Is Iger right ?

I think it comes down to risk. Disney (and most entertainment companies in general) is becoming a very risk-averse company, and the last thing Iger wants to do is to waste valuable resources on something that customers know nothing about. Sure, Disney has the marketing power and reach to educate consumers and tell the stories needed to fill in backstories of new IPs, but the fact of the matter is that people are willing to spend money to be entertained by familiar, known properties, but are less likely to spend hundreds of dollars to try something new.

With theme park attractions and expansions costing more than ever with new lands measured in the hundreds of millions (or up to a billion) dollars, a company like Disney cannot afford such an investment to fail. IP provides a "safety net" for those investment in that even if the execution is bad and the overall product is subpar, people will show up because they want to interact with an IP they at least know something about. Perhaps a bit of an inferiority complex in that Disney is afraid of developing what they think is a great concept and amazing original IP only to see it ignored and struggling alongside characters and stories people know and have familiarity with. In other words, people are LAZY, and don't want to do work in order to be entertained, and Disney is just giving people what they want.

I think Disney doesn't understand that if an original ride is good enough it more or less becomes an IP. Haunted Mansion, PotC, ToT, Expedition Everest, Jungle Cruise, BTMR, Dinosaur, and Spaceship Earth. This is probably why Disney was fine opening Beak & Barrel- because its original ride is so iconic that it gained just as much popularity.

I mean, IP isn't necessarily bad per se in the case of Tron and Avatar (and technically ToT counts as IP), but not only are Cars and Encanto bad fits for their lands, we lose the opportunity to see more and more unique and original rides that can be iconic- and merchandisable, if you're Disney- without the crutch of properties like Cars. Who even likes those movies anyway.

What was the last non-IP attraction at WDW?

@ProfPlum - Space 220 and TestTrack 3.0 if you consider that a "new" attraction. Outside of those, you'd probably have to go back to the early '00s when Expedition Everest, Mission: Space, and Lights, Motors Action (cloned from Paris) opened, so yeah, WDW has almost exclusively used IP for expansions, attractions, and overlays for over 2 decades now.

@ Russell

That's a fascinating fact that it's been 20+ years since the last non-IP attraction was introduced at Disney Parks.
That's a bit sad really don't you think ?

Following up on Velocicoaster's post where he offers us a list of non-IP attractions ( thank you for that) it might be argued that the most iconic rides currently on offer are Big Thunder & Space Mtn at MK , Expedition Everest at AK and Rock'n'Roller Coaster at Hollywood Studios.
They are all non-IP related.

As I said in my original post it's likely that Disney are hedging their bets a bit but it also means that they are maybe risking all on new movie projects rather than Park attractions. I'm not convinced that it's the right way to go when you consider how well original concepts have fared in the Parks.
Then again it's not my money on the line here.
From the perspective of the imagineers being allowed to dream I think I'd prefer to see some original ideas in the Parks before 20 yrs becomes 30yrs and everything is movie based.

I mean, I get where Iger and company are coming from. First and foremost, theme park owners want to sell highly-marked up merchandise. That’s where a huge chunk of in-park revenue is generated at minimal operating costs. For all the love that guests have for Expedition Everest, how many people do you see walking around the park are wearing Yeti tee-shirts and LoungeFly backpacks compared to say Lion King, Zootopia, and Finding Nemo?

And it’s not only Disney. Universal is all-in on the IP game too. Before Celestial Park, they hadn’t built an original attraction since Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit in 2009. And that came tens years after their last attempt with Lost Continent. As the saying goes, “if you got it flaunt it” and most chains like Six Flags and United would kill for an opportunity to expand their IP portfolio.

(Yawn) Every month or two, Rob P surfaces with disparaging commentary aimed at the the Disney Company. There was "Can We Trust Disney?" on September 9, 2025. He dropped "Is Disney Making Big Mistakes?" on October 7, 2025. Then came "The Not So Magic Kingdom" on December 18, 2025. Followed by this most recent dump he offered up yesterday.

(Yawn)

By all means, enjoy yourself Rob. Looking forward to your (all-too-predictable) April 1st effort.

Thanks for the reply, Russell. I sat here racking my brains and came up with Test Track but thought others would be better placed to ask. The point I was making is that Disney have concentrated on IP only attractions for a long time so Plastic Bob is simply continuing the long established trend.

I would put the starting point at the Living Seas being replaced by Nemo.

Basing an attraction on a pre-existing IP is the safe option. It allows an attraction to have built-in popularity simply because those who are fans of the property are likely to prioritize it whether or not the ride is actually a headliner. However, it does have the downside in that the popularity of the IP will influence the popularity of the attraction, so an IP that doesn't have the ability to endure for an extended period may result in an attraction that needs to be replaced well before its natural lifespan would have come to a close. Designing for an IP also has pros and cons, with the biggest pro being that it provides a blueprint for designers to follow and the biggest con being that using it as too much of a crutch can result in a subpar attraction that can't stand independent of the IP.

I do think IP-centric attractions have a place in the modern theme park, and I think those who rail against them simply due to that fact are a bit misguided. However, I don't think every attraction should be tied to an IP, nor do I believe every IP should be featured. When a park is considering a new attraction, they should be considering first what type of attraction is most needed, then decide whether there is a popular IP in their catalog that is a natural fit for that project. Unfortunately, both Disney and Universal have done a fair amount of picking an IP and finding a way to insert it into a new project, and while this method can work, it has also resulted in a fair number of average at best attractions. My biggest worry is that the overabundance of IP will result in the parks losing the timeless quality an attraction developed from an original concept may be able to maintain, and thus it might become challenging for the parks to maintain multi-generational appeal if everything the parents fell in love with is gone by the time the children arrive.

AJ: "However, it does have the downside in that the popularity of the IP will influence the popularity of the attraction, so an IP that doesn't have the ability to endure for an extended period may result in an attraction that needs to be replaced well before its natural lifespan would have come to a close.

Me: Annnnd we are officially spinning our wheels. We've entertained this discussion on multiple occasions (I believe the term is "evergreen"). This is the part of the conversation when I point to the still-operating Peter Pan attraction at Disneyland which I believe opened during the McKinley administration.

Kudos to JT for observing "And it’s not only Disney. Universal is all-in on the IP game too. Before Celestial Park, they hadn’t built an original attraction since 'Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit' in 2009".

Well done sir! While I'm not sure we can call Celestial Park an attraction, it does have that merry-go-round -- although I hardly believe its draw (assuming it has one) is linked to an original story or characters.

To JT's point, when it comes to tearing out original story attractions and replacing them with IPs Comcast has affirmed Disney's wisdom. Lost Continent is going to be replaced by an IP based attraction (and the Comcast fanboys are going to call it "brilliant"). Comcast replaced the original story "Dueling Dragons" with IP (Hagrid's). Comcast is replacing the original "Hollywood, Rip, Ride, Rockit" with an IP based attraction.

And considering the fact that Comcast affirmed the wisdom of Disney's commitment to IP attractions by building two theme parks that were all-in on IPs (IOA and EU), the answer to the question at the top of this thread ("Is Iger right?") is most assuredly "yes" and will likely still be "yes" when Rob P reframes this cliché topic in a post he will inevitably offer up a couple of months from now.

Disney is sort of doing non-IP based things still, just on a minor scale. The new carousel they are building in Tropical Americas at Animal Kingdom is not necessarily IP-based. In fact, that whole new Tropical Americas land is an original concept, a town created from scratch by WDI like Anandapur, Serka Zong, and Harambe at Animal Kingdom, with it's own history and architectural language. Now yes the two main attractions will be IP-based, but they could've made the entire land based on the village from Encanto or something Indiana Jones related and instead went with an original concept.

Resorts are another place WDW is exploring original concepts, like the new Lakeshore Lodge, instead of building hotels based around a single IP like Starcruiser or Toy Story Hotel.

TH, there’s also Stardust Racers, which is why I just lumped the two rides under the all-inclusive umbrella of Celestial Park.

ThemeParkFanatic25, models for the carousel have shown that the ride figures will be based upon characters from movies like Up and Jungle Book, so that doesn’t really fit what I would call an original concept either.

I do sort of lament that rides like Haunted Mansion or “it’s a small world” would not get greenlit today. But it is what it is and if IP is needed to keep the parks invested, so be it.

I would say that Dark Universe is almost half-IP, because there were a lot of original characters and new ideas, and the conjoined universe was mostly new.

Anyways I think that if an amazing movie comes out that blows everyone's socks off, or a popular movie has a lot of theme park potential (I'm holding out for a mistborn land) It deserves to have its own land. Realistically, I don't think the general public are as picky about it and probably prefer IP because they get to see their childhood characters in the flesh. Honestly, I think that starting from scratch and trying to create an immersive world without support from an IP would cause it to be worse, not better, because of the stress of trying to come up with an immersive story. With an IP in the backing, not only do you already have an immersive world you can simply expand on already there, but the attachment from the public is also there as well. Of course, there are pros and cons, and we have listed them already, but its not such a horrible a thing, as long as its a good ride and a decent IP,

TH writes :
"(Yawn) Every month or two, Rob P surfaces with disparaging commentary aimed at the the Disney Company."

My posts are usually from the perspective of posing questions based on news reports rather than making sweeping statements.
They may be uncomfortable for a Disney sycophant like yourself but they do appear to generate a lot of interest and responses. So no "yawning" there.

Not all of those responses are negative but they are usually well informed and the benefit to me , and hopefully other readers, is that I get to learn more about the Parks.

I have always supported Disney and, considering that I live thousands of miles away have visited their Parks on both coasts many times. So not just moral support but by putting lots of my hard earned money into the system. So I believe I have the right to question what goes on and how they move forward.
That does not mean that I'm anti- Disney. Far from it. I want them to succeed. I want them to be profitable and I want them to provide the entertainment
quality that they always have.
Unlike you most of us don't blindly accept everything Disney does as being for the best. We are their audience and should give them feedback through platforms like TPI.

@Rob P: I believe everyone should be allowed to post whatever they want -- within TPI's TOS, of course. I didn't say you shouldn't post something. I said what you post is repetitive and boring.

As for your claim that I am a "Disney sycophant", I'll respond by quoting Russell: "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."

Perhaps Rob P might remember that post from Russell. It was on a discussion thread titled (Yawn) "Is Disney Making Big Mistakes?"

(Chuckle)

Getting back to the topic at hand, here is what Bob himself had to say about IP in the parks, during today's quarterly earnings call:

"If you go all the way back to 2005 when I became CEO, the return on invested capital in the then-Parks and Resorts business was not impressive, and actually not acceptable. We also had not that much building in progress, meaning there wasn't much expansion, but maybe for good reason, because the return on invested capital was so low.

"As we added IP to our stable, including Pixar in '06 and Marvel in '09 and Lucasfilm/Star Wars in 12, and ultimately, 20th Century Fox, we gained access to intellectual property that had real value in terms of Parks and Resorts and enabled us to lean into more capital spending, because of the confidence level we had in improving returns on invested capital due to the popularity of that IP.

"When you look at the footprint of the business today, it's never been more broad or more diverse, and the projects that we have underway are going to make it even more so. As I said, we're expanding in every place we operate, and additionally, having been in Abu Dhabi just two weeks ago, I am reminded of how great the potential is to build in that part of the world, because not only is it strategically located to reach a huge population that has never visited our parks, but will be built in one of the most modern and technologically advanced ways.

"So as I look ahead, I am very, very bullish on that business and its ability to grow."

So the question "Is Iger right?" is now being posed 21 years after he issued that statement?

Again, "yawn".

So the commitment to IP-based attractions has been foundational to Mr. Iger's strategy. And now, more than two decades after the statement provided by Robert armchair theme park execs are wondering if dependence upon IP is a good idea?

Please.

And considering that Disney has consistently maintained its standing as the most successful themed entertainment model, I'd say the answer to Rob P's (repetitive) question(s) is decidedly "yes, Mr. Iger is right".

@TH
See how easy it is ? Instead of being a tiresome bore you could have just answered my question with a simple one word "Yes"

Actually my question had recently been raised on a well known Disney Information site and I thought it to be topical. With that in mind I was interested to get feedback on the subject from the more adult contributors here on TPI. I got that so my thanks to them.

Also I only posed this question once and not repeatedly as you suggest.

It's obvious that you have a problem with my posts so may I suggest that, instead of revealing yourself to being irritatingly childish, you simply ignore them. I've read a number of your comments and it seems to me that you're often uncessarily antagonistic. So at least it's not personal. You just have issues.

@Rob P: If you re-read what I've written you'll note that I am critical of the content you are posting and not of you personally. Meanwhile you've called me a "Disney Sycophant", "Childish" and a "Tiresome bore".

I'll leave it at that.

Meanwhile, congrats Josh and Dana. Now let's add Joe Schott into the mix as Chairman of Chairman of Disney Experiences and the company's future looks promising.