On June 18th 2010, The Wizarding World of Harry Potter changed the way that people think about theme parks. J.K. Rowling created a world that was all encompassing and Universal Creative reproduced it as an entire land devoted to a single intellectual property. It remains a remarkable achievement, but it very well may have been a harbinger for change that no theme park fan should encourage.
The success of The Wizarding World of Harry Potter resulted in a tidal wave of intellectual property based projects at both Disney and Universal parks nation wide. I fear this is more than a trend and is quickly becoming the new normal. Historically, Disney has thrived with a mixture of attractions based off original concepts as well as intellectual property. Conversely, Universal has remained consistent with its line of intellectual property based attractions with only a handful of exceptions over the years.
I fear this trend is resulting in wholesale changes to the creative pipeline at Disney. Projects are being pushed through development because an executive insists on getting a new brand into the parks quickly. A ride based on a popular intellectual property is an easier sell to accountants because it’s easier to market and the adjacent gift shop can be used to supplement the cost.
As we spend money at the parks on new attractions that are based on known intellectual property and brands, the likelihood of their success is greater. So when we increase Toy Story’s presence or other Pixar presence, when we put Frozen in the parks, when we grow Star Wars presence, which we will do significantly, when we do it with Princess, for instance, you’re going to see, I think, basically better bets being made that pay off, that are more likely to pay off for us than some of the bets that were made in the past. – Bob Iger, Quarter 3, Fiscal Year 2014 Earnings Call
On the whole, there is nothing wrong with intellectual property based attractions. The problem is that in many cases these attractions appear to be “book report” attractions or “best of” attractions. They adapt one medium of entertainment (typically film) and reconfigure to a new medium of entertainment (attraction/ride). Comparatively, an attraction created out of whole cloth is created in the original medium in which it is intended.
Having said all that, both Disney Imagineering and Universal Creative represent the best of the best at what they do. They can take an existing intellectual property or a blank piece of paper and create great things. I just want to see them continue to use those blank pieces of paper.
From an executive standpoint, the appeal of intellectual property based attractions is simple, almost child like. Look at the type of attractions that children gravitate towards. They move towards motion that they can see. They prefer spinners, tea cups and Primeval Whirl. Even the more complex attractions that they enjoy contain visible motion before riding like Big Thunder Mountain Railroad or the Seven Dwarfs Mine Train. They gravitate towards these things because they understand them. There are no surprises to them. Comparatively, children shy away from something like Space Mountain because it’s in the dark. They go with what they know and what they can comprehend.
In many respects, adults are the same way; we just gravitate towards different things. In the end though, we still gravitate towards what we understand. As adult fanbois, we want Beastly Kingdom because we’ve seen concept art and heard what the attractions would have been. It’s a concept that we think we understand. We fear Avatar because there is a significant unknown in the form of a ride system we don’t understand. We try to minimize it by boiling it down to its simplest component (a screen) and call it, “Soarin’ on Steroids”. It’s lazy thinking.
For other reasons, we’re dismissing Frozen because we’re thinking it’s going to use a similar flume as Maelstrom and therefore be of the same quality level as an attraction that most regarded as mediocre. I have every expectation that as an attraction, it will be better than Maelstrom, however I look at character infusion as the laziest form of Imagineering. It’s forced by executives who fail to understand appropriate placemaking and think cohesion and synergy mean the same thing.
When a character or brand is infused into an existing attraction or facility it is typically a lateral move at best. Shoehorning a franchise where it doesn’t belong has rarely worked from a quality standpoint.
Quality is the best business plan.
-John Lasseter
Regardless if an attraction is based on an intellectual property or not, quality should always win. If on September 20, 2011 Disney announced that they were partnering with James Cameron to create a new land in Disney’s Animal Kingdom featuring mythical animals, fanbois would have been intrigued and excited. Instead, because this land was tied to an intellectual property that some disliked, there were mixed feelings. In the minds of the cynics, the land was reduced to the worst components of Avatar.
The best intellectual property based attractions can exist beyond that intellectual property. Splash Mountain is among the best attractions in the world, but Disney has buried the source material so far into the Disney Vault that the only known copy is in the laser disc collection of the grandfather from Carousel of Progress.
I welcome intellectual property based attractions, but the Disney parks need both. Frozen doesn’t fix Epcot any more than Finding Nemo did. Intellectual properties have a place where they’re appropriate and that place isn’t World Showcase or Future World. The approach of thrusting a franchise where it doesn’t belong is lazy and short sighted. It preys on familiarity over quality and it’s a problem that extends beyond the theme parks.
This also happens in Hollywood where any recognizable brand name gets fast tracked through a team of non-creative executives. The last blockbuster live action movie that had a 100% original script was Inception. Simply put, original ideas aren’t safe. Disney’s movie studio subscribes to this theory as evident by the lineup of sequels and live action remakes that rely on brand recognition.
The following animated movies are in development at Disney/Pixar
- Frozen 2
- Finding Dory
- Toy Story 4
- The Incredibles 2
- Cars 3
The following live action movies are in development at Disney:
- Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
- Tron 3 (no title yet)
- The Jungle Book
- Beauty and the Beast
- Dumbo
- Mulan
- Pinocchio
- Winnie the Pooh
For a company that cranks out tent-pole movies, Disney has become increasingly risk averse. From a quality standpoint, sometimes this familiarity works and sometimes it doesn’t. Typically though, these movies make money and that is more important than a quality new product.
Like the studios, Parks and Resorts has become 100% risk averse because they still view the market as mature. The financials are so delicate that they feel they can’t afford the slightest misstep. As Bob Iger said,
“As we spend money at the parks on new attractions that are based on known intellectual property and brands, the likelihood of their success is greater.”
Executives are afraid to take risks, and Imagineers now live to cater to these executives. This means unimaginative, safe projects. Yes, a major Star Wars expansion should have been green lit as soon as the ink was dry on the Lucas contract. But beyond that, fixing Epcot, Animal Kingdom and Hollywood Studios should have been green lit as soon as Disney executives saw the crowds at The Wizarding World of Harry Potter. Typically there isn’t a problem with wanting to “get something right”, but the glacial approach to fixing these parks has resulted in a market share/attendance shift to Universal.
The mindset needs to change. Back when Islands of Adventure was first created the mindset was different. Then CEO, Michael Eisner looked at the competition as an attack on Disney. Second place wasn’t an option. Back in 2001, Jim Hill wrote a series of articles on Disney’s Animal Kingdom and the content is still very much relevant today.
You see, Disney CEO Michael Eisner is a very competitive guy. He hates to lose – at anything. If attendance at WDW started to noticeably slip due to the Mouse losing customers to Universal’s new theme park, Michael would have to do something. Eisner’s enormous ego just wouldn’t be able to handle the idea of Disney being No. 2 in the Orlando market.
So he’d turn to the Imagineers and say: “Make the best attractions you can.”
Not “Make the best attraction you can on a limited budget.” (i.e.: WDI’s recent controversial rehab of Epcot’s “Journey into Imagination” ride. During its three months of operation, the revamped version of that Future World attraction racked up more guest complaints than most shows produce in a year.)
Not “Make the best attraction you can with minimal changes to the pre-existing ride building.” (i.e.: The Magic Kingdom’s “Buzz Lightyear’s Space Ranger Spin” actually runs its ride vehicles along the very same track and layout the building’s previous tenants – Delta’s “Dreamflight” and the unsponsored “Take Flight” – used.)
Not “Make the best attraction that reflects the sponsor’s agenda” (i.e.: Any exhibit you’ll find inside either version of “Innoventions.”)
Just “Make the best attractions you can.” Period.
I don’t know that Michael Eisner ever told the Imagineers to make the best attractions that they can without any other caveats. I’m more confident that Bob Iger never has either.
I fear for today’s Imagineers who are led by guys like Bruce Vaughn. At the 2013 D23 Expo, he was asked about the advancements being made by Universal Creative and his response was, “Bring it on!” I fear he’s just as delusional as the executives living quarter to quarter. It’s been 9 years since Disney tried to “wow” us in Florida with Expedition Everest. While the attraction has its benefits, the signature Yeti animatronic has become nothing more than a giant stuffed animal set beneath a disco ball from the now extinct 8 TRAX dance club.
At Epcot, the two new things going to that park are shoehorning Frozen into an existing facility, and Jerry Rees’ Soarin’ 2.0 project. As an Imagineer, it can’t be easy to get excited about creating with these restrictions. Disney is putting the least amount of effort behind these additions and the result is wholly uninspiring. If they can’t get behind their own innovation, why should fans?
I’m calling for a healthy mixture of original concepts and intellectual property based attractions. The Disney Corporation was built on taking risks, and more often than not the riskier attractions turn into instant classics. As fans, should we encourage any sort of new construction in theme parks, or should we encourage a healthy mixture of brands and original ideas?
This editorial was brought to you by Tim Grassey. Be sure to leave your comments about this article below. Agree? Disagree? Have a different take on the subject? Let us know!
You must be logged in to post a comment.