WDW Magic Kingdom: General Discussion

[jibbsie]

So you haven’t even ridden it yourself?

No I don't haver the money to head out every time disney makes a cheap overlay of an existing ride.

I think Runaway Railway is a great example of adding IP in creative ways. They had a building themed to a cinema so they added a ride where a cinema film comes to life. Just so happens that film stars Mickey Mouse.

... the great movie ride was litteraly supposed to take you into the movies and bring them to life, it deffinatly was dated at its removal, but there were many other themes they cuold have went with.

One roumour I heard was they had a muppets overlay in the plans before the creator of the muppets died, and it sounded legitamatley creative with the muppets trying (and failing) to recreate movies, supposidly showing how the movies would be made, I don't know if it would have felt forced in (like mickies railway) as it never happened and I don't know how they would have intergrated it.

Because Six Flags slap a superhero on a rollercoaster. Universal make themed real life versions of movie events and locations.

Ok, so guests will be attracted to a great experience and themed area, not just the IP

Some might who are big fans. But more will be coming for Mario and Potter. But Paris streets with generic wizard circus wouldn’t have attracted as many people.

Epcot says hello


You also have to consider all of disneys parks are a theme in them selves, animal kingdom is about protecting wildlife and conservation, epcot is was about connecting people bringing ideas and inspiring people, hollywood studios was about movie making, none of these IP integrations work with that and it can be very jaring to go from toy story six flags with fiber glass models (I have been here before you say it) then imediatley into galaxies edge. This can be seen with guardians of the galaxy in california they used to think about how the ride would look through out the park, but no guardians needs to go here, thus lets paint this building to not fit in and be seen from a large amount of the park breaking a lot of immersion.

 

[Matt N]

Ok, so guests will be attracted to a great experience and themed area, not just the IP

The key thing that made the Harry Potter lands so successful is that it brought to life the lands and characters people had watched on film for many years. Had Universal done a Six Flags and built a roller coaster called "Harry Potter's Patronus of Truth" or whatever, I don't think it would have been nearly as successful, because the Harry Potter IP is completely inconsequential to that ride experience; it's purely a name to give the latest, greatest thrill ride. But what Universal did was take the universe from the Harry Potter films and books and bring it to life and allow people to be immersed in that world with those characters. Half of what made the Harry Potter lands so successful was that those worlds had already been introduced to people and ingrained in their conscious, and people had dreamed of seeing those worlds come to life for years and years. If Universal had built "Home-Grown Wizard Boy Land" instead of "The Wizarding World of Harry Potter", it would not have been nearly as successful.

You cite Six Flags' use of IP, but the key difference is that Six Flags is not known for its IP use or the fact that it has Looney Tunes and DC. Six Flags are known for big, awesome coasters and thrill rides and the quintessential American amusement park experience; Looney Tunes and DC are a side accessory. Disney and Universal, on the other hand, are known for their IP use, and the parks are becoming increasingly associated with the IPs of the respective brand. People go to a Disney park and expect Disney IPs. People go to a Universal park and expect Universal IPs, Harry Potter, Nintendo and the like.

The thing that Universal and Disney are primarily known for these days is immersing people in the worlds from their favourite TV shows and films, and letting people be immersed in the universes of their favourite characters. In this day and age, I think people would be disappointed if they went to Disney World and couldn't be immersed in the universes of Star Wars, Marvel, Cars, Disney princesses etc. That may not have once been the case, but people have increasingly grown to associate Disney parks with Disney brands, whether we like it or not.

Epcot says hello

The difference there, though, is that those Parisian streets were part of the wider package of Epcot when it first opened and were never designed to be a draw on their own. If those Parisian streets had been built as a standalone land, they would not have had nearly the same appeal as an equivalent IP land.

You also have to consider all of disneys parks are a theme in them selves, animal kingdom is about protecting wildlife and conservation, epcot is was about connecting people bringing ideas and inspiring people, hollywood studios was about movie making, none of these IP integrations work with that and it can be very jaring to go from toy story six flags with fiber glass models (I have been here before you say it) then imediatley into galaxies edge. This can be seen with guardians of the galaxy in california they used to think about how the ride would look through out the park, but no guardians needs to go here, thus lets paint this building to not fit in and be seen from a large amount of the park breaking a lot of immersion.

The thing with that, though, is that some of the original visions of the Disney parks grew very outdated very quickly.

With Hollywood Studios, for example, the whole premise of the park was to "bring the magic of movie making to life"... a premise that was quickly made redundant by the emergence of DVDs with behind the scenes features and has been made even more redundant by the rise of social media, YouTube and the like. People can see how movies are made by simply watching a DVD, or nowadays by a simple tap of their finger to log onto YouTube or social media. Why would they want to come to Florida to see movie making when they can see it from the comfort of their own home?

I'd also argue that Epcot's original premise has grown somewhat outdated. Future World faces the age-old "Tomorrowland problem" in that tomorrow always comes, and any notion of "the future" quickly becomes outdated. World Showcase has perhaps suffered less, but I still think even the original vision of that is arguably outdated to a degree. It was designed in an era where international travel to faraway lands was far less accessible, so the educational "advert for the country" pavilions format worked. But in an era where international travel is far more accessible, do people really want to go and see a caricatured advert for countries at Epcot when they can easily go and see the real thing? I'd also argue that increasing political correctness has dated elements of World Showcase; as much as it's a lovely area, bits of it haven't been updated in years, and it shows...

Consider this; for quite a few of their parks, Disney has recently had to pump exorbitant amounts of money into them to completely reinvent their identities due to the original premise becoming dated or outstaying its welcome. It happened to California Adventure. It's currently happening with Walt Disney Studios in Paris, whose name has even changed to reflect a totally changed identity. It happened to Hollywood Studios. It's also been happening to Epcot to an extent too.

 

[jibbsie]

'd also argue that Epcot's original premise has grown somewhat outdated. Future World faces the age-old "Tomorrowland problem" in that tomorrow always comes, and any notion of "the future" quickly becomes outdated.

not really, epcots origional rides were quite good, and many would probably be considered clasics like space ship earth (although the energy one maybe not) the thing that acctually dated it was them trying to force IP into it, introducing honey I shrunk the kids, michel jackson and some more, these became quickly dated and dated the rest of the park.

People go to a Disney park and expect Disney IPs.

why was disney ever popular then? it used to have rarely any IP and the stuff that was done was done so well you could barely tell it was an IP, it just worked with the rest of the park.

The key thing that made the Harry Potter lands so successful is that it brought to life the lands and characters people had watched on film for many years

yeah, harry potter worked, because you coule experience the films, etc, and it was a great unique experience.

The difference there, though, is that those Parisian streets were part of the wider package of Epcot when it first opened and were never designed to be a draw on their own. If those Parisian streets had been built as a standalone land, they would not have had nearly the same appeal as an equivalent IP land.

yeah, but it was an example of the fact that people are happy enough to walk round paris streets, or german streets with no IP related parts.

It's currently happening with Walt Disney Studios in Paris

That is because disney were forced to build 2 paris parks, and since euro disney was a disaster when they built the studios park they cheaped out and didn't really try.

Your argument of all atractions must be IP because guests only goes for IP dosn't stand, there are soooo many non IP rides that are extremly popular (everest, space mountain, big thunder mountain, jungle cruse, etc) People don't go to disney for their IP they go for their parks, they go to experience the lands, the unique stories the parks are more like a film telling a story and experience.

 

[jon81uk]

why was disney ever popular then? it used to have rarely any IP and the stuff that was done was done so well you could barely tell it was an IP, it just worked with the rest of the park.

A lot more of Disneyland and the Magic Kingdom is based on IP than you think. Much of Frontierland is inspired by the Davy Crocker TV series. Tom Sawyer island and the Swiss Family Robinson treehouse are based on their respective books and shows. Adventureland takes inspiration from Disney’s True Life Adventures TV series. Yes Pirates of the Caribbean and Haunted Mansion are original concepts, but many overall lands Walt still based on his many different TV shows

but it was an example of the fact that people are happy enough to walk round paris streets, or german streets with no IP related parts.

Back in the early 80s air travel was more expensive, nowadays why go to fake Paris when you can go to real Paris for a similar price?

 

[Plastic Person]

The idea that people visit Disney for the quality of the parks, rather than the IP, has never been entirely true; Mickey Mouse has always had the longest line at Magic Kingdom, regardless of the era or iteration. But I feel it is also rooted in a different era of entertainment, before corporate synergy and IP drove the business of mass media to the extent that it does now. Disney's parks being a special experience is still important, and recent attempts to penny pinch and grind down the 'magic' have been met with deservedly sour reactions. Nonetheless, the company are able to beam more properties into your home than ever, and the reality is, those characters and that storytelling is what people want to see, ride, feel, meet or eat when they spend thousands at the resorts. Even Japan, where Imagineers are given a comparatively blank canvas and the equivalent funds, has deviated from original properties and towards recognisable films and television.

 

[jibbsie]

A lot more of Disneyland and the Magic Kingdom is based on IP than you think. Much of Frontierland is inspired by the Davy Crocker TV series. Tom Sawyer island and the Swiss Family Robinson treehouse are based on their respective books and shows. Adventureland takes inspiration from Disney’s True Life Adventures TV series. Yes Pirates of the Caribbean and Haunted Mansion are original concepts, but many overall lands Walt still based on his many different TV shows

Yeah, but I don't think through the 1990's and 2000's many people would have known about the shows have said I am not bothered by the IP, but am more bothered about how they are doing it, as a lot of the time they just shove it wherever it if it is popular, and then pikachu shocked face when eventually the IP popularity dies down and people aren't intrested in the IP anymore, so stop going to that ride see marvel, in 2019 it looked amazin, but now it has become tired and many people are just fed up of it and stopped watching.

 

[Matt N]

I'm not saying that everything needs to have an IP attached to it, nor am I saying that non-IP entertainment can't be popular.

I'm simply saying that I think the world has changed and what people expect from Disney parks has changed. Nowadays, I think there's a greater expectation for people to be immersed in IP-based worlds at these parks, and I feel that The Wizarding World of Harry Potter and its runaway success was a key catalyst in this shift. As @Plastic Person said, IP is a huge driver these days, far more so than it used to be, and I think people have come to associate "Disney" with those all-important IPs.

All I'm saying is that while enthusiasts might bemoan the fact that Disney is largely going for IP-based attractions, the truth is that I don't feel the portrayal that modern Disney are some sort of boogie-man trying to ruin the parks with IPs is accurate. I feel that they are simply adjusting the product to market demands, and those demands have changed in recent years. Like it or not, people want IPs in the parks to some extent.

 

[Tim]

I think the real issue here is something I touched on when discussing Shanghai Disneyland. We are currently seeing the rise of themed worlds over themed lands. To summarise a themed world is about immersing you in a very specific story, whilst a themed land is a broader themed area that sets the backdrop for many different similar stories. Disney has historically always been about themed lands, and by extension most of Disney's parks have an overarching theme (eg. Magic, Culture, Cinematography, and Animals) that should give every attraction a fitting home.

However IPs and the natural reality of operating a park often don't gel with the latter. Ignoring IPs for a second, let's say a designer has an amazing idea for a new Jungle themed coaster. But all the expansion slots in adventureland have been filled. Not a problem, shelve the jungle idea and rework the theme to the area that has expansion space available.
But when the pitch starts with an IP, and an appropriate place for it isn't available that's how we get Guardians in Epcot or Cars in Frontierland.

Universal don't have this problem as none of their parks focus on anything specific. Island's of Adventure is a number of themed worlds all built around a lake. Epic Universe is an even more extreme version of this, with the hub literally being a space for portals to completely isolated worlds.

The LEGOLAND Parks are an interesting case study as well. The overarching theme is an IP, LEGO. Which in theory means that literally anything goes, so long as it can be made of LEGO of course.

Unfortunately IP lead design is here to stay, as the numbers speak for themselves. I havn't got an answer for how they can fix this, only that I can forsee each parks theme becoming further diluted, until they are dropped entirely. Which personally I thinks a shame.

 

[jibbsie]

I think the problem is that the executives see an IP's popularity, then dictate that they must have a ride in disney world to attract people to the park without considering anything else about the location, the park, or even the story, they just see X box office and want to get it in the park NOW to get toy sales or fast track sales, and BrAnd SynErGy but they fail to realise it may be a stupid idea, and just feel out of place, like a saw thumb. It is the IP leading the ride, not the ride idea leading the IP, it is the reason why quite a few of the rides feel naf, because they just want X IP and don't care how it is done, the reason some turn out good is the imagineers working and figuring out how to cram this IP into the park well.

this can be seen with pandora in animal kingdom, huge box office sales, but no culture relevence and not really much desire to see it but the executives saw the box office and said this needs to be built, and imagineers managed to fit it into animal kingdom (the IP dosn't fit with animal kingdoms vibe or theme about conservation, but they made it work)

 

[tayspru]

this can be seen with pandora in animal kingdom, huge box office sales, but no culture relevence and not really much desire to see it but the executives saw the box office and said this needs to be built, and imagineers managed to fit it into animal kingdom (the IP dosn't fit with animal kingdoms vibe or theme about conservation, but they made it work)

Now now … you can’t just make things up to suit your argument. The whole Avatar IP is literally about conservation

 

[jibbsie]

Now now … you can’t just make things up to suit your argument. The whole Avatar IP is literally about conservation

I wouldn't have considered it that way, more that it was and a alien invasion style movie (humans are the aliens here) with a lot of exploring and description if the avatar people.

Let's not argue about avatar though, I think there are more examples:
Indiana jones at animal kingdom
Encanto at animal kingdom
Guardians of the galaxy at epcot
Frozen at blizzard beach
Frozen in epcot

 

[The_bup]

Personally, the design of theme parks requires spaces like the rivers of America. It’s a nice vista, and you can breathe a bit. I would’ve liked them to maybe sort out Tom Sawyer Island, give it some new interactive elements and a few little flat rides, think carousels and maybe a little car ride. Would it get queues? No. That’s the point.

Linking this back to home, TCAAM is often sited as being ‘underwhelming’ or a ‘waste of money’ because it rarely has a queue. That’s good. There needs to be small things to fill out your day. What did we say about Alton towers needing flat rides again?

It’s important to remember theme parks are meant to be fun, not an endless hellscape of jumping from 60 minute E-ticket to 60 minute E-ticket

 

[jon81uk]

more that it was and a alien invasion style movie (humans are the aliens here) with a lot of exploring and description if the avatar people

A large part of Animal Kingdom is about human invasion. Kilimanjaro safari used to have a plot about elephant poaching, Kali River Rapids is about deforestation.

 

[Tim]

I think the problem is that the executives see an IP's popularity, then dictate that they must have a ride in disney world to attract people to the park without considering anything else about the location, the park, or even the story, they just see X box office and want to get it in the park NOW to get toy sales or fast track sales, and BrAnd SynErGy but they fail to realise it may be a stupid idea, and just feel out of place, like a saw thumb. It is the IP leading the ride, not the ride idea leading the IP, it is the reason why quite a few of the rides feel naf, because they just want X IP and don't care how it is done, the reason some turn out good is the imagineers working and figuring out how to cram this IP into the park well.
...

This is absolutely correct. But you have to remember those executives are not forgetting about the cohesiveness of the themes because they are ignorant. They are doing it because to them it doesn't matter. Their role is to make the Disney company as much money as possible, and adding these IPs is absolutely the best way to do that.

This is why the parks did so well under Walt and early Eisner. Because they had a vision for the parks beyond revenue growth. But it's also worth remember at that time Disney didn't have that many classic IPs, which made developing new content for the parks essential.

 

[Bert2theSpark]

I think a large part of why IPs are so successful in theme parks is because the fundamental of a theme park is environmental storytelling and immersion. Something which forms media is limited by a screen and theatre is confined to its venue.

An IP is much easier to sell as the concept of a “Star Wars Land” is much more distinctive in the public consciousness than “Sci-Fi Universe in which is set around a wide diversity of planets with retrofuturist technology with rich biodiversity and new types of species, oh but there’s a space fascist organisation trying to eliminate space monks”. When an IP is executed well it allows for the vivid imagination of your average parkgoer to conceptualise and realise what they’re buying.

The trend over the past two decades has been towards heavier environmental storytelling whether that be Hogwarts or the Isle of Sodor. There have been many egregious instances of IP ruining what was there before, but that’s lazy design on the designers’ part. However broadly, the increase of IP has sold environmental storytelling to the public, and turned the industry away from the higher, taller, faster coaster wars with a concrete jungle that can be amusement parks.

 

[jibbsie]

Their role is to make the Disney company as much money as possible, and adding these IPs is absolutely the best way to do that.

Is it though? Something I think they have wrong is chasing small term profit but ignoring the late term loss that it will incur, we are seeing this over all the parks, Cheap additions to get a quick buck then cut staff and try to reduce operating costs by closing old rides.

For instance expedition everst assuming it lasts mechanically can last for decades with that theme and structure costing very little, just requiring maintanence but an ip will become irrelevant and will need to be changed each change costing millions of dollars. When done well the ride can outlast the ip (see tower of terror)

On top of this they currently are trying to add many things that just try to collect pennies from guests like the cheap fast pass system which was (not sure on the new system) essentially made to be so accessable that you had a payed line and free line.

Brand relations is like a cliff, you can take steps towards the cliff making changes like reducing staff, cheap additions etc and nothing seems to change but people start to get resentfull (i paid x amount and now have to pay how much just to get on the ride due to fast pass etc) eventually you step off the cliff and your brand reputation plunges and you have to climb that cliff back up which is not easy and reverting to what you did is still going to result in much less guests.

 

[Tim]

I get what you are trying to say about IPs having a limited life. That definitely applys to most of Universal's IPs as we've seen. Especially given that most of them are licenced, and there comes a point that the cost of licensing outways the benefits of keeping them.

But Disney are different. They have a vast library of IPs they own. And in the case of these recent announcements I'd class most of these IPs as evergreen.
Monsters Inc is not a recent IP (20+ years), but everyone wants to see the door coaster brought to life. Lion King is 30 years old, but it's still as popular now as it has ever been. Cars... we can debate on, as I don't know why it's so popular, but again it is nearly 20 years old and still popular. I think kids just really like talking vehicles (See also Thomas).
Even something like Encanto which is a relatively new IP, has that Disney classic prestige that'll ensure it remains popular.
It's only the Marvel stuff I can see being high risk, not because I think Marvel are going anywhere, but because I can see those films doing a Doctor Who and reinventing themselves in a few years time. That will be a problem.

As for your point of them being done on the cheap and cost cutting. Yes, that is a management issue. But It's kind of a whole different discussion to if IPs are good or bad. Anything can be bad if improperly funded.

 

[Bones]

Personally, the design of theme parks requires spaces like the rivers of America. It’s a nice vista, and you can breathe a bit. I would’ve liked them to maybe sort out Tom Sawyer Island, give it some new interactive elements and a few little flat rides, think carousels and maybe a little car ride. Would it get queues? No. That’s the point.

Linking this back to home, TCAAM is often sited as being ‘underwhelming’ or a ‘waste of money’ because it rarely has a queue. That’s good. There needs to be small things to fill out your day. What did we say about Alton towers needing flat rides again?

It’s important to remember theme parks are meant to be fun, not an endless hellscape of jumping from 60 minute E-ticket to 60 minute E-ticket

Agree with this

People are forgetting what makes a theme park a theme PARK, Look at Epic Universe opening and how beautiful Celesial Park is going to look? Now can you imagine if they'd not bothered and just had land portals going off a lacklustre centre piece?

Imagine Alton Towers without the Gardens etc

This is something Disney are forgetting, they are that scared of Universal that their only reaction is to build more IP's and doing so taking away some of the elements of the park that make it one of the most special parks in the world, For the Rivers of America area it's not a mad busy place but thats why it was so good, a nice chilled place near water to take a breather in the Florida heat and get away from the big crowds, It just screams cost cutting when Epic Universe and Tokyo disney have both shown that if you spend the money you will build something special

Sure more IP's will bring the crowds in but at what cost? The parks will be busier short term but will Disney lose some of what made their parks so good in the first place ?

 

[Graeme]

Hang on, we are criticising Disney for using too much IP in their Parks?

Have you seen Epic universe, that’s literally just IP and it looks like one heck of a decent park.

I don’t blame Universal or Disney going down this route, people relate to the IP and know it. It draws them in.

When Walt created Disney, there wasn’t internet, streaming on demand, Disney wasn’t a household name, people didn’t know the brand.

Now, they’re right to use popular IP to get the visitors in my opinion. It’s what people know and enjoy.

 

[Tim]

I agree Graeme, but I also think Epic Universe is a better way of doing an IP park because it is anchored by Celestial Park. It gives a reason as to why all these conflicting IPs can exist in one space. To a lesser extent so does Islands of Adventure (each world is an island) and to an even lesser extent any studio park (each area is a different film set). Essentially this has always been Universal's thing.

But the Magic Kingdom is based around the principle that "Here you leave today and enter the world of Yesterday, Tomorrow, and Fantasy". It's identity is based not around a central land, but the whole park representing Yesterday (the left side), Tomorrow (the right side), and Fantasy (the middle).
Villains Kingdom can just about be classed as Fantasy being at the back of the park. But cars is taking over the area of Yesterday. Which does effect the core identity of the park.

Now personally I can live with that because I'd love to see Magic Kingdom differentiate itself from the original Disneyland. But I think there are limits to what IPs they can put where (unlike at the above mentioned parks) and the Cars area is definitely... a choice...