PHOTOS - Premiere Theater and San Fransisco backdrop are no more

RSoxNo1May 07, 2016

The article speculates that there has been a shift to IP driven attractions come hell or high water. It suggests that there should be a healthy mixture and there is a fear that in the future there will be less original concepts than what were previously in place. Under Iger, I can't think of a new attraction built from scratch that wasn't tied to an intellectual property or properties for the stateside parks. This is a legitimate concern. With that said, the article also states that quality should always win out irrespective of intellectual property or not, and retrofitting an intellectual property rarely, if ever works.

GoofyernmostMay 07, 2016

No, I read it, but, apparently you didn't like my take on it. Suppose you tell me what the point of the article was. What fact it is based on, if any and why I should give a tiny rats butt about it. If the IP is interesting and people want to see it then what exactly is the problem. Is it less entertaining if Disney didn't think of it first, does that make it bad or as I picked up in it sometimes it is a good thing. Someone must make up their mind and tell me is it good or bad and why. Report back to me when you figure it out.

RSoxNo1May 07, 2016

Sorry, I just skimmed your post... so you didn't read it?

Magenta PantherMay 07, 2016

So...you're saying that the innovation, creativity, imagination and risk that Walt and his artists applied to that "19th Century German fairy tale" is exactly equal to Robert Iger's deep pockets? :rolleyes:

GoofyernmostMay 06, 2016

I read it quickly, and honestly the only paragraph that was necessary for those against the IP setup are the last two or so. The rest seemed to contradict itself a lot. Yes, it worked, no it didn't. But, but, it wasn't an original idea. Well, it was someones original idea, just because they weren't on Disney payroll at the time doesn't make it unoriginal. But again, if we look at most of what Walt did they were someone else's idea, he just adjusted it to his own thinking. As the author said earlier, people are more attracted to something that they are familiar with. That doesn't mean that a long shot won't make the list of great. However, if you were to ask anyone that went to EPCOT early on if they came there just to see Imagination, they would have said... see what?? It became a classic because it was good. Good can be done with outside IP's as well. Calling them lazy, is nothing more then a personal opinion, not necessarily fact. What kind of risk is it to spend lot's of money on an IP that was some 70 years old. (7DMT). Wasn't Mission: Space a risk. Wasn't EE a hit, Disney didn't invent Mt. Everest. To me the concern is over nothing at all. Without those ideas Disney would still be producing an endless line of Small Worlds. As for Eisner and his insisting that we get the best... how do you explain the crap this is Imagination #3. It was just slightly better then #2 and worlds away from #1. Hardly, the best they could do. Maybe the best they could do with Kodak's money, but certainly not the best that could be done.

GoofyernmostMay 06, 2016

Maybe so, but, the only ones that I have ever heard about are the ones that immediately jump to the conclusion that you are calling them an alcoholic because they want a drink. However, nothing I can think of is less Disney Theme Park then a contest for drinking. It is probably the saddest thing that ever happened to WDW. It should have stayed confined to Pleasure Island. because you want a drink. I just think that there is a time and a place for everything, and Epcot shouldn't be that time or that place. You're an adult, and your on vacation (not sure what that has to do with anything), but, to me it's like going to church and carrying in a Rum and Coke!

marni1971May 06, 2016

Oh they certainly are!

RSoxNo1May 06, 2016

Read this and report back to me: http://micechat.com/101023-tim-grassey-addicted-easy-money/

GoofyernmostMay 06, 2016

To be honest, no, it isn't really a huge difference, but, I was referring to the general hatred of IP as if ever single thing in the park is not some sort of IP. Some are generated by Disney and others are purchased from others, but, IP's they are. As far as the mixture of Frozen with Norway is concerned, I'm starting to get the impression that this is a problem for a few people that have an indelible image of what Disney should be and it is based on the past. At this point in time it is impossible for me to see why staying the way it was is or will be beneficial to World Showcase. As it was, the place was dying on the vine and was being artificially held up by Flowers, Food and Booze. I don't know if this will help, but, I do know that it is going to bring a new life to Epcot that isn't related to drinking. People get upset about Frozen, but, for some reason that I cannot understand no one seems to be bothered by the concept of "Drinking around the World". If you want something that smacks in the face of anything that was imagined for a Disney Park that would be the poster child. Yet, hardly a word is ever mentioned. If we could save World Showcase by filling it with IP to get rid of the party till you puke promotions, it would be a wonderful thing.

marni1971May 06, 2016

There's a difference between IP haters and those who recognise when an IP is unsuitable for a given ride / location.

GoofyernmostMay 06, 2016

Please keep that quiet. We wouldn't want to burst the little fantasy bubble that the IP haters are living in. They might require hospitalization.

HauntedMansionFLAMay 06, 2016

I've always find it interesting when people talk about " What Walt created " and have no idea that they are classic literature. Most of the authors were dead which lead to the showdown with PL Travers. Iger is just doing what Walt did years ago.

ItsOnMay 06, 2016

Meh to SWL

BaconApr 15, 2016

No IPark like IP