Disney no longer coming up with original ideas for rides

[Astridia]

Hence...it got built

Exactly. It's also the reason it will probably never come to the US. Unless of course, Bob Iger is gone and the new management team sees value in guest satisfaction.

 

[rteetz]

Yes, but funding for the ride came from Honk Kong not from Disney.

Exactly so with the funding WDI can still do things like that.

 

[rteetz]

Exactly. It's also the reason it will probably never come to the US. Unless of course, Bob Iger is gone and the new management team sees value in guest satisfaction.

Mystic manor is their version of HM so that would be the biggest reason why it wouldn't come.

 

[Elizabeth&ColinsDad]

One must remember that they made several movies off of rides that have been classics at Disney, that were once generic....

Pirates
Haunted Mansion
Tomorrowland

So there is room on both sides of the drawing board...

 

[davish562]

Thrill rides will always be popular. I think the OP was talking more about dark rides.

Yes, I was talking about rides like IASW and Haunted Mansion

 

[yitbos96bb]

Because if they build they’re going with things that will help keep toys and t-shirts flying off of the shelf. New attractions that have no back story won't make that happen.

Attractions by themselves don’t generate profit per se, meaning that regardless of the attraction’s impact or cost the guest is still paying a hundred bucks to come into the park. Naturally Disney can simply raise the price of admission to offset the cost, but they'd rather do that each year anyway and not add anything. The key is having you leave with lots of shiny blue shopping bags.

Keep in mind that it's not always Disney movies that work is based on. Avatar is on the horizon. If successful this will have a far more reaching impact, especially if the financial angle of Fox/Cameron helping out turns out to be true. At that point all bets are off. Any IP that wants to rent out a space in one of the four theme parks to take advantage of Disney's influence and built in customer base will be lining up. It's like the Superbowl commercials...you want your product to be seen by the biggest number of people.

Sure... WAY before Avatar, American Idol was a great example. That's the most prominent I can think of, but I'm sure others exist.

 

[Mateo]

I think the the issue is not "original Vs IP" the true issue is "a good attraction Vs one that's just okay." Unfortunately I feel that they Are relying on the popularity of an IP based attraction to compenste for an attraction that's not what it should/could be.

 

[I M Fearless]

Yes, I think this is the crux of the issue:

Attractions should be able to self-support whether an IP is linked or not.

Regardless of whether the IP is popular, if an attraction is rubbish, it's rubbish. Stitch sums this up: a well liked, fairly popular IP, albeit not in the princess frenzy league, but certainly not disliked, yet the attraction is a complete flop. There is little to no logical story line and the audience are less than engaged in the attraction.

If an attraction is well designed, has a coherently thought through story, and is engaging with the audience it will be popular whether linked to an IP or not.

Splash is a good example of this, a lesser known, certainly not a highly popular IP, but extremely popular and well loved attraction done right.

Let's face it, Song of the South is hardly driving the popularity of the attraction, nor do many people get off the ride, rush to the gift shop and buy the DVD.

The main purpose of the attraction has to be entertaining guests not selling merchandise.

I think everyone agrees that the IP linked attractions are here to stay, I just hope that they keep in mind that if the attraction is not self supporting they will end up with a stitch not a splash.

 

[rteetz]

Yes, I think this is the crux of the issue:

Attractions should be able to self-support whether an IP is linked or not.

Regardless of whether the IP is popular, if an attraction is rubbish, it's rubbish. Stitch sums this up: a well liked, fairly popular IP, albeit not in the princess frenzy league, but certainly not disliked, yet the attraction is a complete flop. There is little to no logical story line and the audience are less than engaged in the attraction.

If an attraction is well designed, has a coherently thought through story, and is engaging with the audience it will be popular whether linked to an IP or not.

Splash is a good example of this, a lesser known, certainly not a highly popular IP, but extremely popular and well loved attraction done right.

Let's face it, Song of the South is hardly driving the popularity of the attraction, nor do many people get off the ride, rush to the gift shop and buy the DVD.

The main purpose of the attraction has to be entertaining guests not selling merchandise.

I think everyone agrees that the IP linked attractions are here to stay, I just hope that they keep in mind that if the attraction is not self supporting they will end up with a stitch not a splash.

Can you even buy the DVD anywhere? I would also add that a lot of people don't know what the song of the south is and Disney doesn't like to push that movie just look to the shareholder meetings.

 

[wallrock]

Yes, I think this is the crux of the issue:

Attractions should be able to self-support whether an IP is linked or not.

Regardless of whether the IP is popular, if an attraction is rubbish, it's rubbish. Stitch sums this up: a well liked, fairly popular IP, albeit not in the princess frenzy league, but certainly not disliked, yet the attraction is a complete flop. There is little to no logical story line and the audience are less than engaged in the attraction.

If an attraction is well designed, has a coherently thought through story, and is engaging with the audience it will be popular whether linked to an IP or not.

Splash is a good example of this, a lesser known, certainly not a highly popular IP, but extremely popular and well loved attraction done right.

Let's face it, Song of the South is hardly driving the popularity of the attraction, nor do many people get off the ride, rush to the gift shop and buy the DVD.

The main purpose of the attraction has to be entertaining guests not selling merchandise.

I think everyone agrees that the IP linked attractions are here to stay, I just hope that they keep in mind that if the attraction is not self supporting they will end up with a stitch not a splash.

On the subject of Splash Mountain, this goes back to a time when Disney wasn't focused only on getting us through the gates as cheaply as possible then pushing us back out with as much stuff as we can purchase/carry. In today's climate I doubt Disney would construct a Splash Mountain unless revenue and attendance was dropping.

Unfortunately today the main purpose of any construction is to increase merchandise sales, directly or indirectly. That's where the profit is.

 

[Reddog1134]

Another thing about building attractions based on an IP is that the Imagineers are limited in their creativity. They are building a ride within the parameters of the source material.

When building and original ride, they are much more free to "explore".

 

[rteetz]

Another thing about building attractions based on an IP is that the Imagineers are limited in their creativity. They are building a ride within the parameters of the source material.

When building and original ride, they are much more free to "explore".

When they are free they often do some of their best work.

 

[ahoyle]

Another thing about building attractions based on an IP is that the Imagineers are limited in their creativity. They are building a ride within the parameters of the source material.

When building and original ride, they are much more free to "explore".

I might agree with this if Disney had a limited selection of IPs to work with. But given their vast collection, they have something that fits pretty much whatever you want. The only thing limiting Disney is their willingness to do anything. You could say budget, but they have the money. So its only willingness. Name any type of theme park ride in the world, and I bet this board could give you three different ways to theme that to an IP in an hour.

 

[rteetz]

I might agree with this if Disney had a limited selection of IPs to work with. But given their vast collection, they have something that fits pretty much whatever you want. The only thing limiting Disney is their willingness to do anything. You could say budget, but they have the money. So its only willingness. Name any type of theme park ride in the world, and I bet this board could give you three different ways to theme that to an IP in an hour.

Yes they have the money but budgets get cut with Disney. Also IP attraction tend to focus on a single part of the movie. For example mine train focuses on the mine scene of the movie. A non IP attraction has a completely new story line like HM.

 

[Reddog1134]

I might agree with this if Disney had a limited selection of IPs to work with. But given their vast collection, they have something that fits pretty much whatever you want. The only thing limiting Disney is their willingness to do anything. You could say budget, but they have the money. So its only willingness. Name any type of theme park ride in the world, and I bet this board could give you three different ways to theme that to an IP in an hour.

True. They do have a vast library to choose from, but they are still other peoples stories. It would be like writing a review of a book vs writing your own book.

 

[mcjaco]

I've wondered this recently. Most of the new Disney rides are based off of their movies. There has been very few new attractions that aren't based off of movies that are creative. Why does Disney not make rides with a solid backstory like the Haunted Mansion anymore? Why do all the rides have to be based off of Disney movies? Don't get me wrong, Radiator Springs Racers was phenomenal. But I would like to see more rides thought up by imagineers that have a backstory. Please share your opinion!

How many original rides were based off of Disney movies??? Almost all of them.

 

[ahoyle]

True. They do have a vast library to choose from, but they are still other peoples stories. It would be like writing a review of a book vs writing your own book.

But Disney owns the stories and characters. You don't have to select a scene from a movie to turn into a ride. You can create a ride and story that involves the characters that you want to use. Look at how Universal themed a free fall ride to Dr Doom. Nothing about Dr Doom says drop ride. It wouldn't be like Avatar or Harry Potter, where everything has to be done with approval some outside, powerful force. If Disney wants to make a flying coaster themed to Nemo growing wings and flying through the air, they can do it. I wouldnt recommend it, but no one is going to stop them.

 

[Reddog1134]

How many original rides were based off of Disney movies??? Almost all of them.

Do you mean original as in "opening day" or "new idea"? If it's the 2nd one, then your statement contradicts itself.

There were 5 opening day attractions based on existing IP's. They didn't build another in MK until 1992 when they opened Splash Mountain.

But Disney owns the stories and characters. You don't have to select a scene from a movie to turn into a ride. You can create a ride and story that involves the characters that you want to use. Look at how Universal themed a free fall ride to Dr Doom. Nothing about Dr Doom says drop ride. It wouldn't be like Avatar or Harry Potter, where everything has to be done with approval some outside, powerful force. If Disney wants to make a flying coaster themed to Nemo growing wings and flying through the air, they can do it. I wouldnt recommend it, but no one is going to stop them.

I'm not arguing that they can't do a lot with an existing IP. I'm just saying that an original idea has that much more leeway and...originality.

 

[Mateo]

How many original rides were based off of Disney movies??? Almost all of them.

Then there are the rare rides that spawn a movie IE POTC

 

[jedi_howard]

Yes, I think this is the crux of the issue:

Attractions should be able to self-support whether an IP is linked or not.

Regardless of whether the IP is popular, if an attraction is rubbish, it's rubbish. Stitch sums this up: a well liked, fairly popular IP, albeit not in the princess frenzy league, but certainly not disliked, yet the attraction is a complete flop. There is little to no logical story line and the audience are less than engaged in the attraction.

If an attraction is well designed, has a coherently thought through story, and is engaging with the audience it will be popular whether linked to an IP or not.

Splash is a good example of this, a lesser known, certainly not a highly popular IP, but extremely popular and well loved attraction done right.

Let's face it, Song of the South is hardly driving the popularity of the attraction, nor do many people get off the ride, rush to the gift shop and buy the DVD.

The main purpose of the attraction has to be entertaining guests not selling merchandise.

I think everyone agrees that the IP linked attractions are here to stay, I just hope that they keep in mind that if the attraction is not self supporting they will end up with a stitch not a splash.

Good luck finding that DVD! It's been lost in the vault for quite some time.