I think a lot of fans suspect that park's apparent obsession with IP [intellectual property] is something new. But parks have relied on outside media for inspiration ever since Disneyland opened in 1955. Remember, "Disneyland" was a TV show before it was a theme park. Walt himself used his show to introduce fans across the country to many of the supposedly original IP that he would feature in the park, including Pirates of the Caribbean and the Enchanted Tiki Room. And the park's Fantasyland's always has provided a collection of Disney Animation IP.
When movies, TV shows, and theme parks all reference the same franchise — promoting each iteration of the same IP — they help create and reinforce popular demand that allows the studios that produce the franchise to spend many millions of dollars on it than the studio could afford if that work existed in a single medium. Basing a franchise on outside IP gives designers a "head start," allowing them to tap into relationships and emotional states that fans bring to an IP ride or show, and to build on those from there, deepening the experience for visitors. Without that, we'd enter a ride or show cold, waiting for introductions and scene setting that would delay the emotional payoff for everyone.
Of course, this only works for people who know a franchise. That's not much of an obstacle for Harry Potter, Star Wars, or Marvel, with their billions of fans worldwide. But it can be for less popular, not-as-well-established franchises. I saw a lot of people last month walk out of Motiongate Dubai's Hotel Transylvania ride with blank looks. If you didn't know the movie, you had no idea what was happening on that ride, as it didn't get the job done of setting up its story for people who hadn't seen the film.
IP is just another source of inspiration. Ultimately, great IP can't distinguish a mediocre ride. Do all those DC Comics brands slapped on Six Flags' coasters and carnival spinners really make a difference in our enjoyment of them? But a mediocre IP can inspire a wonderful theme park attraction. Universal Studios Hollywood's Waterworld stunt show has entertained far more fans than ever saw the Kevin Coster film that inspired it. And Disney's Splash Mountain is far more beloved that the often cringe-worthy South of the South that Disney has buried in its vault.
Still, popular IP comes with risk to theme parks. A great IP raises the expectation for a theme park attraction, putting the pressure on designers (and the people who control their budget) to deliver. Millions of fans would have booked trips to see The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, no matter what Universal did with that franchise. But if Universal Creative hadn't delivered the amazing immersive experience that it did, the blowback from disappointed fans could have sunk the theme park chain, given its state back when the first land debuted.
Sure, I'd love to see Disney do more with its Society of Explorers and Adventurers, and I can't wait to see Rivers of Light. But I'm looking forward to Avatar, Star Wars, and Nintendo Land, too. I don't care where theme park designers find their inspiration (or their funding). Like many fans, I just want them to create great rides, shows, and environments for us to enjoy. If it takes outside IP to do that these days, then I'm fine with it.
Read Robert's column:
Tweet
Living Seas wasn't bad, but the Nemo addition is much better.
Epcot has enough original concepts still keeping the park boring as heck.
When it comes to IP-based attractions, one of the big questions is whether the ride supports the IP or whether the IP supports the ride. If you could strip the IP from a ride and end up with something comparable in quality and popularity, the ride merely supports the IP and doesn't require it. If, on the other hand, the ride wouldn't work without the IP being present, it is supported by the IP.
Using IP on rides that support it is a very smart strategy, as it enhances the popularity of the ride and runs little risk of the attraction becoming irrelevant in the future. Creating IP supported attractions, however, is where the problems lie. A park full of these attractions runs the risk of becoming irrelevant if the IP loses popularity, and except for the biggest franchises IP will limit a park's audience if used in this way.
There is nothing wrong with using IP if it is used properly, but I do question the sustainability of some of the attractions currently being developed. Star Wars, unless Disney winds up killing it, is a pretty safe bet, and Harry Potter isn't likely to die anytime soon, but will Marvel, Avatar, Nintendo, or any of the smaller projects being developed still be a big draw in 10-15 years? If those franchises are used to prop up otherwise lackluster attractions, it could lead to significant trouble down the road.
In the end it's what you do with the IP. Disney often rehashes the plot of the movie and it's songs in a short condensed version. In my eyes a lazy way to build a ride. Universal takes the characters and movies and adds to the story to expand on it or does something unique or unexpected with it. Personally I like that better.
In terms of the actual enjoyment of the attraction itself, it's certainly not a requirement. Haunted mansion & pirates (pre films) are still considered favorites & rank above many "IP" based attractions.
If an attraction is great (and better yet, new) people will ride it. Admission prices these day are pretty high for theme parks, so most people, will try to ride any & everything they can.
Using a popular IP, makes it easier to market to those fan bases, & give the general public a familiarity with the attraction, and helps to sell gear / food, but it's not needed.
But sometimes using known IP works differently than it was intended. For example, I don't watch The Tonight Show nor had I watched Jimmy Fallon. But bring it into a theme park and it suddenly gets my attention. So I research and learn more about him. I find out I was missing a pretty great comedian. So while the IP was intended to bring his fans to the park, it brought a park fan to him. :)
I think it ultimately comes down to what type of Park it is. If it's a Disneyland/MK Park, where the points is that you're entering the magical world of Disney, then I P is absolutely necessary. If it's a studio park like universal or DHS, where you're entering a movie studio, then of coarse it should feature IP. No questions asked. If it's a park like IOA or Tokyo DisneySea, where the point is that you're visiting different fantastical "islands" or "Ports," but it's connected to a popular movie studio, then you can have some IP-based attractions and some that aren't. If you're a Six Flags Cedar Fair or Busch Gardens Park, where people really only go for adrenaline fueled coasters and not to be immersed in another world, then some IP-based attractions would be a nice little addition, but wouldn't really be all that necessary.
The true outliers here are Epcot and DAK.
The main purpose of these parks is to educate people. ( and I just want to make a quick little comments to Anon Mouse that Epcot has provided me with a much more fun and exciting educational experience than any school I've been to) so IP wouldn't really be their main focus. However they just so happen to belong to the single most influential film studio of all time. And, as such, many fans would probably feel a little disappointed if the entire parks were completely stripped of IP. So naturally they added some IP. However, they still have plenty of attractions not based on IP. DAK has Kilimanjaro Safari's and Expedition Everest. Epcot has too many to count. And usually whenever they make an IEP based attraction it helps to serve the educational value. For example, you have the Nemo ride which teaches you about the aquatic life in the ocean, the Donald duck ride which takes you on a tour of Mexico, bugs life teaches you all about bugs, ( go figure ) and sends avatar is all about environmental awareness you can bats that it will be a dominant theme in its new land. But then there are some IP that is just a little out of place. I still really want to try out the frozen ride, I heard that it's really great, but it's just not Epcot. Granted, I haven't written it yet, so maybe it's does teach you about Norway. But nothing I've heard so far indicates that. Again, it sounds like it belongs in fantasyland in stead.
This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.
