the international parks (that Disney owns) and praised recent and upcoming additions. He hyped up Shanghai Disneyland becoming the #1 tourist destination and boosting brand affinity in China.
He said that the new Zootopia land was built because it’s the number one animated movie in China, and that awareness for the addition is very high. He called the Zootopia land tremendous and successful. “Almost 90% of the people who show up [to Shanghai Disneyland] are aware that Zootopia is there. We built a big enough land…about 50% of the people who visit actually go through Zootopia land.”
Iger also discussed the tremendous success of Hong Kong Disneyland, which recently opened the World of Frozen land for which he’s previously offered effusive praise. Likewise, he gushed over the Walt Disney Studios Park overhaul, saying they’ve been investing in the soon-to-be-renamed park and that “there are a lot more attractions being built that will open in the next two to three years.” It wasn’t clear whether this is referring to the World of Frozen there, or a yet-unannounced replacement for Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge in WDSP.
His comments weaved all of this together, explaining how the future of the theme parks will utilize Disney’s famed flywheel to highlight stories from the studios and Disney+ streaming service. Iger said that Disney is “starting to lean into investment” for Moana, which is perhaps the most notable thing he said (in my view) because…no they aren’t. At least, not officially or publicly.
This cannot conceivably be about Moana’s Journey of Water at EPCOT, because that investment isn’t starting–it’s over. As you might recall, version one for the Dino-Rama replacement included a Moana boat ride and the concept art (above) for that was very clear. Not impressionistic like you might see for a concept that had yet to crystalize.
Given the popularity of the original Moana movie on streaming (even after all these years) plus the sequel coming out this year plus early rumors about that ride finding a home elsewhere at Walt Disney World…I think that comment was Iger letting slip that there are plans for more Moana at Walt Disney World and beyond. Pretty much everything else he said during the interview was a rehash of past comments–this is the closest to new news that we got from the interview.
Iger also spoke about “leaning in more to Star Wars” and mentioned that Mandalorian film in 2026. (Not so coincidentally, there are rumors of a Mandalorian roller coaster.) He then mentioned Toy Story 5 and how that franchise already has a presence at every park around the world. (I sure hope this was pointing to a past example of using the flywheel effectively and not foreshadowing more Toy Story in the parks. Please no, there’s already more than enough.)
He concluded that if Disney gets things right with its film slate, “that should start to pay off more in terms of combining it with the turbocharge concept that I described at the theme parks.”
While the specific franchises differed, both Iger and D’Amaro (and Chapek before them) have made countless comments like this over the last several years. I’ve honestly lost count of how many times Iger has invoked Pandora or Toy Story Land or Cars Land or Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge as success stories. He’s also started to do that with World of Frozen, and I’d expect to hear a lot more about that (and Zootopia) as those are clearly big wins for Disney.
Iger further explained that all of the biggest returns for Parks & Resorts have been “all about the IP.” He said that “for quite a long time, new attractions and lands at the parks were based on either very old IP or no IP–you know, just an attraction. Starting with Cars Land and Toy Story Land and a few others, I can’t remember this all the specifics, we decided that almost all of our investment in the parks for attractions and lands would be using IP. It’s very, very clear what that delivered.”
This has become a controversial statement among diehard Disney Parks fans, and I can appreciate the why of that. But honestly, the first time I heard this quote, I didn’t think anything of it. This is absolutely nothing new. Iger, D’Amaro, Chapek, and other Disney executives have been making comments like this since at least 2019. I’m pretty sure I remember hearing similar sentiment around the time that Toy Story Land and Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge were announced, and that continued when those lands and Pandora opened–and on earnings calls after they proved fruitful.
Allow me to refresh your recollection with this quote from a January 2019 interview Iger did with Barron’s: “The acquisition of these brands and the creation of intellectual property behind them have had a tremendous impact on growing our returns at the parks. When you have Star Wars to market at the parks…Avatar is a good example, Cars Land, we’re building a Frozen land…the interest among the potential audience is higher. It’s not like “I’m going to ride some nondescript coaster somewhere, that maybe is [themed like] India or whatever.” No, you’re going to Arendelle and you’re going to experience Frozen with Anna and Elsa. Or you’re going to fly a banshee into Pandora. Go to Cars Land. (Emphasis added.)
Almost beside the point, but I don’t think Iger was taking a deliberate dig at Expedition Everest with that offhand comment. I think he forgot about Expedition Everest, and that just so (ironically) happened to be the last original non-IP attraction built at Walt Disney World. I’m not sure whether that’s better or worse, but I just cannot conceive of Iger taking a shot at his own attraction. Now Chapek, on the other hand…
Turning to commentary, is anyone surprised by Iger’s most recent comments about IP attractions and lands? Really?
If I were forced to comb through old interviews (please don’t make me do it), I could easily find a dozen references to intellectual property that Disney hopes to build. Could you go back and find a single instance of Iger, D’Amaro, Chapek, or anyone else from the c-suite saying they’re excited to tell original stories with new attractions?
During a presentation to investors when pitching the $60 ‘turbocharged’ investment plan, D’Amaro said, “We have a wealth of untapped stories to bring to life across our business. Frozen, one of the most successful and popular animated franchises of all time, could have a presence at the Disneyland Resort. Wakanda has yet to be brought to life. The world of Coco is just waiting to be explored. There’s a lot of storytelling opportunity.”
That’s a fairly representative quote about what Disney plans to build in the coming decade. Sometimes the IPs change (Encanto gets mentioned a lot), but that’s the general idea. The whole DisneylandForward pitch deck was a ‘greatest hits’ list of IP attractions.
(A bit of an aside, but I think one reason why there’s been so much domestic coverage of World of Frozen and Fantasy Springs at HKDL and Tokyo DisneySea is because Disney wants to gauge the American fan response to them to see whether Frozen and Tangled should be leveraged more in the US parks.)
Honestly, even when I stopped and re-read Iger’s IP quote, my reaction wasn’t surprise or feigned outrage. It was that he said it’d be almost all IP. Meaning there’s actually a chance they’ll build something original!
To be sure, I’m not endorsing this almost all IP approach–just that I’m not surprised by it. I very much do not agree with it.
Unlike many other fans, I don’t think “synergy” is a dirty word. To the contrary, I think it’s both necessary and important to the parks. I also agree with D’Amaro and Iger that there’s a lot of untapped potential in IP at the parks. As I’ve mentioned before, it’s wild to me that so few movies from the Disney Renaissance have rides at Walt Disney World.
Those are now time-tested classics, and resonate with both millennial parents and childless adults. They should get rides! Ditto the modern hits (like Moana) that clearly have staying power. Disney spent a lot building Star Wars and Marvel lands and attractions over the past several years–it’s only logical to turn towards the animated movies. (Especially as those prove to be huge hits at the international parks.)
Perhaps my perspective is shaped by this being a planning-centric site, so I hear from a lot of first-timers. And I know that, as a practical reality, nothing gets people to visit Walt Disney World like characters and stories that their kids already love. Hugging Mirabel, hearing Elsa sing “Let it Go,” being interrogated by Stormtroopers–those are the experiences they want to have. That is “Disney” to them. It’s what gets them in the door, so to speak.
That’s not Disney to me. There’s a good chance it’s not to you, either, if you’re a longtime fan. I’m a parks fan first and foremost. While I enjoy the movies and Disney+ shows to an extent, I mostly just watch them at this point for awareness. (Even so, I skip a lot because so much of it just isn’t very good.)
While it might’ve been the characters and movie stories that got me in the door in the first place, it was the unique experiences of Walt Disney World that got me hooked. Haunted Mansion. Pirates of the Caribbean. Country Bear Jamboree. Space Mountain. Big Thunder Mountain Railroad. Carousel of Progress. Pretty much the entirety of EPCOT Center. I wouldn’t be a fan–you wouldn’t be reading this–if not for all of that. Things that probably wouldn’t be built today, for the most part.
Just as I get why fans are upset by Iger’s comments, I also get why this is Disney’s approach. Using an established IP is essentially a “cheat code” or shortcut. The attraction or land doesn’t have to be as good, because there’s already built-in appeal. It doesn’t have to succeed as much in resonating emotionally, because it can reference moments from the movies that tug at the heartstrings.
Attractions and lands based on intellectual property are lower risk and higher reward. They’re easier to market. They have colossal pre-existing audiences. They are very clearly what the general public wants. From a business perspective, it makes complete sense to create an Arendelle or Radiator Springs land as opposed to a ‘generic’ Scandinavia or Route 66 area.
Not to get too far afield, but you could even extend this to IP lands. Galaxy’s Edge is, obviously, based on the Star Wars franchise. But it’s also an original location and the closest thing to a non-IP IP land (a dumb but accurate term). Disney bet big on that, only to have it surpassed in some ways by the totally unambitious Avengers Campus, the whole conceit of which is basically just “here are characters in an average place.”
I would argue that the IP-centric approach is at least somewhat short-sighted. Not just because Figment or Big Al or Sonny Eclipse have turned a lot of us into diehard fans. That’s definitely a big part of it–but also because the Disney flywheel cuts in both directions.
Pirates of the Caribbean is one of the studio’s all-time biggest franchises. Haunted Mansion has had multiple movies (sure, they weren’t good…but that’s not the ride’s fault). The Society of Explorers and Adventurers is getting a Disney+ show that’ll kick off a “Magic Kingdom Universe.” Films are in development featuring Figment and Space Mountain.
Fan-favorite attractions can inspire movies and shows…it’s not simply one direction. There are many other attractions that have become pop culture fixtures or brands unto themselves. “it’s a small world” doesn’t have a movie or series (yet?), but it has a board game, books, ornaments, household products, etc–not to mention a beloved/reviled song. Is it not a valuable IP for Disney at this point?
Ultimately, I want to see established IP at Walt Disney World. It’s absolutely wild that there are no real rides for Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, Pocahontas, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan or Tarzan. That list could be extended to include Lilo & Stitch, The Emperor’s New Groove, The Incredibles, Tangled, Up, and other animated movies, as well as Disney Villains. It also makes sense to add Moana, Coco, Encanto, Inside Out, Frozen, Zootopia, and more recent releases from the Disney+ era. Walt Disney World won’t possibly get all of that in the next decade–it’d take way more than the $17 billion earmarked for Florida. Maybe more than the whole $60 billion for all of Disney Parks!
I also want to see original attractions at Walt Disney World and beyond. And honestly, I don’t think that’s a particularly unreasonable request. Yes, it’s riskier and doesn’t have as much of a built-in audience. But you know what? New franchises and brands have to be born somewhere. I’ve seen some of the output from the studios and entertainment divisions in the last several years, and it’s not like all of their big creative risks are exactly paying huge dividends.
Maybe instead of investing $200 million into some half-baked CGI fest that no one asked for (and about as many people will pay to watch), that money could be spent on a “risky” original attraction at Walt Disney World that could someday inspire a movie or series? By Iger’s own admission, Parks & Resorts is the one division that has proven itself time and time again. When you give the Imagineers a healthy budget and creative freedom, there’s nothing they can’t accomplish. While I have respect for the studios…I don’t think their recent track record is nearly as strong. So why not build both types of attractions and lands?!
Planning a Walt Disney World trip? Learn about hotels on our Walt Disney World Hotels Reviews page. For where to eat, read our Walt Disney World Restaurant Reviews. To save money on tickets or determine which type to buy, read our Tips for Saving Money on Walt Disney World Tickets post. Our What to Pack for Disney Trips post takes a unique look at clever items to take. For what to do and when to do it, our Walt Disney World Ride Guides will help. For comprehensive advice, the best place to start is our Walt Disney World Trip Planning Guide for everything you need to know!
YOUR THOUGHTS
What are your thoughts on “almost all” new attractions and lands coming to Walt Disney World and beyond being based on popular intellectual property? Think the Walt Disney Company will follow through on its purported plans to “turbocharge” investment and double CapEx to $60 billion on Park & Resorts in the next decade? Which IPs would you like to see better represented at WDW and DLR? Anything you’re hoping does not end up coming to fruition? Do you agree or disagree with our assessments? Any questions we can help you answer? Hearing your feedback–even when you disagree with us–is both interesting to us and helpful to other readers, so please share your thoughts below in the comments!
Hard to disagree with Tom’s analysis which is advocating for all 3 options: 1) established IPs that are under-represented but loved, 2) newer IPs, and 3) creative and original Imagineer-derived ideas. Number 2 is the way Disney generates quick interest and short-term gains. Number 1 satisfies more long-term Disney guests. Number 3 is how Disney has hit home runs and long-term value. It is like an actuarial table for determining true value – impossible to really predict the parameters. Pulling new guests and spending in lands with new IP would make good reports at earnings calls but only MIGHT result in long-term repeat business, at the risk of ticking off guests like me who love the parks for themselves and older IP. Original concepts depend on Imagineers having both the skills and permission to be creative and take risks that pay off – are there many Marc Davis or Tony Baxters today?
It is most interesting to think of the MK. The addition of Tron is an older IP that was loved by some but not a staple of most Disney-fans. 7 Dwarves is VERY old IP (I hope I never see the live action reboot). Tiana’s is a 2009 IP and is on the same track system with different and upgraded visuals so may win over the disappointed fans like me of Brer Fox (lookin’ for trouble) and Brer Bear (just lookin’). And looking right now at the wait times? Tron is LL eligible only, 7D, Peter Pan and Space Mountain are over an hour, and JC, Small World, Haunted Mansion are over 30 min, and the Meet and Greets of OGs like MM are an hour. On a Monday here in Florida So…no really new IP at all and still some nice crowds.
Still, so many OG characters, old IP, and beloved animations have no attractions. Guardians in Epcot and Flight of Passage in AK were hits for me -and loved GofG movie and disinterested in Avatar franchise. So land and rides based on IPs can be hits whether the movies are great or not IF the ride wows.
I completely agree with almost everything here. Two things. First, if they have to focus on IP so much, I’d love to at least see the upcoming Tropical Americas land be the model. A well-themed, non-IP land containing IP attractions. At least then you can attract people with the IP while still allowing guests to immerse themselves in a land that isn’t focused on one movie.
Second, I’d also love if they went the other direction, as you wrote – create original attractions that eventually turn into valuable IP. But I don’t think the numbers support this. I read once that, financially, movies are basically giant advertisements for the parks. With the parks being such revenue giants, my understanding is that the company profits much more from bringing people to the parks with IP than they do from bringing people to the movies with attraction-inspired films.
I was trying to think of what the last “non-IP” attraction was, and if you’re right that it’s Expedition Everest, that is just WILD to me.
I’m of the opinion that a good ride is a good ride, so I’m not against having (mostly) everything being IP-related. But you are 100% correct that there is enough IP that started in the parks that has its own history and is popular enough to expand in the other direction.
I’ve wondered why I felt sad every time an older attraction closes/gets renovated (ie, Country Bears) and I think I just realized it’s because that means one fewer non-IP attraction in the parks.
I tend to agree that there can be a happy medium of ip and original content. I actually enjoy Galaxy’s edge and was impressed that Disney was able to incorporate a somewhat unique thematic element within the broader Star Wars universe. They didn’t simply build a set from one of the Star Wars movies. Avatar is clearly a more controversial piece of IP… I think most people would agree that while it was clearly a super huge movie in terms of box office, it hasn’t generated the type of larger scale universe that people immerse themselves in. But Disney needs to be able to monetize all the money they spent on buying Fox
As someone who is almost 50 – the IP theme for almost everything is too much. But the new generation is Disney’s next target. The generation who grew up on all of the newer movies in which most have an area in some Disney Park. This is my speculation on why there aren’t any lands or true rides for Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King, etc. With the technology we have now, so many kids are tuned in to the movies and I can understand why Disney would want to profit off of that. My 21 year old niece and my 16 year old daughter have both said they don’t like the interiors of most resorts because “they are not Disney enough.” However, I prefer Disney the older way. I hate that Jack was added to PotC ride and that some scenes were removed, I hate that EPCOT is starting to be more about cartoon characters than learning about other places in the world. But Disney has done their research and the younger generation, the generation who is going to soon be shelling their own money into the parks, want themes everywhere.
Incorporating IP while still allowing you to experience/write your own story – that’s a recipe I can get behind. And I think Disney has done a better job of that recently with recent additions like Galaxy’s Edge, Journey of Water, GotG: Cosmic Rewind.
My daughters love Frozen. But they think Frozen Ever After is fine, and they have no desire to ride it more than once. It’s just retelling the movie. But I spent 90 minutes with my 6 year old spying on stormtroopers and gathering intel because Rey gave us a mission and a codename. It was her unique experience. I never was able to experience the Galactic Starcruiser, but I think they had the right idea. It just probably has to be done on a much smaller scale that’s available to the masses.
Last thought, IP is a little overrated. It makes for great press releases, and it’s easier to remember/say, “Let’s go see Moana” rather than “Who wants to go to Journey of Water?” But kids and adults will enjoy something if it’s fun. My 8 year old had no idea what Tron was, but she was hooked after riding Legacy.
I really enjoyed reading this article! I agree that I am not surprised at all about the statement and I don’t mind it. while I love haunted mansion and pirates and some of the OG rides, many in my larger family do not. My kids could care less about the rides where they don’t have the draw of a character. At least if it is a slow ride. My son loves Big Thunder Mtn so coasters are the exception for my kids as they love them all, themed or not.
While I would love to see more of the animation from my childhood represented I am hesitant and you listed a lot of movies from my childhood that I care zero percent about. I can’t convince my kids to watch most of the movies from my childhood and if even I don’t like it much anymore I don’t see the general public jumping up and down for a Hercules ride.
I saw Happily Ever After 1.5 weeks ago for I think the first time? I might have seen it in 2018, but don’t recall the specific firework show. I was SO excited and we have been listening to the theme song in the car leading up to the trip. I hate to say I was a little disappointed. I was shocked how much Hunchback of Notre Dame there is. I really disliked that movie as a kid and didn’t realize it would still be included. I saw wondrous Journeys last summer and that was so much better than Happily Ever After. The way they interlaced the different songs was so amazing. I was just shocked that Happily Ever After didn’t blow me away like I thought it would.
All that to say I am ready for rides based on the newer movies, Moana, Encanto, Pixar (I agree there is plenty Toy Story which I love, but WDW doesn’t have much else). Plus Tangled really needs more than just bathrooms!
I agree I agree!!!!
The only IP I’d be interested in is a Gummi Bear land and quick tunnels as it’s ride. Other than that they should create original ideas for rides. There is all kind of folklore stories handed down through the ages throughout the world that can be reimagined as a ride. Australia isn’t even represented in any ride. That place is wild and full of adventure. Though technically The Rescuers did have a movie based in Australia. But another water ride for Moana? I hope not. How disjointed would that be, one at Epcot and the other at AK? That’s like not putting Zootopia in AK.
What does IP stand for?
Intellectual Property rights, I believe…
For the love be of god I think Disney has enough boat rides in the park. Please no more.
Being a bit of a devil’s advocate here, it’s all about the execution. Splash Mountain was “IP” based but in the end its iconic status was about the brilliant execution of the ride itself and not the IP, which is probably known to less than 1% of Splash Mountain fans? (I don’t object to its re-do at all; this is an example). I suspect in the long term Pandora will be similar. It is possibly already somewhat that way, though I am biased because of the indifference to those movies in my household compared to the mega-love we have for that land and the Banshee attraction. Whether or not some of the examples (Pirates; Expedition Everest; Tokyo DisneySea) were IP based is a little debatable since you only need to scratch a little to find some Twain, Kipling, Jules Verne, and RL Stevenson at their roots. Whatever the status now of the original works (Copyright free; over 100 years old) surely all of those attractions are at bottom based on the childhood nostalgia Walt Disney and various imagineers had for the IP of their own childhoods. Raiders and Star Wars are pretty famously based on Spielberg and Lucas own love of “trashy” B movies and comics of their childhood. I don’t personally have any affection for Figment (Sorry!) because I didn’t experience it when it was good – or as a child – but I ADORE the Country Bears and remember well how much my grandfather LAUGHED at “blood on the saddle” when I was about 7 (in Anaheim, when it still existed there). IP or not IP, it’s always been about whether the attractions satisfied the dreams of kids young and old, and this will renew for the next generation. My generation built a world that has now overdosed on the works of Jack Kirby (if you don’t know that name, you should) and George Lucas, and we are all still waiting for the Tolkien themed land. Rather than lament the theming of the, say, the Incredibles maybe we should recognize that Brad Bird (among many) is a genius storyteller who captured the imagination of millions in the same way that Lucas, Spielberg, Disney and Kirby did when I was a kid and the way Mark Twain and Robert Louis Stevenson did for Walt and his generation.
It’s not like they decided to switch to Sleeping Beauty’s mid development to advertise a new movie.
Yes! Someone finally captured my thoughts EXACTLY! Thank you, Tom.
The most egregious errors Eiger and Chapek have made are the “IP-ification” of things that didn’t need IP and were actually harmed by it.
These are two glaring examples:
EPCOT was its own IP. Spaceship Earth was known worldwide, and EPCOT’s “perpetual world’s fair” was well known globally. It had its own strong branding, including Mickey and Minnie appearing from time to time in space suits.
A Mickey hand was constructed adjacent to Spaceship Earth in celebration of the new millennium, but it remained up well after January 1, 2000/2001. That brought a rash of complaints from EPCOT purists, and it was using IP from the dearest character of all. Disney had erected the hand as a permanent structure, but fans (including me) sent in thousands of complaints that the hand had no place in the park. It was finally removed.
Now, we have cartoon IP swamping the park, weakening EPCOT’s brand as a worldwide celebration of technology, achievement, culture, and humankind.
An even sadder example to me is the tragedy of “Incredibles” branding of the Contemporary Resort. Perpetually stylish and luxurious rooms and suites had plush furnishings. The rooms no doubt needed updating, but instead of refitting them with a similar luxury, they were replaced with cheap box-store furniture and cute but out-of-place accessories. Modern artwork in corridors was replaced with cartoon images that distract from Mary Blair’s gorgeous mosaics and are more suited for All Star resorts (which I also love, but have an entirely different theming).
We used to stay regularly at the Contemporary, but haven’t slept there since it’s been ruined for us.
At the time of his death, Walt was working on his next project. This involved a Disneyland-style park in Florida, but mostly it was going to be something else that was nothing to do with movies, cartoons, IP etc. After his death, the company took his ideas and created EPCOT Center, possibly the most exciting, innovative, inspirational, magic, unique theme park ever created. Those ideas had always been part of Disneyland anyway..technology, future living, transport… People justify the IP cross-marketing aim of the current board as it’s “what Walt have done”, because he was a ruthless businessman. But no, that’s not what he was all about. What Walt would have done is nothing like what the company is now doing.
For EPCOT especially, to change it into an IP park in order to copy what Universal is doing is stamping all over Walt’s ideas and his memory. It’s a complete insult.
There’s nothing wrong with “IP synergy”, just make sure it goes where it belongs and stop alienating the people who are not into princesses. Cater for everyone, that’s what Walt would have wanted.
The de-edu-tainmenting of EPCOT is egregious and a complete insult. I still cannot believe they replaced Maelstrom in Norway with a ride about fictional people in a fictional Scandinavian-ish place.
I get it. You’re right in that adding IP attractions is like a shortcut. Whatever the attraction becomes already has a built-in audience. But I also agree that there’s a missed opportunity here to reverse-engineer the formula. These original attractions can BECOME Disney IP. Haunted Mansion and Pirates are absolutely examples of this. Even had the movies never existed, I’d argue those are still valuable IP, because they are beloved attractions. I’m certain that Disney makes a fortune selling HM and PotC merchandise. I’d also guess that the percentage of people making a decision to go or not go to the parks based on whether an attraction is based on existing IP or not is low. If a new ride is great and exciting, people at the parks are going to ride it, whether it’s Expedition Everest or the Incredicoaster. What really upsets me MOST is when they unnecessarily replace great non-IP attractions with IP-attractions, like replacing Maelstrom with Frozen. (And, yes, I understand that’s replacing a not-exactly-beloved ride with a ride based on one of their all-time most successful IP’s. But in this case it actively harmed the pavilion, replacing an attraction that taught riders of the culture of the pavilion with one that is based in a fictional place and just re-telling the film’s story.)
But – I do LOVE your between-the-lines suggestion that “almost all” means maybe we WILL see some small original attractions!
As you say, this is not surprising. I like a mix of both – I remember going to Star Wars Weekends a decade ago and thinking how much money they were sitting on with Star Wars and I couldn’t believe it didn’t have a permanent presence anywhere. Finally walking into SWGE was pretty phenomenal. (I understand your point about Avenger’s Campus, but presence of characters/live action is the only area where SWGE fall’s short, IMO). That said, I’d much rather see “original IP” for Epcot (can we get Brazil or India in World Showcase?) and Animal Kingdom. I guess I should be happy that Encanto will (hopefully) be Tropical Americas and we didn’t get “Strange World Land”.
I guess for me it just comes down to quality and fun. There are lands that are original and IP based that both hit and miss the mark. It’s not like something being based on IP can’t be awesome, just like not all original park areas are awesome. I am at least a little bummed to see a pivot away from more original ideas in the parks because that’s what I grew up with, and where my love for the parks and resorts originated. I didn’t need a movie to make me pretend I was a pirate after the first time I was in Adventureland when I was a kid…the quality of the experience just drew it out. I also question whenever businesses go “all in” on anything. It’s proven time and time again that we aren’t as smart as we think we are, and rarely have the foresight we think we do.
You make some good points about balancing original rides with IP-based attractions, but developing original rides is still a big risk. EPCOT is my favorite park, and as much as you like Figment, you must admit that original IP is at the bottom of the priority list for most parkgoers. (My personal preference for EPCOT would be to add more educational, interactive museum-style stuff, but that’s not going to happen either.)
I could be wrong, but I don’t think Disney had enough original IP when Disneyland was first built to fill an entire park, so they had no choice but to develop new rides. The park may have looked much different if Disney was more mature when the park was built.
“you must admit that original IP is at the bottom of the priority list for most parkgoers.”
Absolutely.
I still think it’s important to give them a hook–that something more–makes at least some of them more likely to become lifelong fans.
Perhaps I’m biased because the original stuff is what worked on me, but I don’t think parks as a repository for nothing but movie IP gets the job done. Even today, it’s a lot of those old school original attractions doing the heavy lifting in forging new fans.
I guess from my perspective, it behooves Disney to have more of those in the pipeline from time to time. Kinda like the mix of original movies and sequels, because you can’t have the latter without the former. Of course it’s a risk to do something new, but Disney wouldn’t be where it is today without taking its fair share of risks over the last 101 years.
We have this massive outrage culture where everyone flips out about every little thing, and we’re surprised Disney doesn’t want to take chances…
“Everyone” is quite a stretch. It’s a vocal minority–and they’re going to find something to be mad about regardless, so I’m not sure how that’s relevant here.
I also don’t see how a trackless dark ride about a man and his monkey in a mystical manor is any more outrage-inducing than a Beauty and the Beast dark ride.
I’m with you, I just see a big difference between Japan and the US, for example — the new Space Mountain is probably gonna be rad, but imagine if they tried that here.
The obsession with outrage re: maintaining nostalgia is way too much. Look at Tiana’s Bayou Adventure. It’s an obvious massive upgrade and they’ve had to spend years now fighting the belief among many fans that’s giving us a way better ride is… bad?
They’re doing something really cool and good for us and they’ve had to fight the fans every step of the way because the slightest change goes through the blog/comment section outrage machine and gives them a bunch of bad press. They’re not gonna try anything out of the box in that environment so it can get ripped to shreds even if it’s awesome.
Save money: clone Mystic Manor (and the Matterhorn).
I think I’m the same on this. I am not surprised by it becaus eit sells tickets and I am not against the use of Intelectual Property I am pro Intelectural Property if done well and anti bad use of IP.
So for example Beauty and the Beast Castle in Tokyo is one of the best uses of IP I have seen in a long time and brings you into the universe and the Be our guest in the actual restaurant looks really cool (lets not talk about the food atm!) but the castle in Magic Kingdom is disappointing. Im sure Disney Springs Tokyo is equally great or better not having been in it.
Cars Land is one of imagineetrings greatest achievements and though flawed in the shade aspects is great but Avengers Campus next door lacks something in the buildings. Although I suspect thats something to do with lacking the new e ticket. The Paris one has similar problems and is how an ip can be used badly.
I do think that Imagineering shouldnt always be pidgeonholed into IP entirely though as without it the whole of DisneySea, Epcot etc doesnt get built even if it builds off some of Disney IP. I think the IP can be a good starting point and probably what will be in the parks for a few years given the film and tv product issues but not necessarily the end of it as at some point you will need to sell something new to people.
Agreed all around.
I can appreciate the single IP land for “stepping into the stories” of Cars, Harry Potter, and so forth. Those should absolutely exist as lands. There’s also something to be said for the ‘wish fulfillment ride’ or the ‘book report ride.’ Both have existed since Walt Disney.
On the other hand, two of the greatest theme parks ever are Tokyo DisneySea and EPCOT Center. Well, greatest from the perspective of Disney Parks/Imagineering fans. I can see why they might’ve missed the mark a bit with the general public, which also explains both getting a lot of IP over the years!