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!
Wonder if there’s a “Big Thunder Mountain Railroad” movie coming- maybe around when they start promoting “Beyond Big Thunder”?
It is quite a profound subject, not as simple as “just get with the times”.
Theme park enthusiasts have been bemoaning the IP instrusion for some time and the voices are getting louder. IP intrusion isn’t, contrary to what defenders say, is nautural and what Walt would have wanted, it’s simply a decision that’s being made by the current media behemoth that Disney is. For whatver commercial reasons they have. It’s nothing to do with improving the quailty of the product.
This article appeared today, which hints at a bit of dissatisfaction in the movie industry about IP intrusion too.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3gglv8y39vo
The key thing is that orignality is disappearing, due to the perceived incessnt demand of the public for IP.
Thibk about that. Originality and creativity, disappearing in the arts. And it’s prpbably the antithesis of what Disney shoud0ld have been about.
Those who are not passionate about the theme park industry do not care about it, they are more concerned on consuming more and more Marvel wherever they can. But some of us do care about what theme parks are and what they stood for. But once the originality has gone from an industry, it is killed off forever.
I am certainly a theme park person/enthusiast/geek/nerd first and foremost. I love the art of the industry, the design, the engineering of the rides, coasters, dark rides, the immersion,attention to detail, rides and attractions of all thrills and levels. Disney have always been at the top of the theme park game. But I have zero interest in princesses, cartoons, movies, celebrities etc. This is an entirely different industry. (And let me ireiterate, Disney and Disneyland of course incorporated Disney media, but the cruciail thing is that it was never ALL about that. It was just one part of Walt’s passionns). So that’s why it’s frustatng to us who love the theme park industry seeing it overtaken by another. It all becomes samey, if I want to ride attractions about cartoons, I can go to Six Flags. Disney is supposed to be something different. Especially EPCOT. Read its dedication plaque. How does, for example, Ratatouille relate to that? The beautiful concept that is/was EPCOT is veing lost and forgotten in the pursuit of po0 culture and small childten.
No, I am not surprised by the declarion. It’s par for the course for an industry and art form in decline.
I honestly would’ve rather they just made a Gusteau’s restaurant, maybe with some animatronic rats interacting with diners throughout the day, or a Kitchen Kabaret style dinner show hosted by Remy. RRA is a fun ride, but it doesn’t fit with the culture & heritage theme of World Showcase
Tom, my only quibbly-bit here is your apparent dislike of the newest Haunted Mansion film. I rather enjoyed it!
And it has been a very long time since I’ve seen this level of expressed displeasure for one of your articles. I think you touched an IP nerve with some folks!
My thoughts on the IP investment debate are like this: Build it, bring it, bat it out of the park! Something is better than nothing, be it slapping Stitch on the Autopia, or building Generic Land For Generic Land’s Sake Land! Selfishly, I want to see Marvel all over the place at WDW, but current contractual legalities somewhat prevent that.
2024 is not 1955, nor is it 1971. That Jungle Cruise ship has sailed. Best to enjoy the reality for what it will have to be, instead of lamenting an unreality that can no longer be. Or something like that.
they’ve saturated the market with Marvel, and it’s slowly killing them
Am I surprised? No. Am I sad about WDI’s current path? Absolutely. There is a HUGE disconnect happening here. Tom, I get what you’re saying 100%. I’m not anti-IP or anti-movie tie-ins either. I think there’s a place for them. I just want a healthy balance.
Well, they can’t exactly use Disney IP at Sea World, so if it’s going to go anywhere, it should probably go at WDW. And Disney IP is pretty much the ONLY thing Disney can put in its parks that nobody else has, so…yeah. Also, I think one reason why a lot of those classic original attractions exist is because Disney just didn’t have as much IP to choose from in the 1960s – 1980s. Space Mountain had to be original, because what sci-fi IP did they own in the 1970s?
Erm, the question isn’t WHICH IP Disney should use. The issue being raised is that they SHOULDN’T be going all-IP.
Why would Sea World want to use any IP at all? Why do theme parks have to be based on movie IPs?
And the thing that Disney can put into their parks that isn’t being put into others are ORIGINAL ideas. There are an infinite number of things they could be doing that aren’t in other parks. IP is the only thing that isn’t unique! It’s narrowly tied into pop culture movies and just becomes samey just like Six Flags and Universal when done everywhere. They had a park full of ideas that no-one else had. EPCOT Center. Universal had nothing like it. Nor Sea World. Nor Busch Gardens. Why would you wanr to make it a clone of Epic Universe? That’s what Disney have been doing recently. Hollywood Studios was clone of Universal Studios. Animal Kingdom was a clone of Busch Gardens. They just don’t do things that are unique and unavailable elsewhere any more, so why are you trying to make the case for uniqueness and originality when apparently you’re also against it by trying to make everything a movie-based park?
You’re claiming that Space Mountain is popular and a great ride in spite of the fact that it’s not tied to a movie? So doesn’t that make the case for having original attractions? Not that more recent examples of inappropriate IP insertions have been spectacular failures: Harmonious, Galactic Starcruiser, even Galaxy’s Edge hasn’t been globally praised.
Let me ask you, why does a theme park have to be all about movies? I can think of dozens and dozens of examples that aren’t.
Disney had plenty of IP to make attractions from, even going back to the 50s, never mind 60s to 80s. Disney chose not to, he created Disneyland to be many things, there was a cartoon/fairytale/movie land (Fantasyland), but there were also lands purposely and delilberately not based on IP but on his other passions, such as technology, adventure, transport etc. There was no feeling that every attraction had to be IP-based. It doens’t make sense.
You make some great points, but they actually make the case for original attractions, not IP.
I picked Space Mountain as an example because it both makes the case for original attractions, while also showing why they don’t really do original attractions anymore. If Star Wars existed back then, Space Mountain probably would have been Star Wars all along, for better or worse. I’m not against original attractions. I’m just not surprised they’ve shifted away from them.
Then they should try using ACTUAL Disney IPs, instead of driving themselves billions into debt by leaching off the creative work of other studios.
1. Tangled only has a bathroom dedicated to it.
2. They’ve been sitting on the Muppets for over three decades and have never done anything with them.
3. Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, and Aladdin — the three films that revolutionized the studio — only have a glorified meet & greet; a twenty plus year old stage medley; and the exact same flat ride as Dumbo on the other side of the same park
4. Stitch’s Great Escape was hated by everyone, but that didn’t mean they have to never try anything with the movie again
5. The old Life pavilion has been abandoned for years. Either build the stupid “Play” pavilion you’ve been yapping about or do something else!
6. Animators Courtyard is a dead zone. Mickey & Minnie’s should’ve gone there instead of gutting the original centerpiece.
7. DinoLand was only half finished, and they never cared enough to finish it.
8. Planet Watch is great in theory, but they should offer a behind the scenes tour
sorry, this really went on longer then I expected
Pretty much. It made a lot of sense to acquire Pixar, and I get why they bought Marvel and Lucasfilm. 20th Century Fox…I’m still not sure about that. But, yeah, their approach to implementing IP-based attractions in the U.S. parks has been a little frustrating.
I never got to ride The Great Movie Ride, but I’m really surprised they didn’t just plus it up with a few new scenes and animatronics. Runaway Railway definitely could have gone in the Animation Courtyard.
Tangled needs more than a bathroom…Frozen needs a ride system and a building that was made for Frozen…ditto Finding Nemo…Moana needs more than Journey of Water…Inside Out needs more than a flat ride…Coco and Encanto are taking way too long…and did they just forget about WALL-E…? A dark ride in Tomorrowland should have been obvious. There is a whole ride system right there in the movie!
PLEASE no more Star Wars or MCU! Build them their own park I you must, but stop sacrificing actual Disney based attractions for whatever the latest trend is!
Certainly using IPs in theme parks CAN be a smart business decision (who am I to argue with the crowds thronging the Wizarding World of Harry Potter?). However, the thing that bothers me most about Disney’s use of IPs is that it seems to go well beyond reasonable bet hedging to almost a weird ideological commitment. I mean, how many people have ever said anything like:
“Hey, Maybelle, load up the car! Disney World’s building a land themed to James Cameron’s AVATAR!”
“Well, I hadn’t been sold on a Disney vacation until I found out they were adding static Incredibles figurines to California Screamin’. Now I can’t wait!”
“A medium-intensity roller coaster in Hollywood Studios… meh… but what is that you say? It’s shaped like Slinky Dog from Toy Story?! Well, who could resist THAT? Let’s book a five-day vacation immediately!”
So, yes, IP-related stuff tends to be bland as all get out and familiarity and recognition are astonishingly weak emotional payloads for most people older than 4, but I could credit the occasional IP-insertion responding to actual guest demand for cynical, soulless-executive sorts of reasons. Businesses have to business, and little kids have to hear “Let it Go” for the 40 billionth time. But a lot of their IP additions are completely baffling. What in the world are they thinking?
If there was enough room in the budget for Pixar Pier, Up in the bird show, and that awful singalong in the France pavilion, seems like they could’ve scraped together enough for an occasional original C ticket somewhere. I don’t know. But IP insertion must be total, I guess.
the difference with Universal is that Rowling oversaw the entire design of Hogsmeade and Diagon Alley. She wanted it to be an immersive experience, and she wanted it to conform to how she envisioned those environments.
Disney, on the other hand, just threw up some vaguely genre buildings and slapped a Marvel or Star Wars logo on it, and call it immersive.
Now to be fair, while the rides in Toy Story Land are pretty generic, they did take the time to make it look like something Andy would’ve designed. And while I will never recognize 20th Century IPs as being truly Disney, Avatar does fit the theme of conservation that’s supposed to be central to the rest of Animal Kingdom.
what else are they going to use? promote another company’s products? what a long-winded article from someone who does not understand the business world
Wild to complain about the length of an article you clearly did not read.
Ignore the author’s comment. You’re right. I made it 75% through the article before my soul died. So much written, so little said.
I read the article and I realized half way through the author did not respect the reader’s time so I decided to start reading about some lady using an adult toy and walk around the park unnoticed. I wonder if she would turn up her toy at certain IP attractions? We may never know just like the point of this article.
I honestly think that WDI no longer has the creativity to think of new concepts. they’ve probably been stifled for so long, not allowing any creativity to flow. Look at all the latest Pixar movies in comparison to Puxar BEFORE being bought out by Disney! Disney couldn’t hack it with their own movies, so they had to buy the competition. Instead of elevating the Disney brand with great movies that made Puxar a household name, it just lowered the quality of Pixar down to Disney”s level. So sad! I don’t forsee them EVER producing unique non-ip rides again like Wald did. They just don’t have the ability or the drive.
Imagineering isn’t infalible, but they’ve created some great stuff of late. Just remember that they don’t have complete creative control to make whatever they want or limitless budgets. In terms of original attractions, Mystic Manor is still relatively recent–this generation of attractions–and it’s practically flawless.
Disney World definately deserves some of the extraoridnary lands seen in Paris, Hong Kong and Tokyo. I feel kind of robbed when I see Frozen Land, the Tangled ride and Beauty and the Beast ride. Adding these types of lands and rides alond will a Villains land Coco and Moana rides is exactly what is needed in Florida. I also would live to see more of Tinkerbell.
A Moana dark/boat ride with motion and screens would be awesome! Ambushed by kakamora, a run in with Tamatoa, some stormy weather…instant classic
There is a rumor circulating that a Moana boat ride may be coming to Adventureland at MK— there’s not a huge amount of available space and my mind immediately went to the new TDR Peter Pan ride Tom reviewed over the weekend— sounds like something that would be amazing for some run ins with Maui and Tomotoa and a medley of the catchiest songs (and hopefully a quick visit to Moana’s home isle)…but I’m sure my kids will go wild for any ride with Moana and Tomatoa.
Good stuff, Tom. You nailed this. From the beginning, Disneyland was a blend of celebrations of the movies Disney made (not of the franchises they bought) and original fare. (I’m not sure, however, why you don’t like Toy Story Land, which doesn’t have bad theming and offers two awfully strong attractions.)
I don’t dislike Toy Story Land, I just don’t think it’s particularly great–especially compared to what it could be. The concept of playing as toys in a backyard is perfect for a theme park, and would lend itself to an awesome play area (like the old Honey I Shrunk the Kids one) plus a variety of attractions and themed shops, etc.
I get that it was happening alongside other DHS expansion and wasn’t the main add (and was budgeted accordingly), but there were also unforced errors–lack of shade, shops, dining, seating, etc.
I agree with Tom – Toy Story land is poorly designed. It took away the play area (Honey I Shrunk the Kids) and put up big toys that children CAN’T TOUCH. My children found it overall disappointing – especially since babies and toddlers are carried or pushed in a stroller everywhere they go. Getting on a ride isn’t as much fun as getting to a playground and running around and playing.
My toddlers far preferred the Winnie the Pooh playground in Magic Kingdom over the new Winnie the Pooh ride. It was really fun to run into the tree where Pooh lived, etc. It’s not as much fun just looking at things.
IP-focused direction feels cheap. Newer lands and additions like toy story feels like I’m at a value resort. original non-IP attraction have always been extremely successful so why give up on what made the parks so spectacular? And the newer movies like Encanto and Tangled etc. suck..they just don’t compare to what came before. so…I’ll just plan to enjoy what’s left of Disney while it lasts.
Fantasy Springs is an IP-focused land, and it’s the most expensive ever. Cars Land was likewise costly, and is great. Galaxy’s Edge isn’t perfect, but it was a big swing and I think it still has a lot of untapped potential for greatness.
Toy Story Land certainly isn’t my favorite, but pretending that every IP land is like that is disingenuous. To each their own, though, because I also think Tangled is excellent. Probably not the example I’d give of recent movies that “suck.”
Hear, hear. I was too old for Tangled when it was released and only discovered it through my daughter— I think it might be the most underrated princess film of all. I can’t imagine anybody hating it without hating basically everything that came after the time they were 10-12 years old.
my view, the significance of delivering the most memorable moments of a film should outweigh the importance of branding and intellectual property.
The synergy and connection among films, theme parks, and audiences not only reflect the enduring appeal of characters and movies but also determine their ability to withstand the test of time.
Take Tomorrowland at Disneyland, for instance. Despite lacking a distinct identity, it has become a resting place for intellectual properties that may not necessarily belong there yet are present, such as Star Wars and Pixar. However, I believe that Iger fails to grasp the essence of the matter entirely.
Walt Disney’s ability to draw inspiration from stories and make them his own without relying solely on acquiring intellectual properties highlights a set of skills that the current management is incapable of replicating. Creativity and imagination cannot be replaced by simply repeating the same formula repeatedly, as it will eventually lose its appeal.