Is Disney Making Big Mistakes ?

I've been wanting to say this for a while, but the biggest difference between old Disney and modern Disney is that any ride/land that they build could go in any park.

Think about it this way- cosmic rewind, despite being a great ride, could go in tomorrowland, Epcot, any avengers campus, and maybe even Hollywood studios. Piston peak could have gone in DCA, animal kingdom, Frontierland, or even DHS. What I'm saying is any addition could go anywhere because the parks have lost their mission statements. Animal kingdom is no longer about animals, Hollywood studios is no longer about film production. The parks just work as vessels for loosely tied together rides.

Meanwhile, Universal's mission statements all work with their IPs because the parks were set up that way from the start. EU is about traveling to different lands through portals. IOA is about traveling to different islands and their inhabitants. USO is about "riding the movies". All their IPs work (for the most part) because that's what the intention of the parks is.

Anyway, Disney has lost the flow and magic because you're being pulled out of the immersion by Lightning McQueen and Tiana. It doesn't matter where the rides are because Disney stopped caring.

It really depends on how you define a mistake. Some could say that Disney has been making "mistakes" in the 80's and early 90's when they started exponentially expanding. Also, what some would call "mistakes", others would call "evolving". Disney revolutionized the idea of a theme park when Disneyland opened and further refined the concept with MK. Disney then broadened what a theme park could be with future new parks, and what I think we're seeing now is a consolidation of what Disney thinks a theme park should be for the next generation. The concept of a mini-land has taken over their design principles and a way to broaden the appeal of their parks. I tend to agree that what they're doing feels incredibly haphazard and pandering solely to increase revenue potential, but everything is born from compromise. I know it hurts a number of long time fans, but the reality is that RoA was a massive waste of space from an accounting perspective, and its themes present ideas and concepts that are difficult to portray through a modern lens in a simplistic, non-museum-like way. Personally, I think if Disney can replicate the beauty and feel of Radiator Springs with Piston Peak, this new mini-land will be a huge success. Frankly, Cars probably fits better as a RoA replacement than Tianna, and miles better than Villains fits as the first land extending beyond Walt's original design. That's what I don't really understand, because the reality is that Cars is just a modern spin on many of the old-west/frontier stories, but Villains, the land that everyone has been clamoring for and don't seem to have an issue with, is the concept that really disrupts the original plans of the MK.

I actually don't mind GotG:CR at EPCOT, and feel that the attraction fits perfectly with the theme, and even includes callouts to the original concepts of the park. Moana is the new attraction that is counter to the original design not only with the way that is presented, but also its placement within the park.

I do tend to agree that Tropical Americas does not work with DAK, but if WDI can include new animal exhibits to link the new attractions with the original concept, I won't have an issue using Encanto or Indy in the park. DAK has always been heavy handed in the presentation of African and Asian habitats, so bringing animals and settings from South/Central American will actually improve the balance of the park to present the entirety of the animal kingdom while still being "Nahtazoo".

However, I do agree that DHS has completely lost its mission, and unfortunately, I don't think WDI really cares anymore (almost as much as DCA has lost touch with its California roots). There have long been rumors that they've been contemplating renaming the park, and I think it's about time this park drop "studios" from its name to stop the comparisons to the park's original mission/theme and refocus on just presenting randomly assembled IPs.

I think maybe Piston Peak could work, but Villains land is a natural extension of Fantasyland as a sort of "mini land" that you were talking about. Even better, it's not replacing anything, meaning that this land comes at the cost of nothing to the average enthusiast.

While Moana is a bad fit, Guardians is almost worse. The "edutainment" of Epcot is often not looked back upon fondly, this ride could have benefited from a science -based theme. For example, the big bang. A collection of future/space- themed IPs should be Tomorrowland, not Epcot.

And lastly, Disney has made no real announcement of new animal exhibits. Not in the concept art, not in the press release. We'll be lucky if we even see a few alligators.

"Disney has made no real announcement of new animal exhibits. Not in the concept art, not in the press release."

That's right, but that doesn't mean that there won't be at least some exhibits to highlight South/Central American biomes.

I agree that Villains would work as an extension of Fantasyland, but that's not how it's positioned in the park. Thematically, I don't have an issue with Villains in MK, but placing it beyond BTMRR means that you will transition from the western themes of Piston Peak and BTMRR back into Fantasy. Unless they build a pathway behind HM, Villainsland will be completely disconnected from Fantasyland.

Cosmic Rewind does have a bit of an edutainment theme in promoting sustainability. While the overarching concept of an alien world (Nova Corps) establishing a pavilion at EPCOT to promote galactic peace and cooperation is a bit fantastical, the underlying themes are still consistent with the heart of EPCOT. For me, this is as justifiable as using Nemo as a conduit to exploring the world's oceans. Sure, Guardians could also work in Tomorrowland, but the way Cosmic Rewind is presented is perfectly fine in EPCOT.

I find it funny that you compare Guardians to Nemo because that is currently, in my opinion, the worst ride in Epcot. Disjointed scenes that play on noticable loop connected by a slow-moving omnimover. The only reason it could be considered edutainment is because at the end, it lets you into a quality aquarium exhibit. I think the fact that you think that Nemo is an acceptable standard and I don't is telling that we won't agree on Cosmic Rewind anytime soon. To each his own.

I was not aware that Villains might not be connected to Fantasyland, and I agree that it's not going to be a very pretty transition.

And lastly, even if Disney plans on throwing together a few small animal exhibits for Tropical Americas, it's clear that it won't be the focus.

Rob P.: "Only time will tell if this new thinking affects crowd numbers, guest demographics and , ultimately, profits."

Me: And exactly how much time are you talking about? I mean, you seem to have put a lot of thought into this. Where are we landing? 2030? 2070?

In 1998, many fans considered it a mistake to replace Mr. Toad's Wild Ride at Magic Kingdom with Winnie the Pooh. Today, Pooh is the third-highest grossing media franchise.

In 2011, many fans (myself initially included) considered it a mistake to add Avatar to Animal Kingdom. Pandora helped elevate park attendance past Epcot to become the third-highest visited domestic park in America for three consecutive years between 2017 and 2019.

In 2014, many fans considered it a mistake to replace Maelstrom with Frozen. What was previously a ride that was always a walk-on now garners 60 minute waits every day.

At the end of the day, Disney has a lot of smart people working for them who seem to know what their guests want. I don't have to agree with everything they do and the company is certainly not infallible, but let's wait and see what they come up with before declaring something is a mistake.

To be fair I don't think anybody on the planet thought the Frozen ride wasn't going to be significantly more popular than Maelstrom. Many Disney fans lamented that it didn't really have anything to do with the theme of the spot it was being put in, and they thought such a huge franchise should have gotten a bigger attraction and not a rushed re-theme of what was basically a C-ticket attraction in order to quickly take advantage of its popularity.

In regards to Avatar, that was a direct desperation response to Harry Potter. When Disney saw how successful that was and it was being touted as better than Disney by many people, they quickly made a deal with James Cameron to build Avatar (notice the deal was signed right after Potter opened), and then since they were so obsessed with making sure it was better than Potter it took them many years to design and build it and it didn't end up opening until 2017. You could make an argument if Disney "had smart people working for them" they would have started at least working on the Harry Potter response...you know...before Harry Potter opened and not be caught on their heels and desperately trying to respond after it opened. And lets be serious its popular because its Disney-Sea level good, not because its Avatar.

And i'll even go as far to say that Winnie the Pooh, one of the most popular kids franchises of all time, having an 800 riders per hour ride right in the middle of the busiest part of the busiest theme park in the world, wasn't a good decision either. Should have built a dark ride with two tracks while they had the chance. Now they have been stuck with a ride that always gets huge lines that makes it not worth the wait...with all the empty space MK has around Fantasyland they could have easily built something much higher capacity.

Great points everyone! So, again, when are we thinking these "Big Mistakes" will impact the company? Maybe 2042 or 2068? How about 2081?

@TH: I’m guessing probably 2054. Yeah, that sounds good. Gonna surprise my 4-year old daughter with a short 2-day trip next Monday. Can’t wait to hear what she feels are the Biggest Mistakes. Hold for report please.

I'm so upset with Disney that I let my annual pass lapse for a week before I renewed it.

Disney is fine and change is going to happen; some good and some not so good. Whatever does happen, I believe that both Disney and Universal have the formula down for continuing their dominance in the themed entertainment industry.

@Tim: hit the nail square on the head

So, all in all, in direct response to the question at the top of this thread: No Disney is not making big mistakes.

NEXT!

Not quite, TH. I think the lesson is more like: Disney may be making mistakes, but it's impossible to tell as of now because most of what could be considered a "mistake" has only happened in the past five or so years.

NEXT!

The premise here seems to be that dropping IP into the parks willy-nilly is a big mistake, which is simultaneously true and false. It's very true that someone who experienced Walt Disney World in the late 90s to mid 2000s and fell in love with that version probably views the current version of the parks as undesirable, as they've become less and less four distinct entities and more four individual parks that host different collections of loosely related IP. However, for those who had their first visits to the resort in the mid/late 2010s, is this really any different from how the parks have always been for them? If not, it can't really be considered a mistake, especially if the IPs being chosen are those that are likely to drive interest in visiting.

With regard to what is specifically called out in the original post, I agree that properties like Encanto and Indiana Jones don't really fit in Animal Kingdom. To me, the former is more of a Magic Kingdom Fantasyland IP, or possibly shoehorned into Epcot's World Showcase as part of a new South American pavilion, while Indy makes the most sense as an expansion to Hollywood Studios. That said, Pandora broke Animal Kingdom's original theme open and the proposal of Zootopia was met with vitriol from fans despite being an acceptable fit, so what is Disney really supposed to do here? As for Magic Kingdom, this park is not, and should not, be considered an "American history" park by any stretch of the imagination, and as much as it will change the feel, Cars and Villains are much better fits for 2020s Magic Kingdom than what they're replacing. To this day, Cars Land is the most popular section of the Disneyland Resort, and there's no reason to believe the Magic Kingdom version won't be enormously successful. When's the last time people were waiting an hour for the riverboat?

Now, Disney is indeed making big mistakes right now, but those mistakes aren't tied to changing the look and feel of their parks to match modern audiences. Instead, the big mistake is that they're failing to hook that modern audience because so much of their content is missing the mark. If we go back a decade, Disney was routinely outputting at least three "must see" films each year, and usually at least one of those was an original project. These days, they're lucky to get more than one film per year in that category, and I can't remember the last original film they released that wasn't a bomb. On top of that, the cost of everything Disney is up while the quality of the experience across the board is down, so those taking a chance on them now are not seeing something they necessarily want more of, hurting repeat customers and weakening their dominance in a competitive market.

When will we see the impact of this? We're already seeing it to a small degree, but I think we're really going to see the fallout over the next couple decades, especially with regards to the theme parks. It's not a lack of current visitors that Disney really needs to worry about, but an inability to create future visitors. If those visiting as children right now don't form a connection with the place and in turn don't make visits with kids of their own, that's the real threat to Disney's top spot in the themed entertainment industry.

AJ: "If we go back a decade, Disney was routinely outputting at least three 'must see' films each year, and usually at least one of those was an original project. These days, they're lucky to get more than one film per year in that category, and I can't remember the last original film they released that wasn't a bomb".

Me: But you must be willing to admit that is not a problem/trend exclusive to Disney. In your statement (quoted above) you could supplant the name "Disney" with the words "the film industry" and it would be every bit as accurate. And regardless of the accounting associated with a production there's no denying that the Disney studios has ranked number one (gross box office) in eight of the last nine years. If the flicks don't make money that's absolutely not always a way to judge the quality of content. It's just as likely an assessment of financial stewardship when it comes to production costs.

V-Coaster: "Disney may be making mistakes, but it's impossible to tell as of now because most of what could be considered a "mistake" has only happened in the past five or so years".

Me: On this thread it was noted that adding a single track Winnie the Pooh attraction was a mistake. As JT points out "many fans considered it a mistake to replace Mr. Toad's Wild Ride". Dating back to my first round as a CM (1982) people thought opening "EPCOT Center" (deviating from Mr. Disney's original vision) was a mistake. The internet is rife with people who have lamented the closing of 'Horizons' or 'The Great Movie Ride'. People have second guessed Disney's choices since the very beginning. Mr. Disney: “When I started on Disneyland, my wife used to say, ‘But why do you want to build an amusement park? They’re so dirty.’"

So, as I asked in my first post, when will the impact regarding these mistakes manifest themselves?

TH, of course people have always criticized Disney. People have always criticized everything. Every company will always make mistakes. But from a creative standpoint, Disney is making mistakes. Every new addition feels more and more like a corporate mandate. How long will it be before the public feels the same way? I really have no idea what could happen, especially with Universal as a competitor. If I could ballpark it, I'd say ten years, but I have no idea how the new additions from both Disney and Universal are going to affect each other.

And AJ, I completely agree that Disney is starting to lose grip on the film industry as well, especially the animation division. In many ways, it very much matches the theme parks- the loss of originality and the reuse of IPs that have already worked.

V-Coaster: "TH, of course people have always criticized Disney."

Me: No. I said people have claimed Disney has made mistakes for decades. This is refuting your claim that "most of what could be considered a "mistake" has only happened in the past five or so years".

V-Coaster: "But from a creative standpoint, Disney is making mistakes".

Me: If you say so.

V-Coaster: "Every new addition feels more and more like a corporate mandate".

Me: Well, yeah. I mean, after all, Disney is making decisions ("mandates") and they are a corporation. So by definition ...

V-Coaster: "How long will it be before the public feels the same way? I really have no idea what could happen"...

Me: Meaning nothing could happen thus serving as a pretty solid indication that Disney is not making mistakes ... TAH DAAAAAH!

I think AJ has really hit on the key point here and what are being called "mistakes" are only viewed as such by a certain segment of the fanbase. The likelihood is that Disney will make more "mistakes" in the years to come that will ruffle the feathers of fans who currently view past "mistakes" as successes, or simply business as usual. "One man's trash is another man's treasure" as the saying goes, and Disney will continue to evolve and adapt to set and modify the standards by which successful theme parks are judged.

However, I do think there's something to be said for the ways in which Disney is causing the theme park industry to evolve, and unless someone comes along to disrupt the status quo, Disney will continue to lead the pack while everyone else follows and modifies their products and services to directly compete with or provide a direct alternative to what Disney does. That is where I see these "mistakes" causing issues not necessarily with Disney, but with the industry as a whole that seems to be losing a bit of the heart, soul, and "magic" that made the idea of vacationing with Disney something everyone wanted (and could) experience. As other have noted, Disney's theme parks can only accommodate so many guests at a time, and because they've gotten so popular and in demand, Disney no longer needs to make decisions to draw guests to their parks, instead they need to optimize the use of their current assets and their ability to generate revenue. That's why RoA had to go as a massive chunk of the most visited theme park in the world that didn't generate a PENNY in revenue. Guests were not buying tickets and booking hotels to ride giant replica boats cable-tethered to a track under a fake river. While I'm sure guests enjoyed the idea of boarding a log raft or exploring Fort Langhorn and all of the adventure trails on Tom Sawyer Island, it was not a driving force for people to book trips to WDW nor did any of those attractions generate significant merchandise revenue. Disney could have chose virtually ANYTHING to replace RoA/TSI, and it would create more interest and revenue potential with modern audiences than what the former area was generating. I think that's what so many fans fail to understand, because Disney is working from a position of strength where they have a large portfolio of "mature" facilities that have established demand (that meets or exceeds supply) where decisions are made from a purely business perspective and given that level and diversity of demand will not necessary mesh with the needs or desires of everyone. For every fan that Disney alienates with their decisions, I'm sure they'll more than compensate for those losses, maybe not in pure attendance/demand numbers, but certainly in terms of revenue, which is the current goal given the "limited" resource of overall park/resort capacity.

The question is, and AJ hits on this, is whether Disney's current strategy to optimize revenue generation, will that impact future demand for their products? For much of the 90's and 00's Disney was focused almost exclusively in getting as many feet in the door as possible, growing attendance at a brisk pace year over year. However, as their parks reach capacity on an increasingly larger number of days each year, the only way they can grow attendance at the rates we saw in the 90's and 00's would be to add another domestic park (something often rumored, but hasn't been executed yet) or increase the size/capacity and space utilization of the existing parks, which is exactly what Disney is doing with all of their current major projects like Cars (increased space utilization), Villains (pure expansion), Monsters (expansion and reutilization), Tropical Americas (expansion and reutilization), Avengers (expansion), Avatar West (expansion and reutilization), and Coco (reutilization). By using current and popular IPs in these projects, Disney is not only increasing the overall park capacity and space utilization, but they're increasing the revenue potential with merchandise and other in-park revenue opportunities. However, aside from Villains, most of these projects are not going to increase park capacities to the point where they will cut into demand, which means there is capacity to use pricing tools to limit and spread demand to pick up that "slack".

The issue I see is that while Disney's (and Universal's, to a lesser extent) strategy to balance demand and supply is creating a deliberate shorting of the market that has turned what many felt was a "commodity" into a "luxury". This is a trend we're seeing in many other entertainment industries where businesses are monetizing and optimizing every aspect of their operations. For example, the major arena in our city (Washington, DC's Capital One Arena) is undergoing a massive multi-year renovation, which was not just necessary because it's 25 years old, but because it lacks the modern amenities and specialized spaces found in newer venues. While the arena had an entire level dedicated to luxury suites and specialized floor/ice-level, the renovation is creating even more luxury spaces for big spenders, including some where it is expected guests will spend the entire event in a room where they will probably watch the game/concert on TVs. While it's on trend, it's concerning that venues are being turned into luxury personal event spaces that happen to have a game/concert going on in the background instead of a venue where fans go to see/support their favorite performers. Disney's posture is much in the same vain with spaces and experiences that are being more catered to the luxury market where guests are willing to spend a premium to entertain and spend time with their companions than what is actually going on in that space. There's certainly a massive market for this and billions of revenue currently available to tap, but the question is will this strategy eventually marginalize the theme park experience to only those who can afford it and instead of a Disney vacation being a commodity that most working-class Americans experience a dozen or more times in their lives into a luxury where only the richest can dream of experiencing once or twice in a lifetime. While Disney can use that strategy and continue to grow on the revenue side, the concern is whether allowing supply to plateau, it puts more and more emphasis on the revenue side to grow, which will further alienate more and more fans who will get priced out until the idea of a Disney vacation becomes more like a once in a lifetime trip to a tropical island instead of the every 3-5 years routine that has made Disney such a juggernaut in the industry.

In terms of timing for these "mistakes" to have an impact, I think we're already seeing it today with a general plateauing of demand. I think we can all agree that we've been beyond the impacts of the Pandemic now for at least 2 years with most parks near or slight above 2019 attendance levels. However, if you look at the numbers from 2022 and 2023, the rate of growth was much flatter than 2018 to 2019. the 2024 numbers, which should be released any day now, will be really telling as we'll then have a 2-3 year post-pandemic period to compare to the last for years of the 10's. In order for Disney to satisfy it shareholders, if attendance (and by extension potential capacity) can no longer grow to generate the necessary growth, the only way to make the math work is to increase the revenue potential within the parks, which is why Mr. Toad gets replaced with Winnie the Pooh, Muppets are replaced with Monsters, Dinosaur is replaced with Indy, and RoA/TSI is replaced with Cars. In addition to creating spaces that will be more efficient and can handle more guests (increasing capacity), they will all generate more revenue through merchandise and other ancillary revenue streams. However, the other side of this very complicated coin is that by trying to squeeze more revenue out of a limited resource, it's not only going to turn off long time guests, but it's going to naturally marginalize those guests who simply cannot afford to participate anymore. I think this revenue optimization trend will continue for at least another decade at which point the idea of a theme park vacation is no longer a mainstream activity. While Disney will probably be just fine as a company, this pivot into the luxury market will open the company up to an even more fickle customer base that could expose them to far more variables than they have to consider now, and require even more capital expenditures to maintain their footing. Again, I'll use the arena/stadium example again - when sports and concert venues started popping up all over the world through the middle of the last century, the expectation was that those venues would last for 50 years or longer with minor renovations performed every 20-30 years. Today we're seeing venues barely lasting 2 decades before being completely replaced or undergoing major ($300 million or more) renovations to meet current standards. I provided the example of Capital One Arena, but there are others all around the country like Huntington Bank Field (Cleveland Browns stadium that is 25 years old and being replaced with a new stadium in 4-5 years), Nissan Stadium (Nashville football stadium again 25 years old and due to be replaced in 2027), and dozens of others around the country. I see Disney doing many of the same things with renovations to all of their domestic parks, which includes the re-envisioning of EPCOT (though minimized due to the Pandemic), and more importantly the opening of smaller, more intimate spaces specifically designed to generate additional revenue (like Beak and Barrel and GEO-82).

Russell: "However, as (Disney's) parks reach capacity on an increasingly larger number of days each year, the only way they can grow attendance at the rates we saw in the 90's and 00's would be to add another domestic park ... or increase the size/capacity and space utilization of the existing parks, which is exactly what Disney is doing with all of their current major projects ..."

Me: Academic question: Why are you only focused on domestic markets/parks?

@TH - I would say aside from the Tokyo and (maybe) the Paris properties, Disney's international markets are not mature yet, and have not reached their potential or a point where demand exceeds supply as we see in the US (and Tokyo). So yes, the growth internationally is a massive part of Disney's strategy moving forward, but even there you can see the transition towards the luxury market as exemplified by the announced Abu-Dhabi park.

Also, this thread seems to take aim at "mistakes" Disney has made in their domestic parks, though it's probably easy to find similar "mistakes" Disney has made in their international parks as well but have not made the same negative impression as those in the US.

TH: "I said people have claimed Disney has made mistakes for decades. This is refuting your claim that 'most of what could be considered a 'mistake' has only happened in the past five or so years'."

Me: Well, that's not really what I meant. I said that people have always criticized Disney, agreeing with you. I also said that the only things that I consider mistakes happened in the past five years. Both can be true. Also, your first point "No. I said people have claimed Disney has made mistakes for decades." Is just semantics. What I said and what you said mean the same thing.

TH: "Well, yeah. I mean, after all, Disney is making decisions ("mandates") and they are a corporation. So by definition ..."

Me: I know every decision is the Disney company is a corporate mandate. What I'm saying is, it shouldn't feel like a corporate mandate. It should feel like an artistic choice that puts the guest first. I feel like you're still just addressing semantics instead of the actual points I'm making.

TH: "Meaning nothing could happen thus serving as a pretty solid indication that Disney is not making mistakes ... TAH DAAAAAH!"

Me: Yeah, nothing could happen. That doesn't mean they're not making mistakes because something could easily happen. I was just saying that I'm not a professional in the theme park industry and we have no idea how Epic Universe will affect Disney's attendance and creative decisions.

look, TH, I love Disney as much as the next person who spends his time on Theme Park Insider. But if you're okay with everything that Disney's doing right no, you might want to at least consider what we're saying.

To be fair, I think Universal has made a few mistakes in the last five years. Villain-con is an abomination and I have no idea why it's on its way to Japan. I think we didn't need Harry Potter in EU. I don't like how current areas of the original parks are falling apart and I think that Lost Continent should have been torn down sooner. Mythos isn't even that good.

Not really what you "meant to say".

I see.

You're correct, TH, all the studios are down from pre-pandemic numbers and box office isn't the sole indicator of a film's quality. However, let's take a look at the IPs Disney is currently choosing to use for upcoming projects (for brevity and to match the OP, I'll stick with Florida)...

Cars: This series has trended downward with each installment, and by the time the new attraction opens it will be over a decade since the last release. Audience scores are generally good, not great for this franchise, so whether it will be as popular at MK as it was at DCA is a bit of a question mark. It is one of the more merchandisable Pixar franchises, though, so it's got that going for it.

Villains: This one is tricky as we don't know for sure who the cast of characters will be, but assuming it's classic villains we're probably looking at characters from the OG animated films Disney worked on with perhaps a couple more modern characters thrown in. Main unknowns for me with this one are whether Villains are popular enough among casual audiences to support a whole land, whether the live action remakes have tarnished any of the characters, and whether it's too much of a conceptual mismatch with the other areas of Magic Kingdom to work in that park (it feels more like a DHS project to me).

Monsters, Inc.: The original 2001 film did extremely well and was extremely popular, but it's also going to be 25+ years old by the time this area opens. The prequel was about as successful financially and was generally liked, but hasn't stuck around as strongly and will still be 15+ years old. Building a new E-ticket on an IP that hasn't been active in over a decade and doesn't appear to have anything of note in production is a bit of a risk.

Muppets: This one is a low stakes retheme, but it's still an IP that hasn't really had much done with it in over a decade. I have a feeling Disney isn't expecting this one to be something that needs to last 20-30 years, but it's still an oddball choice.

Encanto: This is arguably the only original project Disney has released since the pandemic with staying power, but I feel a lot of general audiences mainly know it for its songs. As a single attraction in Fantasyland I think it would have worked well, but it seems like too small of an IP to justify being the basis of an entire themed land.

Indiana Jones: No matter how you slice it, Dial of Destiny was a failure. It made less in 2023 dollars than Temple of Doom made back in 1984 dollars, and it is generally considered the worst entry of the franchise. Indy was big with those who knew the franchise in the 80s and 90s, but it just isn't something modern audiences go for. The attraction spawned for Disneyland was arguably the best in the world at the time it debuted, but will a new version of that based on the same ride system wow audiences who have experienced three decades of dark ride evolution? If it doesn't, I doubt the property will be bringing in more people than Dinosaur did.

This is my concern with the longevity of Disney's current model...they are digging into the vaults and largely choosing IPs that were at their peak of popularity in the 2000s and 2010s for new attractions. As a result, the kids going to experience these were not even alive when those films made their original runs, and from working with plenty of people 10-20 years younger than I am, what parents may love kids may find dull and boring. It's a play seemingly built on nostalgia and brought on by the real lack of staying power Disney's current content has in the marketplace, and that is the mistake that may come back to bite them in the future. All IP attractions have a shelf life, which is something all parks using it as a foundation are going to face eventually, but Disney is employing a surprising number of choices beyond their best by date in their upcoming plans.

Yes TH, that's not what I meant to say. You put words in my mouth and I corrected you. What you claimed I said is not what I meant.

I love this site. I just lit the blue touch paper for a discussion and it's stimulated so much debate.
My thread was merely airing my own personal views. I didn't go so deep into it , as TH suggested, that I could prophesy what the reactions might be or how long they might take. I merely asked if these changes might have negative effects.
AJ's response was absolutely spot on. I started going to Disney in the mid- nineties and, on reflection, that has influenced my perception of the Disney Parks. So one's views really do depend on what era you most identify with.
I'm not at all resistant to change. I welcomed the advent of Animal Kingdom and Universal's Islands of Adventure which I thought were really exciting additions to the theme park landscape.
No. My concerns are not about making changes but whether they work and also whether the original Park concepts are still relevant.
I'd hate to see Disney decline into just another fairground and one that prices most of it's existing fanbase out of the equation.
Of course they have to make money and we all want the Parks to be around for future generations. It just seems that how they go about it polarises opinions on the subject.
Only good things can come from healthy debate. So I'm enjoying this ride.

Some great arguments here, and I'm not sure if as an empty nester I'm the target audience for Disney, but I put my decision to go to a park on the quality and entertainment value that I get for my time and money. For example, I haven't seen a film in the Star Wars franchise in the theater in almost 3 decades, but I sure do enjoy Rise of the Resistance in DHS. And I haven't watched a classic monster movie in quite a while, but I'm heading for the Classic Monsters area in Epic Universe first as soon as I get a chance to visit the park.

Quality is far more important to me than content, and Disney and Universal are knocking it out of the park on that issue. As long as they build quality rides, the IP is secondary.

V-Coaster: "But if you're okay with everything that Disney's doing right no, you might want to at least consider what we're saying ... "

Me: I'm not. TH Creative September 2, 2024,
"In retrospect, I think closing 'Tom Sawyer's Island' and filling in the 'Rivers of America' is a mistake. It's not exceptional. It's neither innovative nor enriching. It's not ambitious. It does not seem to embrace the "park as a platform" approach to design. It's a queue, followed by three minutes of excitement, followed by a gift shop. The is the Magic Kingdom. The greatest themed entertainment production in history. This proposed expansion is beneath that legacy. Keep the island and the river."

AJ: "All IP attractions have a shelf life, which is something all parks using it as a foundation are going to face eventually ..."

Me: 'Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs' hit theaters in 1937. Someone better break that "shelf life" thing to Dopey.

TH - You just proved AJ;'s point given the flop that the live action Snow White turned out to be a couple of years ago. Certainly 7DMT has proven successful, but is that because of the IP or the novel ride system? I tend to agree with Tim here in that a superior ride experience will trump a tepid, mediocre IP. In that respect, the success of all the projects identified by the AJ will be more dependent upon the actual rides and not necessarily the IPs associated with them. Give guests unique, dynamic experiences, and guests will line up for hours, but if the ride is boring or derivative, even the hottest, most popular IP will see a steep drop in demand after its debut.

@Russell: AJ specifically referenced IP as it relates to attractions. That would be different from films. Please try and keep up.

That's what Russell is saying, and I have to agree. Smuggler's run is competitively unpopular due to its bland ride system and toon lagoon remains a hit because the rides themselves are refreshing and fun.

V-Coaster: "Smuggler's run is competitively unpopular due to its bland ride system ..."

Me: I'd respond but I am not sure if that's what you meant to say.

The substance around "mistakes" is directly linked to the profit/loss account and shareholder dividends. If these are still strong then they aren't mistakes, however, I fully agree that IP rules these days for every ride and attraction in every park which is a shame.

TH - "Please try and keep up."

OK, then how do you explain 7DMT being the only recent application of the IP, which I would argue has been successful more because of the ride system than because of the popularity of the IP? WDW canned Snow White's Scary Adventures at MK, and the Snow White ride at Disneyland is typically walk-on despite getting a pretty significant upgrade a couple of years ago.

So yes, ride system and IP have to work together to create a long-lasting, successful attraction. If one or the other is mediocre or falls out of favor, it's simply not going to draw, and I think that's what AJ is saying when evaluating the IP choices of the upcoming projects. Encanto might be one of Disney's hottest IPs right now, much like Frozen was a decade ago, but if the ride system for the new DAK attraction doesn't inspire or engage guests, the popularity of the IP won't be able to overcome the faults of the ride. Similarly, I think the ride system for the Monsters coaster has the potential to run laps around the popularity of the IP, which has been waning in recent years. For me, the only potential for a real monster here is Cars, which has a solid level of popularity and a ride system that looks, let's say, intriguing. Given what Disney was able to execute with RSR, I have faith that WDI can deliver something truly unique with Piston Peak that will become borderline iconic.

Russell: "OK, then how do explain 7DMT being the only recent application of the IP ..."

Me: Because they have other IP content that they would like to have in the park.

I have to agree with Russell and AJ - A novel ride system/fun experience/good time will always trump the IP that it is associated with.

For reasons unbeknownst to me, Avatar is one of the biggest franchises in movie history, but if you asked 100 people about specific plot details, you might get 3 who know. Star Wars is also one of the biggest movie franchises/IPs, and if you ask plot details (at least about the first two trilogies) more than 50% would be able to answer. Yet, Smugglers Run is reviled and FOP is loved. The experience trumps the IP.

The Waterworld stunt show is another example. People on this site howled when plans were released showing the redevelopment of the site where the stunt show sits. Waterworld was one of the biggest flops ever (it made $88 million domestically), but the show is dang entertaining. Experience trumps IP.

Tron has never been a hit (and the less than $5 million in preview Ares made last night illustrates it never will be), and yet an innovative design and look (minus the mold problems) and a smooth coaster overcome the fact that the IP is less than popular.

Fast and Furious for 20 and 30 year olds is their "Star Wars," an absolutely HUGE IP that has made Universal billions. Yet, the ride system and the experience are so bad that the park would be considered improved if the ride was closed. (The ride ops openly mock the pre-recorded portions of the preshow, to show that they're in on how awful it is.) YET... people (me included) are clamoring for the new coaster in Hollywood using the same IP.

Is Smuggler’s Run that reviled? Seems like every time I go, there’s always a long wait and the people I’m riding with leave laughing and smiling.

JT: "Is Smuggler’s Run that reviled?"

Me: No. Of course not.

Look, it's not reviled per se, but it's only popular because it's right next to RoTR. I'd like to think that if it were next to star yours or something, nobody would want to ride it.

When it comes to attractions, I generally think of thrill level and theme level as inversely proportional. An ride that is reasonably intense can get away with limited thematic elements (ex: Rock 'n' Roller Coaster), while a ride that is slow moving and not very dynamic needs fleshed out scenes and immersive environments to keep the rider's attention (ex: Haunted Mansion). High levels of theming do still benefit attractions such as major roller coasters, but it's not something that would be as detrimental were it missing as it would be for a less dynamic attraction.

From what we know, three of the attractions I listed will be roller coasters, two will be dark rides, and one will be an outdoor tracked ride (I'm omitting the supporting attractions). Of those, the dark rides are likely the ones whose drawing power will be most driven by IP, especially since neither is likely to be a cutting edge technological marvel. The roller coasters, especially if they're more intense, probably can separate most from their IP, similar to the way Lightcycle Run is currently doing (Tron's fanbase is pretty niche), which is why the Muppet retheme will probably still get sizable queues even though I don't many will be riding that attraction just for the Muppets (but then again, who rides Rock 'n' Roller Coaster for Aerosmith?).

Here's an example of what I mean by IP shelf life: Walt Disney World has five different omnimover style attractions. Which is the most popular of the five? Haunted Mansion, which is based on an original IP created for the theme parks. Despite being older than any of the others, that attraction still commands waits of at least a half hour on an average day, while the others based on Finding Nemo, Little Mermaid, and Toy Story rarely exceed twenty minutes despite being based on films considered very popular at the time of their release. Here's another example...Tiana's Bayou Adventure, despite being a retheme based on a much more recent IP, really isn't seeing any more popularity than Splash Mountain did (and arguably is less popular). That IP was never a big hit and past it's prime by the time it got an attraction, so it really isn't doing anything more for the park than a basic log flume would. Want to talk Snow White? Disneyland majorly overhauled their Snow White dark ride, it saw increased popularity for about a year, then went right back to where it was before the investment.

As others have said, it's not all about the IP, but if you're going to go through the effort of basing an attraction around an IP, it makes the most sense to go with ones that are still likely to be drawing guests to the park ten to twenty years down the road. Will something like Guardians of the Galaxy do that? Probably, though the MCU as a whole is definitely struggling right now. Will something like Princess and the Frog be able to maintain it? Probably not, which is a shame when there are other options that could have easily been used for that retheme instead. My worry lately with Disney is they've been increasingly fitting attractions to IP rather than fitting IP to attractions, and when that's the primary line of thinking being utilized, it really makes the IP selection that much more important.

P.S. Anyone who thinks Smuggler's Run is "reviled" needs to stop getting their opinions from OT purists. Is it a bit underwhelming compared to what it was sold as? Yes. Is it still a solid supporting attraction worth checking out on a visit to the parks hosting it? Also yes.

V-Coaster: "I'd like to think that if it were next to star yours or something, nobody would want to ride it."

Me: Why would someone "like" to think that?

@Aj - about 18 Years ago, my niece loved riding the 'Little Mermaid' attraction at MKP. Las Spring, my 4-year old granddaughter loved riding the 'Little Mermaid' attraction at MKP.

Is there any indication there is a "shelf life" related to families with little girls?

I'm not sure I buy the "location" argument either. Mission: Space is sandwiched between two of the most popular rides at Epcot and that one doesn't seem to get as much people in line anymore (I know I certainly don't bother with it these days). In that same park, the Gran Fiesta Tour is just as close to Frozen Ever After as the Star Wars rides are and the former never exceeds a 15 minute wait outside of peak times.

Incidentally, AJ forgets to mention 'Peter Pan's Flight' -- an omnimover dark ride with wait times that regularly reach an hour. The Disney flick dropped more than seventy years ago. And guess what? Disney just expanded Pete's footprint in Japan.

Boom.

And if that doesn't squash this inherent "IP shelf life" nonsense, I'll point to the Tianna's/Splash Mountain debacle. How many times did we hear the words "IP shelf life" when Disney re-skinned Splash?

TH, it's starting to feel like either you're not getting what I'm saying (which doesn't seem to be an issue for most others following this discussion) or you're reaching to try to disprove something you disagree with.

"About 18 Years ago, my niece loved riding the 'Little Mermaid' attraction at MKP."

That's actually extremely impressive, considering the ride opened in 2012. Last I checked, that's 13 years ago. Care to share the secrets of time travel so I can go back and experienced some of those attractions from the "glory days" when the parks were supposedly so much better than they are today (according to people who largely didn't experience them at that time, or at least didn't experience them from an adult perspective)?

"Is there any indication there is a "shelf life" related to families with little girls?"

Shelf life means different things depending on context. In my view, there are essentially four phases to the lifecycle of a theme park attraction...

1. The attraction is a key reason that guests are making a trip to the park. These are attractions whose existence and/or operating status mean the difference between visiting and not visiting for a significant segment of the park's target audience.

2. The attraction is a must experience for guests visiting the park. An attraction of this phase is one guests talk about prior to visiting, one guests prioritize while at the park, and one guests feel disappointed if they miss it for some reason, but is not one that is a dealbreaker for the trip.

3. The attraction is worth checking out as time permits. These are attractions that guests don't necessarily make plans to ride, but one they'll pick to do as they're passing or they'll pick out from a list once all the headliners are complete.

4. The attraction isn't really drawing guests and is kept mainly for capacity purposes. While these rides don't have no ridership, they're something sought out by a very small proportion of visitors and are generally only experienced due to having a short line and needing to kill time.

When it comes to new attractions, especially new E-tickets, they really need to be in phase one in order to justify the cost of installing them. If your new attraction isn't increasing visitation, you're not going to get ROI on it. When it comes to IP for new attractions, if the IP isn't strong enough to pull people in, it's not something I'd consider a good fit for a new headlining attraction, and that's what I'm referring to by IPs being beyond their shelf life. My concern is Disney is using IPs that are probably more phase two or phase three for their upcoming attractions, which runs the risk of the attractions having less drawing power than Disney would like and not maintaining popularity long enough to become cross-generational, which is an entirely different hazard with IP attractions that's better saved for a separate discussion.

"AJ forgets to mention 'Peter Pan's Flight' -- an omnimover dark ride with wait times that regularly reach an hour."

I don't consider Peter Pan's Flight an omnimover, but I will admit that I'm a lot more familiar with California's version of the attraction (which loads one vehicle at a time) than Florida's (which is a continuously loading attraction). However, I'll do an analysis on it compared to the other MK omnimovers. First off, we must consider that Peter Pan's Flight has roughly half the throughput of the traditional omnimovers due to large spacing between vehicles. While official capacity numbers aren't published, it's generally accepted that the omnimover system has a throughput exceeding 2,000 guests per hour, so let's use 1,000 for Peter Pan's capacity. Now, let's look at the wait times. For this, I'm going to list the minimum, median, and maximum posted wait times for each attraction, taken from the means on queue-times for the 10th day of each month of 2025.

Buzz Lightyear: 18, 26, 31
Haunted Mansion: 19, 31, 35
Little Mermaid: 7, 15.5, 20
Peter Pan: 36, 44, 50

Yes, there's a pretty clear preference order for guests based on the wait times. However, what happens when we normalize that for capacity? How many people are actually in line for the attractions?

Buzz Lightyear: 600-1,000
Haunted Mansion: 600-1,100
Little Mermaid: 200-600
Peter Pan: 600-800

I'll fully acknowledge this is a very simplistic analysis, but I think it illustrates the caution that needs to be taken when judging popularity based on wait times. Even if people are waiting twice as long for Peter Pan as for Buzz Lightyear, there are actually more people lining up for the latter.

"The Disney flick dropped more than seventy years ago."

There are older IPs that are nearly evergreen, and there are also newer IPs that faded from public consciousness almost immediately. The strength of an IP is based on far more than simply age.

"Disney just expanded Pete's footprint in Japan."

Analyzing IP across different cultures is beyond the scope of this discussion, but it should be common knowledge that the popularity of IPs can vary significantly from region to region.

"And if that doesn't squash this inherent "IP shelf life" nonsense, I'll point to the Tianna's/Splash Mountain debacle. How many times did we hear the words "IP shelf life" when Disney re-skinned Splash?"

I'll close with this...

Being a Disneyland local, I'm not all that familiar with Florida's numbers, but I do know California's parks quite well. In the couple years before Splash Mountain closed, it typically posted wait times of 45-90 months in the cooler months and 20-45 minutes in warmer months. How has Tiana Bayou's Adventure done? This summer, it was routinely 60-90 minutes, and prior to that 30-45 minutes. That indicates that while Princess and the Frog might be contributing a little bit more to the drawing power than Song of the South, the primary appeal is still coming from it being a flume ride.

As a comparison, DCA's Tower of Terror received a very similar overhaul when it was converted to Mission: Breakout. In the last couple years with the Twilight Zone theme, wait times were quite similar...60-90 minutes during peak season, 30-45 minutes outside of it. What happened after the Guardians moved in? It had pretty consistent wait times of 1.5-2.5 hours the rest of that year, and still maintained a fairly consistent 1-2 hour wait beyond that. If that doesn't illustrate the difference in results based on the freshness of an IP, I don't know what else does.

AJ: "That's actually extremely impressive, considering the ride opened in 2012. Last I checked, that's 13 years ago."

Me: My apologies for the error. It can happen to the best of us. Like the time the guy on TPI wrote: "Being a Disneyland local, I'm not all that familiar with Florida's numbers, but I do know California's parks quite well. In the couple years before Splash Mountain closed, it typically posted wait times of 45-90 months ..."

HOLY GUACAMOLE! 90 MONTHS?! Now THAT is some popular IP!

AJ: "There are older IPs that are nearly evergreen ..."

Me: So you are no longer claiming "All" -- again the word you use is "All" -- "IP attractions have a shelf life"?

(Chuckle)

AJ: "I don't consider Peter Pan's Flight an omnimover ...

Me: I do.

AJ (Faced with the reality that Pan's arrival in Japan is an affirmation that [decades after the movie dropped] Disney sees that IP as theme park worthy) writes: "Analyzing IP across different cultures is beyond the scope of this discussion ..."

Me: Nicely rationalized.

AJ (Continues): "... but it should be common knowledge that the popularity of IPs can vary significantly from region to region".

Me: Yeah ... Sure ... It "should be" -- mostly because it conveniently supports your point ... Well played ... (Insert Eyeroll).

AJ, you made the claim that "All IP attractions have a shelf life". I'm saying that's not inherently accurate. You're exaggerating. At least, to date, there is IP that defy that rule (Pan, Snow, Fish Girl [kind of ...]).

And as for my ability to time travel, the Pentagon has made clear I am not allowed to discuss that tech in in detail. Now if you'll excuse me, I am meeting friends to enjoy another ride on 'If You Had Wings'.

I don’t think Disney would refer to Peter Pan as an Omnimover either. That is a specific type of vehicle that gets linked in a continuous chain and can rotate individually. Not every ride that utilizes a Magic Carpet belt system would fall in that category.

AJ (Continues): "... but it should be common knowledge that the popularity of IPs can vary significantly from region to region".

TH: Yeah ... Sure ... It "should be" -- mostly because it conveniently supports your point ... Well played ... (Insert Eyeroll).

ME: TH, Really? That seems like an odd thing to dispute, mainly because there are lots of examples where IP popularity DOES vary? Most notably Zootopia's popularity in Asia (more specifically China.) Zootopia was a hit in the US, but a massive hit in China. Mary Poppins isn't more popular in England than the US? Mulan isn't more popular in China? Pooh is more popular (while popular in the US) in Asia, particularly Japan.

@JT - Uh-huh ... And I don't think Disney would refer to their current park management choices as "Big Mistakes".

@MLB - The dispute between me and AJ has to do with his claim that claim that "All IP attractions have a shelf life". I disagree with that contention.

@TH - I would tend to agree with you, but I do think AJ's statement is generally true in the sense that eventually everything will get replaced because it gets stale, maybe not in our lifetimes or even our kids' lifetimes, but at some point down the road. Pop culture goes through cycles by definition, and while there are a very select group of properties that could be considered "evergreen", it is a very small and distinguished group and even that group of IPs is going to go through ebbs and flows in popularity. I also think the same thing can be said for ride systems, and we've seen that pretty clearly over the past 20-30 years as certain ride systems have fallen out of favor because of improved technology and the ability of designers to make certain systems more immersive than others - like what AJ was trying to explain in regards to the impressiveness of various ride platforms. AJ also makes a great point in highlighting the varying levels of popularity of certain IPs in different parts of the world.

I think we can all come up with examples of IPs that could be considered "evergreen" that others could say are not and vice versa, but I think we've strayed from the original point of this discussion, which is to say whether Disney's recent decisions and upcoming projects will result in an improved guest experience or just an attempt to extract every last dime out of their parks at the risk of the longevity and legacy of the parks. There's definitely something to be said regarding some of the IPs that Disney has chosen to apply in their parks, and to be fair, Disney has not always had a 100% record in choosing IPs that can stand the test of time (see 20k Leagues Under the Sea, Wind in the Willows, Honey I Shrunk the Kids, and many others), and they will inevitably cycle through many more IPs that are applied to attractions and experiences that are either rethemed or replaced. This is where I would reiterate my stance that it is a combination of IP and ride system that determines the long-lasting success of the experience. Using one that TH put out there, the idea of a travelogue-style ride featuring various identifiable landmarks is a pretty evergreen IP (exhibits at World's Fairs and museums have been doing this for decades), but when Disney merged that IP with an amazing ride system, Soarin' was born, creating an iconic experience that is mesmerizing and crosses cultural boundaries (and other copycat simulator systems that have tried to replicate the original). While Disney has made tweaks here and there, as is typically necessary to all attractions, the principles of the ride are the same no matter where you go, and it remains one of the most popular attractions in pretty much every park where it exists. On the other side of the coin, there have been plenty of examples of attractions where the IP and ride system have not produced a "hit" or in some way not met expectations given similar ride system or IP success. I think this is where the criticism of MFSR comes in. Personally, I really like the attraction and see it as Galaxy's Edge E-ticket attraction compared to RoTR's E+/F-ticket status (at Disneyland, it was the land's E-ticket for the first 6+ months of operation) - I'm sure one could argue that the upcoming Mandalorian overlay is an attempt to juice up interest while others could just say it's a natural progression of the ride to maintain its popularity in a cost effective manner. So while I'll side with TH that MFSR is a poor example, I think the use of the Monsters IP on a slow-moving dark ride attraction was a major mismatch given that music was never a major part of the original movie's success (even though Randy Newman won his first Oscar for his work on the film, the songs just aren't as iconic or memorable as other Pixar films of that era). Pairing the IP with a coaster system that will replicate one of the most memorable scenes should create an excellent attraction that portends to be popular despite the IP not being in the forefront of the public consciousness - not to mention the coaster could be one of the most unique on the planet, which will on its own help boost the popularity of the attraction. This is counter to TBA, which was a retheme of a ride system that is naturally one of the most popular on both coasts, yet as AJ points out has seen a lull in popularity following its debut to a point where guests are less interested now than they were when it was based on a toxic IP, showing that even a successful ride system cannot overcome a mediocre IP.

When it comes to Piston Peak, I'm a little concerned about the ride system, because it frankly looks like it will be a bear to execute, but unlike others here, I think Cars is one of the most marketable IPs Disney has at their disposal that is not currently applied at WDW.

I'll conclude by saying that Disney has kind of put themselves in this situation because they have created expectations that every single one of their attractions will be super popular and last decades before being rethemed or replaced. When Disney announces a new ride, it's marketed as a major addition (no matter how small), and for the most part Disney rarely changes course even when something doesn't hit the mark. Universal has shown a propensity to abandon attractions and IPs that simply aren't working when they find something that might be better. Where Disney can be hesitant at removing or replacing an attraction for fear of upsetting the fans (see the backlash they got for closing Muppetvision, to the point where I feel like they were forced to use the IP to retheme RnRC), if Universal sees an opportunity to improve, they'll jump at it headfirst. I just think that the 2 companies are held to different standards and the reality is that BOTH (as wells as plenty of other theme park companies) have made numerous mistakes over the years that have diminished their respective products in some way.

Russell: "There's definitely something to be said regarding some of the IPs that Disney has chosen to apply in their parks, and to be fair, Disney has not always had a 100% record in choosing IPs that can stand the test of time ..."

Me: Substitute the words "Theme Park Operators" in place of "Disney" and I would agree -- 100%.

Can we all collectively agree to start ignoring TH Creative's posts? He has consistently mocked any post that has any tiny little criticism of Disney since before I started reading TPI, which has been many years.

@the_man. Here's a post that criticized Disney that I never mocked

TH Creative September 2, 2024,
"In retrospect, I think closing 'Tom Sawyer's Island' and filling in the 'Rivers of America' is a mistake. It's not exceptional. It's neither innovative nor enriching. It's not ambitious. It does not seem to embrace the "park as a platform" approach to design. It's a queue, followed by three minutes of excitement, followed by a gift shop. The is the Magic Kingdom. The greatest themed entertainment production in history. This proposed expansion is beneath that legacy. Keep the island and the river."

@the-man. Here's another one from 2023:

"Seriously, there is no denying that the team at Universal Creative has consistently outpaced WDI since the opening of Islands of Adventure. Universal Creative is the GOLD STANDARD for innovation in theme park design. 'The Amazing Adventures of Spiderman', 'Men in Black: Alien Attack', 'Revenge of the Mummy,, "Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey."

And here it comes: "There is not a single WDW attraction that is anywhere near as innovative. Even Twister demonstrates how Universal Creative is more committed to take an extraordinary risk at creating the (apparently) impossible theme park experience."

Oops.

See TH, I think the reason that a lot of people can't take you seriously is because you're too busy trying to dismantle their arguments by trying to poke holes in the ways people phrase things instead of really addressing their points. Oftentimes I feel like you'll argue against a point ("the popularity of an IP will change based on your location", for example) for no reason other than the same of argument.

Hello
I'm the one who kicked off this thread and just thought I'd pop back in again.

I've been fascinated by all the comment and views that have been raised.

TH has been particularly vocal and started off with a challenging comment to my original post. But he has his views and I don't necessarily disagree with all of them. So long as they're consistent then that's ok.
I think that the banter between him and AJ has made for great reading and has stimulated of a lot of different thoughts on my original post and the diverse paths that it's taken us all down.
So don't ignore anyone's posts. They are all valid. Even my one !

AJ made me realise that, perhaps, I was more resistant to change than I would've thought. I admit to being nostagic and believe that Disney is that theatre of dreams and, more importantly , memories.

So when Disney begins to move away from the original concepts of it's Parks I do react negatively. Maybe today's audiences crave more thrill rides and. I suppose, that's where the money is. However there are some attractions and areas of the Parks that should be "untouchables". I would say to Disney that whilst it's ok to change the IPs based on popularity try not to remove things entirely that you can never get back. Resist the temptation to shove in things that don't fit in just because they're currently popular. Be more sympathetic in your approach and refer to the original concepts of your Parks.
Old doesn't mean bad and new doesn't necessarily mean better.

@Rob P: well said

Thanks Rob P for your thoughtful post.

As for the assertion that I contradicted a claim that "the popularity of an IP will change based on your location" ... Not true.

AJ claimed "all IP has a shelf life". After some back and forth I noted that Peter Pan has had a decades long presence across multiple parks and that recently his footprint expanded in Japan.

AJ countered by posting: "Analyzing IP across different cultures is beyond the scope of this discussion, but it should be common knowledge that the popularity of IPs can vary significantly from region to region."

I responded claiming it was a rationalization ... And I am correct.

AJ offered no specific anecdotal or statistical evidence that PP is uniquely popular in Japan. While it may be the case, there's nothing on this thread that indicates it's true. Absent that sort of information his assertion seems more self-serving in support of the position he was trying to support. I suspect he wasn't all that confident in his contention as (in the same post) he walked back the "all IP claim" and conceded "There are older IPs that are nearly evergreen ...".

I'll take it.

And FYI, AJ: You've always had my respect. I hold you in the same regard I hold Robert and Russell. You are certainly an expert regarding the themed entertainment industry.

May peace prevail.

While I do think you're right TH, it can be frustrating sometimes that you choose to focus in on word choice and absolutes - as a scientist, I'm well qualified to know that NOTHING is ever 100% or black/white, but often the best, most persuasive words to relay an opinion or support a position is to use terms that relay an absolute. I think there are almost always exceptions to the rule, and instead of refuting the meaning of a comment, TH often delves into the nuance of the statement or rare outliers that disprove the OC's thesis. I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out these exceptions, but the way TH often zooms in on them, it causes the discussion to go off the rails by forcing the OC to refute the rebuttal and/or restate the original thesis that then opens the discussion up even further (perhaps that is TH's motivation or purpose, which frankly provokes some lively discussions from time to time).

Don't get me wrong, I do find TH's comments intellectually stimulating and helping to make sure all potential sides of a given discussion are valued, but it can occasionally be exhausting when trying to find the right words to accurately express a position without leaving some doubt or exception that TH can find in your thesis, and the more words and clarifications that are used to refute TH, the more ammunition you provide to be rebutted.

FWIW, I think Pan is pretty evergreen as has been proven with so many various applications of the IP including theme parks, plays, musicals, movies, books, and various other entertainment properties. The stories are timeless, and as I noted previously, probably exists in that pantheon of the rare IP that is truly evergreen. But as I noted, even evergreen IPs go through ebbs and flows of popularity, and when paired with an iconic or unique ride system (or application) can turbocharge an experience far more than either could achieve on its own.

Yep. Rob and Russell said it best.

Disney Fan Boys will never admit to anything bad about Disney

It reminds me a lot of a Certain political clown party.... HAHAHAHAHAhA

Yes Disney makes Huge mistakes. And if they learn from said mistakes it will make the parks and movies better.

Lets take the mistake called the Star Wars: Galactic Starcruiser hotel where Disney thought they would never run out of rick folks staying there.

$4,800 for a two-night stay for two people- Heck that is an entire vacation budget for a family for a week.

So in conclusion - all big companies Suck... Except NVIDIA - They made me tons of monies.... TONS.....

Let's not get it twisted Brian, I don't think TH is a Disney "fanboy", and as they detailed earlier here, has criticized the company plenty while also praising successes of their competitors, most notably Universal. As the clear leader of the theme park industry, Disney is going to naturally draw criticism, but they similarly should be given praise because they've continued to drive the industry forward, especially since Disney is seemingly held to a higher standard than anyone else. It's easy to point out "mistakes", and it's an inevitability that not every project will be a runaway hit, but I think the core of this discussion is whether there has been a clear change in the process at Disney over the past 5-10 years to indicate that perhaps they are losing some of the edge that has allowed them to dominate the industry. I would suggest that there has been some of that slippage in Disney's products, but I also think the perception that the gap is shrinking between Disney and its competitors is because that competition is better and driving more investment than ever before and also because of procedural changes at Disney, which has prioritized revenue, profit, and efficiency over the overall guest experience.

Ahhhh Just trying to stir the Pot...

something I would like to point out really quick, wasn't the peter pan ride that was made in Disney Sea a couple of years ago in a land celebrating all the old famous Disney movies, or at least the most fairy tale like? the fact that they chose Peter Pan might have nothing to do with evergreen, just the fact that it fit the theme they were trying to use.

to branch of slightly, as a part of the new generation of kids coming to Disney World and other parks, I must agree that something with new and ambitious technology with an IP still spoken of today sounds more engaging than a ride with an aging and un-immersive (non-immersive?) ride system. To go to extremes, what about 50 years in the future? not a lot of kids will want to go on the lame boring peter pan ride when they can go to the JAWS 19 ride with holograms and get up close and really, REALLY personal with an impressive animatronic. Of course, as rides age there will still be fans who rode it when they were young, but the new rides will become that ride for that generation, and so on and so forth. There is a fountain of evidence that rides become less engaging for people as the years go on. it's unfortunate, but sadly true.

^Yes, the Peter Pan expansion was part of a larger theme of fantasy movies. However, it’s not like there are a shortage of Disney movies that could fit that mold.

I'm not trying to perpetuate this thread but in view of recently broken news I had to return to the subject of possible Disney mistakes.

It's only my opinion but I think the re-decoration of the lobby at the Grand Floridian looks to be real "dogs dinner". Whoever chose the new carpeting and furniture must've been having a bad day and they appear to have lost the plot. The overly large design on the carpet is not at all easy on the eye and and the new furniture is lost in it. The overly bright lighting is another huge mistake.
This should've been far more subdued.
The Grand Floridian is supposed to be echoing the design and atmosphere of the 1880s. The lobby should be offering guests the tranquility of that Victorian age and emulating the comforting grandeur of the del Coronado in San Diego.

This refurb has failed to meet the brief and what we're left with is something more suited to a Vegas casino.

@Rob P: So what you are saying is (in your opinion) the Disney CM in charge of creative design on the project made some poor choices. You're not claiming that Mr. Iger screwed up when he was sitting in his office going through carpet samples and fabric swatches, right?

@TH - I'd generally make the same assessment as Rob P, but do agree that it's not the function of the CEO to make design choices. However, the CEO does green light renovations like this that should have been a standard repair/replace what is one of WDI's most iconic designs and established a standard for future resort lobbies instead of doing a complete redesign. Disney is taking a lot of flak for this look that is borderline "tacky" and is a far cry from the Victorian elegance of the resort that has been maintained and enhanced in the recent room and other building renovations.

@ TH

Ha ha ha. No of course I'm not suggesting that Mr Iger's personally selecting the design materials for the GF lobby refurb but , as Russell rightly suggested , someone somewhere higher up the food chain than the designers must have given their approval.
Disney is spinning a lot of plates right now and it's understandable that one or two might fail at the first stage but I'm sure that they don't just delegate responsibility for something as high profile as this without checking that their plans fit the brief.
So whoever approved the GF lobby refurb needs to book an eye test , take a good look at what they've done, and admit that they've made a big mistake.

Yes, Disney has been making big mistakes, like The Acolyte

@ E Jmz: 79% Fresh on RT ... You may disagree, but the word "Big' certainly doesn't apply to that Disney+ series.

@TH Creative:

Yes, I do in fact, disagree. Since you brought up Rotten Tomatoes, Here´s the Rotten Tomatoes link:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/star_wars_the_acolyte

79% on Rotten Tomates...Oh, but wait...What´s this? 19% on Rotten Tomatoes Popcornmeter!

Im assuming you know what this means, but for anyone else reading this not in the know: "The Tomatometer measures the percentage of professional critic reviews that are positive, while the Popcornmeter measures the percentage of user ratings that are positive".

In other words, the "professional critics" liked it but the general public, the target audience, not so much. You may disagree, but it was a flop, it was cancelled. I watched it, for the record, the whole thing. It was painful to watch.

But from experience, I have come to not trust RT blindly. So lets check Criticless, just to be safe:

https://criticless.com/titles/the-acolyte-2024

Ah, a "Heinous" 6%. Yeah, I stand by my post.

Speaking of RT. More than 20 years ago, I used to watch South Park. I eventually "moved on" from it for one reason or another. Then, some time ago, my lifelong friends started talking about the "specials", saying they were really good. One of these "specials" caught my eye, because it was mentioned being about Disney...

South Park: Joining The Panderverse

Loved it, pokes fun about a lot of stuff that´s wrong today with modern Disney. And guess what? It has a 96% popcornmeter on your beloved Rotten Tomatoes.

For anyone else out there that has become desillusioned with Disney in recent years, check out this youtuber: Real Life Fake Wizard. He covers a lot of stuff, but mainly Disney and Nintendo. He calls it like he sees it, God bless him.

Make Disney Great Again

Great! Another playmate! And like others on this thread -- who couldn't defend an assertion about Disney making mistakes in its theme parks -- the poster has to jump topics to film/television production.

(Chuckle)

But I'll play.

Em Jz: "In other words, the "professional critics" liked it but the general public, the target audience, not so much."

Me: So the on-line community of "hate-Disney-at-all-costs" can dump on the series (anonymously) and cause an unscientific score. Cool. Be honest, Kathleen Kennedy could solve world hunger and millions of on-line commenters would still regard her as the spawn of Satan. These are the kind of lonely people who post stuff like "Make Disney Great Again"

(Chuckle)

Em Jz: "But from experience, I have come to not trust RT blindly."

Me: Except when it comes to the "Popcornmeter", apparently.

EM Jz: "So lets check Criticless"

Me: Oh! I'm so sorry! I've come not to trust Criticless blindly. Bummer. Aslo, what exactly is Criticless?

EM Jz: (Regarding 'South Park: Joining The Panderverse') "Loved it, pokes fun about a lot of stuff that´s wrong today with modern Disney. And guess what? It has a 96% popcornmeter on your beloved Rotten Tomatoes."

Me: Holy guacamole! 96%?! How about its Criticless score?

"Great! Another playmate! And like others on this thread -- who couldn't defend an assertion about Disney making mistakes in its theme parks -- the poster has to jump topics to film/television production."

What on earth are you on about? Nowhere on the thread title says anything about theme parks.

"So the on-line community of "hate-Disney-at-all-costs" can dump on the series (anonymously) and cause an unscientific score"

The way i see it, most people "attacking" Disney are people who love Disney. We are just tired of being disillusioned time and time again in recent years. At some point you just gotta paint a line in the sand and say enough is enough. Again, this is how I see it, Im sure you have a different perception and thats fine.

"Be honest, Kathleen Kennedy could solve world hunger and millions of on-line commenters would still regard her as the spawn of Satan. "

Yes, I agree with you. You reap what you sow.

"These are the kind of lonely people who post stuff like "Make Disney Great Again""

Lonely? Squeeze me? Jokes on you, buddy. Im happily married (Chuckle). D@mn, I just realized that writing "(Chuckle)" on an Internet forum feels cringey and creepy as hell, but you do you. More power to you.

"Except when it comes to the "Popcornmeter", apparently."

Again, you were the one who brought up RT, so that was fair game.

"Oh! I'm so sorry! I've come not to trust Criticless blindly. Bummer. Aslo, what exactly is Criticless?"

Translation: "I literally admit that I dont know what Im talking about, but I can tell you right now, I dont trust it."

"Holy guacamole! 96%?! How about its Criticless score?"

Thank you for asking, even if you dont trust it. Its 76%
https://criticless.com/titles/south-park-joining-the-panderverse

Aight, this was fun. But its enough for me. You win, you can have the last word, but I will never read it casue Im out of this thread. Gotta get back to my "lonely" life (Chuckle)...Nope, writing "(Chuckle)" on an Internet forum still doesnt feel right.

I read my previous post to double check I didnt said anything personal about you or disrespected you. I didnt. You on the other hand implied Im some sort of loser with a lonely life. That was uncalled for. Dude, I had a Bachelor, Masters, and Doctors degree by age 25. I work at a University. Im happily married. You write "(Chuckle)" on Internet forums.

Anyways, catch you on a different thread.

It's apparent that I have been soundly defeated in a TPI thread debate with Eric Cartman.

Well done, sir.

(Chuckle)

@TH

Apologies. It certainly wasn't my intention to suggest that you made any personal attack.

I've removed that post.

Also you are quite right. My original thread was centred on the Parks but the fascinating thing about these threads is that they often take us down many different roads.

@ E Jmz

Interesting post. Keep them coming.

AJ: "If we go back a decade, Disney was routinely outputting at least three 'must see' films each year, and usually at least one of those was an original project.

Me: 2025 (Box Office Mojo): 'Lilo & Stitch' - $1,037,971,167. 'Zootopia 2' - $616,776,630.

And then there's this from the Hollywood Reporter (12/03/25): "Avatar: Fire and Ash' has had its first few screenings for press on Monday, and the early reaction suggests James Cameron can celebrate yet another billion dollar box office mega hit."

So ...