Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

    Originally posted by frollofan View Post
    Exactly, Disney should be the leader rather than follow the leader.
    Very well could be, toonaspie.

    Because at one time, Disney was the leader.
    Well, at least when it came to original entertainment.

    Universal was pretty one-dimensional....movie based.
    Magic Mountain was pretty one-dimensional...a non-themed amusement park.
    Both were good. And both served their own purposes.
    But did they really compete with Disney?

    Disney was off on its own very special tangent, and both parks, I would assume, respected that. And didn't pretend to be Disney.

    As for Disneyland? Yes, there were movie-based attractions in Walt's park. But there was a lot more dimension to the park too. And this was special.

    Someone posted a list of movie-based attractions at the parks, and interesting to see how the larger percentage of movie-based attractions started to increase markedly in the mid/late 80s ....and hasn't slowed down since.

    The paradigm shift had begun....and continues.

    Unfortunately, as this shift continues though, the lines will continue to blur between Disneyland and Universal, IMO. And if Disney is watching what USH is doing, then they have become the follower.

    With Universal being the movie-based park, Disneyland will now be seen as following their lead. They will be inevitably compared to Universal now in everything they do.

    Who would have ever thought that would happen?

    Until we see something original that is not movie-based, those lines will blur even more.

    The audience at Disneyland seems to like that though. The numbers of visitors are so hefty that Disney sees this as a high-five, and will continue the trend, I'm sure.

    There are a few of us on here who remember how Disneyland, at one time, was more than a movie, but newer generations will be less likely to relate to that, nor will they want it necessarily.

    By going the Universal route, Disney is now the follower. Or if not the follower, at least the competitor.
    Universal was always the movie based park in Southern California. Magic Mountain was more about rides in a less themed environment.
    Disneyland was the multi-layered experience that had it all. And it took creativity to another dimension.
    Unless they do revert back to their old ways, in at least a more balanced way, we'll start to hear about how Disney put in another (movie-based) attraction....and it will instantly be compared to the latest spectacle USH has put in. The two will be competitors, rather than having Disneyland as the preeminent entertainment experience that set itself apart from the others.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

      Markets change and companies need to adapt to the new market or die off. Disney could and is in my opinion still creative, but if the market is wanting rides and attractions based on movies, then that is what Disney must do, and it appears that the market does want these sort of attractions over original ones not based on a movie.

      Disney isn't dumb, they do extensive research of the market and they know their market better then anyone in this forum likely does, and its clear as day people like these attractions, and are paying Disney large sums of money to access them.

      Its not the same market it was 20+ years ago, times change, not everyone does, but if the mass want attractions based on movies, then that is what will be done.

      I only know what I see, and my sisters kids for example, while they like the classic rides okay, they love Carsland and other attractions based on movies they know far more then anything else in the park.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

        Originally posted by jsmith11618 View Post
        Markets change and companies need to adapt to the new market or die off. Disney could and is in my opinion still creative, but if the market is wanting rides and attractions based on movies, then that is what Disney must do, and it appears that the market does want these sort of attractions over original ones not based on a movie.

        Disney isn't dumb, they do extensive research of the market and they know their market better then anyone in this forum likely does, and its clear as day people like these attractions, and are paying Disney large sums of money to access them.

        Its not the same market it was 20+ years ago, times change, not everyone does, but if the mass want attractions based on movies, then that is what will be done.

        I only know what I see, and my sisters kids for example, while they like the classic rides okay, they love Carsland and other attractions based on movies they know far more then anything else in the park.

        These are all great points but I also think that people don't know what they want until you give it to them. Nobody was asking for a Haunted Mansion or Pirates of the Caribbean when they were built. Now you can say there was a different market back then and that's why they didn't build these attractions based on movies in the first place. However, I think that if Disney did build some new, great original rides people would come in hoards. They know that but they also know they can make more money playing it safe and piggy backing off the latest smash box office hit with merchandise galore. So now I just hope that when Disney does create new E tickets (most likely all based off movies) that they are immersive, fun, and not copy/ pastes of the movie.
        "How do you do?"

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

          I think using classics such as Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean as examples to show how people will flock to attractions that aren't IP-based is a terrible comparison. The markets are completely different compared to fifty years ago. Both attractions had the uniqueness angle working for them- something that had never been done before. Universal (as we now know it) was not around. Magic Mountain was not around.

          Now, things are completely different and also cost much more. An attraction based off an IP is a brilliant and safe way to ensure that it is practically fail-safe. Even Disney can not afford a $200 million mistake at its flagship parks.

          I say keep tying them to movies as long as the execution is well-done and advances the IP in a good way. Indiana Jones is the best example of this.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

            Originally posted by denyuntilcaught View Post
            I think using classics such as Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean as examples to show how people will flock to attractions that aren't IP-based is a terrible comparison. The markets are completely different compared to fifty years ago. Both attractions had the uniqueness angle working for them- something that had never been done before. .
            If Pirates and HM are not enough, then there are plenty other examples of non IP successes. In addition to Pirates and HM, there is Jungle Cruise, Space Mountain, Thunder Mountain, It's a Small World, the Matterhorn - the headliners of the park that are mostly non-IP. All of those listed still manage to resonate with modern audiences. They can make more of these kinds of rides and still have the potential to be successful, as long as they are done with creativity and quality.

            Now, things are completely different and also cost much more. An attraction based off an IP is a brilliant and safe way to ensure that it is practically fail-safe. Even Disney can not afford a $200 million mistake at its flagship parks.
            What constitutes a non-IP ride automatically being a flop? The Little Mermaid ride and Winnie the Pooh ride were ill received, although they are based on popular movies. If you ask me, non IP based rides are no more risky than IP based

            I say keep tying them to movies as long as the execution is well-done and advances the IP in a good way. Indiana Jones is the best example of this.
            I somewhat agree, but I also think there should be balance in order to satisfy the broadest spectrum of people.



            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

              Originally posted by denyuntilcaught View Post
              I think using classics such as Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean as examples to show how people will flock to attractions that aren't IP-based is a terrible comparison. The markets are completely different compared to fifty years ago. Both attractions had the uniqueness angle working for them- something that had never been done before. Universal (as we now know it) was not around. Magic Mountain was not around.

              Now, things are completely different and also cost much more. An attraction based off an IP is a brilliant and safe way to ensure that it is practically fail-safe. Even Disney can not afford a $200 million mistake at its flagship parks.

              I say keep tying them to movies as long as the execution is well-done and advances the IP in a good way. Indiana Jones is the best example of this.
              If that's the case, then using Indiana Jones isn't a fair example of the success of IP based attractions either. It's an iconic non-Disney film (at the time) made over fifteen years before the attraction was built. That puts it in a unique category. The most apt examples for typical IP based attractions designed by contemporary WDI are Pooh, Nemo, TLM, and Monsters. That's what you most typically get from Disney's IP based efforts. Jones and RSR are aberrations, not the rule.
              The Mickey audience is not made up of people; it has no racial, national, political, religious or social differences or affiliations; the Mickey audience is made up of parts of people, of that deathless, precious, ageless, absolutely primitive remnant of something in every world-wracked human being which makes us play with children’s toys and laugh without self-consciousness at silly things, and sing in bathtubs, and dream and believe that our babies are uniquely beautiful. You know…the Mickey in us.
              -Walt Disney

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                Another thing I would like to add is this. Yes, there have been non IP failures in the past (Rocket Rods). It was just not well thought out in the first place, so it wasn't a high quality attraction. But that should definitely not hinder Disney from stopping from making non IP attractions considering their track record with the classics.



                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                  Attractions based off of existing properties have their place alongside original attractions, thats how its always been. The quality of the attraction is whats important, not its originating story-line.

                  Superstar limo was "Original", but I dont think anyone wants that back
                  There is no right or wrong in this debate. It is simply a matter of perspective.
                  -Dr. Strange

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                    Wonderful thread and great insight and post everyone. Im new to the site and love reading about these topics. Guess thats the reason we are all registered on this site

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                      Originally posted by denyuntilcaught View Post
                      I think using classics such as Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean as examples to show how people will flock to attractions that aren't IP-based is a terrible comparison. The markets are completely different compared to fifty years ago. Both attractions had the uniqueness angle working for them- something that had never been done before. Universal (as we now know it) was not around. Magic Mountain was not around.

                      Now, things are completely different and also cost much more. An attraction based off an IP is a brilliant and safe way to ensure that it is practically fail-safe. Even Disney can not afford a $200 million mistake at its flagship parks.

                      I say keep tying them to movies as long as the execution is well-done and advances the IP in a good way. Indiana Jones is the best example of this.

                      just curious, would Splash Mountain be a terrible example as well? I know, I know, splash mountain is not original. But Id dare to say that 90% of people have no clue that the characters from the attraction are from Song of the South. I think most people would agree that Splash Mountain is a fantastic attraction. So ...Were things that different in 1989 too?
                      "How do you do?"

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                        Originally posted by mickEblu View Post
                        just curious, would Splash Mountain be a terrible example as well? I know, I know, splash mountain is not original. But Id dare to say that 90% of people have no clue that the characters from the attraction are from Song of the South. I think most people would agree that Splash Mountain is a fantastic attraction. So ...Were things that different in 1989 too?
                        Of course they were, different CEO.
                        The Mickey audience is not made up of people; it has no racial, national, political, religious or social differences or affiliations; the Mickey audience is made up of parts of people, of that deathless, precious, ageless, absolutely primitive remnant of something in every world-wracked human being which makes us play with children’s toys and laugh without self-consciousness at silly things, and sing in bathtubs, and dream and believe that our babies are uniquely beautiful. You know…the Mickey in us.
                        -Walt Disney

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                          Originally posted by Uncle Bob View Post
                          Of course they were, different CEO.
                          I meant in terms of cost and the uniqueness argument presented above.
                          "How do you do?"

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                            Originally posted by mickEblu View Post
                            I meant in terms of cost and the uniqueness argument presented above.
                            I was just kidding around, but the reality is that Iger just believes completely in his, "Tent-pole Franchise branding strategy." Construction is more expensive, materials cost more, and now there's the ADA and stricter earthquake codes. But ticket prices have more then made up for those increases, so I don't think that's why there's a reluctance to build original ideas. I think that has more to do with cross marketing popular brands and in some ways the at least perceived lower risk associated with these franchises. As well as the belief among some of the management that it was mainly the lack of movies that made DCA fail.
                            The Mickey audience is not made up of people; it has no racial, national, political, religious or social differences or affiliations; the Mickey audience is made up of parts of people, of that deathless, precious, ageless, absolutely primitive remnant of something in every world-wracked human being which makes us play with children’s toys and laugh without self-consciousness at silly things, and sing in bathtubs, and dream and believe that our babies are uniquely beautiful. You know…the Mickey in us.
                            -Walt Disney

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                              I would love walking through the Star Wars world... I guess that is why, the movies capture our imagination and they (Disney) bring it to life so we can play in it ;-)
                              Having loved the movie, we are already set up to get (get into) the attraction.... though POTC did work the other way around.

                              I've wanted to see the Tatooine bar since the movie...
                              I love going into hyperspace
                              and I am not the only one......

                              I think it is a smart process.... think about it, Mickey was a movie before he was a park...
                              it is the nature of the beast ;-)
                              they continue to do it because it is a successful system
                              no one is refusing to stand in line for TSM because it was a movie first...
                              they already love the characters or the story line... the movie has passed the test, the ride is half way there (though that does not explain Ariel).

                              really, build the Star Wars land... we will fill it, and eat and shop and have a great time... will the cast members dress as aliens?

                              Isn't it funny, when they made "California", some people disapproved, saying, keep with the "Disney" movie attractions (look at the long lines for Rapids, Soaring....)

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                                I liked the California theme, though I agree it could have been done better. There's a lot to love here, and they would do an idealized version, like Main Street is an idealized Americana vibe. Mountains and trees and Hollywood; Disney's Hollywood would be clean, shiny, and pretty, not like the real Hollywood which is all smoke shops and lingerie stores. Well, there's more to H'wood than that, of course, but walking Hollywood Blvd you see a lot of those and the magic is maybe a little harder to navigate.
                                I pledge allegiance to the Earth, one planet, many gods, and to the universe in which she spins.

                                Comment


                                • #76
                                  Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                                  Originally posted by alphabassetgrrl View Post
                                  I liked the California theme, though I agree it could have been done better. There's a lot to love here, and they would do an idealized version, like Main Street is an idealized Americana vibe. Mountains and trees and Hollywood; Disney's Hollywood would be clean, shiny, and pretty, not like the real Hollywood which is all smoke shops and lingerie stores. Well, there's more to H'wood than that, of course, but walking Hollywood Blvd you see a lot of those and the magic is maybe a little harder to navigate.
                                  Or Main Street for that matter. Oh, wait...









                                  sigpic

                                  I am Sambo, and I endorse this signature.

                                  Comment


                                  • #77
                                    Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                                    Hollywood Blvd is a bit more tawdry than that, I suspect... I forgot they used to have those shops there; before my time in the parks.
                                    I pledge allegiance to the Earth, one planet, many gods, and to the universe in which she spins.

                                    Comment

                                    Working...
                                    X