Tweet
It's no question that Disneyland and the rest of the parks are the most iconic theme parks worldwide. Why the popularity? Is it the environment? Part of that is yes, even though a lot of other theme parks, like the nearby Knott's Berry Farm have good atmosphere that can transport guests into another world. Is it the service? I'd say part of it is yes as a lot of other theme parks were known for having low standards on employees (which thankfully, most places have improved on and are just as good as Disneys). Is it the technology? Also yes, as Disney Imagineering has created spectacular new attraction and show experiences that would become other models for other theme parks to follow. In a combination of these factors, they apply, but many places have all of this.
Disneyland continues to succeed because of the IP and characters. Now theres a lot that can be said about how Disney currently uses it and even debate about whether too much is relied upon IP. But when you get down to it, a lot of people are going to resonate Disneyland better when you see a picture of Mickey Mouse, Darth Vader, Elsa, Captain America, or many of the other timeless characters Disney has created. Families may be excited to come to the happiest place on Earth, but their even more exited knowing that their stepping into the worlds of their favorite stories. Kids are going to awe in joy when meeting the princesses, pirates, and superheroes. They say that nostalgia always sells and people are always going to gravitate towards the warm feelings they were children.
So heres an interesting scenario I wanted to ask: Would Disneyland have still worked if the park had no included any IP?
To get a better idea, here's what I mean. Let's say Tomorrowland has no Buzz Lightyear, No Star Wars, no Finding Nemo...but the same attraction experiences. Let's say Fantasyland had no Snow White, no Mr. Toad, no Pinocchio...not the Disney ones but still had themed dark rides of some sort. Let's say Disneyland didn't even have Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy or anyone of the classic cartoons...but still had nice and attending cast members.
This may seem strange, but we need to remember that in the earliest days of Disneyland, Walt had relied more on the storytelling of the lands and their environments more then he did with his characters. In fact, he originally had planned for Fantasyland to be the only spot where characters from his animated movies would appear and be represented (of course, plans change). But Frontierland was still a frontier. Tomorrowland was a sponsorship showcase, but still tried to appear futuristic. Adventureland was still a jungle. People still loved it and called the park unique and innovative.
It's clear that current management is afraid to try to create attractions and shows on original characters. Some might argue that SWGE has a lot of originality. They are right as the land is techincally supposed to be a part of Star Wars that we haven't seen before, though the land still relies on the nostalgia of Star Wars. Let's say Disney had made up their own sci-fi/fantasy characters just for the park. would it still be popular?
My theory is that while an IP-free Disneyland would still be popular, it wouldn't be the giant powerhouse that current Disney is. People would see it as a nice theme park that's like a better version of Knott's Berry Farm. I think that it primarily be seen a more expensive vacation spot that you see one if your visiting California. AP passholders would probably still be a big thing, though the majority would be like the minority (me primarily lol) who yearn more for the atmosphere of classic Disneyland.
What do you think? Would an IP-free Disneyland still succeed?
Disneyland continues to succeed because of the IP and characters. Now theres a lot that can be said about how Disney currently uses it and even debate about whether too much is relied upon IP. But when you get down to it, a lot of people are going to resonate Disneyland better when you see a picture of Mickey Mouse, Darth Vader, Elsa, Captain America, or many of the other timeless characters Disney has created. Families may be excited to come to the happiest place on Earth, but their even more exited knowing that their stepping into the worlds of their favorite stories. Kids are going to awe in joy when meeting the princesses, pirates, and superheroes. They say that nostalgia always sells and people are always going to gravitate towards the warm feelings they were children.
So heres an interesting scenario I wanted to ask: Would Disneyland have still worked if the park had no included any IP?
To get a better idea, here's what I mean. Let's say Tomorrowland has no Buzz Lightyear, No Star Wars, no Finding Nemo...but the same attraction experiences. Let's say Fantasyland had no Snow White, no Mr. Toad, no Pinocchio...not the Disney ones but still had themed dark rides of some sort. Let's say Disneyland didn't even have Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy or anyone of the classic cartoons...but still had nice and attending cast members.
This may seem strange, but we need to remember that in the earliest days of Disneyland, Walt had relied more on the storytelling of the lands and their environments more then he did with his characters. In fact, he originally had planned for Fantasyland to be the only spot where characters from his animated movies would appear and be represented (of course, plans change). But Frontierland was still a frontier. Tomorrowland was a sponsorship showcase, but still tried to appear futuristic. Adventureland was still a jungle. People still loved it and called the park unique and innovative.
It's clear that current management is afraid to try to create attractions and shows on original characters. Some might argue that SWGE has a lot of originality. They are right as the land is techincally supposed to be a part of Star Wars that we haven't seen before, though the land still relies on the nostalgia of Star Wars. Let's say Disney had made up their own sci-fi/fantasy characters just for the park. would it still be popular?
My theory is that while an IP-free Disneyland would still be popular, it wouldn't be the giant powerhouse that current Disney is. People would see it as a nice theme park that's like a better version of Knott's Berry Farm. I think that it primarily be seen a more expensive vacation spot that you see one if your visiting California. AP passholders would probably still be a big thing, though the majority would be like the minority (me primarily lol) who yearn more for the atmosphere of classic Disneyland.
What do you think? Would an IP-free Disneyland still succeed?
). And now I will go hide in my Disney bunker, after making the 2nd sacrilegious Disney fan comment in recent days(AKA the lackluster history with live action films.)
>
Comment