There are many ways to build a successful theme park. Children’s Fairyland in Oakland, California combines old-fashioned charm and community-focused events with a child-only policy that prevents childless adults (and unaccompanied kids) from wandering through its 10-acre lot. Six Flags has established itself as the champion of thrill-seekers, with over 160 stomach-twisting roller coasters scattered among its 15 locations. With current portals in Hollywood, Orlando, Japan, and Singapore, Universal Studios Theme Parks has redefined immersive intellectual property-inspired attractions, from its harrowing Walking Dead walkthrough to its famed Wizarding World of Harry Potter experience.
The Disney Parks, meanwhile, have settled comfortably in the intersection between nostalgia and innovation, blending IP-based attractions with cutting-edge technology in ways that used to feel fresh and original. Disney isn’t known for having the most extreme roller coasters, like Six Flags, or the most interactive capabilities, like Universal, but its commitment to expanding the scope of the theme park industry has fueled an expectation for an ongoing stream of new and exciting attractions, festivities, and tech.
Image: Disney
These days, that’s proving an increasingly difficult model to build on. Disney’s competitors have matched—and, in some ways, surpassed—its ability to complement lush, detailed theming with Audio-Animatronics, trackless and Omnimover-powered attractions, dynamic live entertainment, and more. It was of some surprise, then, when Disney Parks chairman Bob Chapek spoke to this disadvantage during the opening of Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge last month:
“We’ve got the wealth of riches, we’ve got an embarrassment of riches, and we don’t want to do anything that anybody else can do,” Chapek told the press. “A lot of times, people say, ‘Why does everything have to have a franchise orientation?’ Because that’s our barrier to entry. Because if any of our competitors had our intellectual property, guess what? They would be doing the exact same thing we’re doing, but they don’t have it. […] And that’s where we have a franchise orientation. And frankly, that’s why the Walt Disney Company far and away outperforms all of our peers.”
It’s unusual to see this level of self-awareness publicized in the Disney community, especially as this kind of ‘franchise orientation’ appears to run counter to Walt’s original vision for his theme parks. But is that really the case? Does IP exclusivity preclude the Disney Parks from pushing the envelope with original attractions and boundary-expanding technological advancements? And does their grip on franchises like Star Wars and Avatar necessarily mean that they’re a cut above the rest?
This isn’t the first time the Disney Parks have been ‘franchise-oriented’
Image: Patrick McGarvey, Flickr (license)
The last truly original (i.e. not IP-based) ride to debut at any stateside Disney park was Expedition Everest, which was planted in Disney’s Animal Kingdom on April 7, 2006. Other parks’ most recent attractions include Soarin’ Over California (Epcot, 2005), Astro Orbitor (Disneyland, 1998), and the Tomorrowland Transit Authority PeopleMover (Magic Kingdom, 1975). Disney California Adventure has not debuted a new original attraction (with the exception of the Soarin’ overlay in 2016) since it first opened its gates to the public in February 2001, with California Screamin’, Golden Zephyr, Orange Stinger, Maliboomer, and Grizzly River Run among the non-IP rides in its rotation. Disney’s Hollywood Studios, meanwhile, has exclusively dealt in IP-based rides; the closest they came to developing a ride with a unique story and characters was with the debut of Rock ‘n’ Roller Coaster Starring Aerosmith in 1999.
There might be any number of reasons why Disney has directed its focus away from original story-based rides like Pirates of the Caribbean, Matterhorn Bobsleds, Haunted Mansion, and Big Thunder Mountain Railroad over the years—rides that have since entered the untouchable pantheon of theme park classics—but most of them boil down to this: there is a noticeable and increasing demand for immersive experiences built on über-successful franchises. And, while it’s hardly romantic to suggest that Disney is driven by a need to boost its bottom line, that it knows more guests will come flocking through the turnstiles for a Guardians of the Galaxy rollercoaster than a whimsical dark ride about an imaginative purple dragon, it would be just as foolhardy to believe that there ever existed a time when the Disney Parks were not primarily viewed as a money-making machine.
As Disney expanded its partnerships with Pixar and Lucasfilm and acquired more lucrative franchises—Star Wars first and foremost among them—the demand for IP-based attractions appeared to grow by leaps and bounds as well. In 2012, Disney California Adventure’s Cars Land became the first fully immersive Disney-themed land, while Pandora – The World of Avatar opened to rave reviews upon its debut in 2017. With such a wealth of films and characters to draw from, the need to pair unique, never-before-told stories with new roller coasters and dark rides dwindled. Disney hasn’t lost the ability to innovate on the same level as the original Imagineers did, but they’re far less likely to roll the dice with something as creatively ambitious as the Carousel of Progress or “it’s a small world” when it has galaxies of Star Wars, Marvel, and Pixar characters to play around with instead.
Disney’s ‘franchise orientation’ is still heavily influenced by public demand
Image: HarshLight, Flickr (license)
Here’s the cool thing about a ‘franchise orientation’: To a reasonable extent, it’s shaped by consumers’ preferences and buying power. Films that do well at the box office, from Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens to The Avengers to Avatar, are far more likely to inspire Disney’s next slate of attractions, shows, parades, and fireworks displays than those that don’t (case in point: we’re not going to see a Good Dinosaur-themed dark ride anytime soon).
For the last several decades, Disney has largely profited off the nostalgia of its older properties and the burgeoning popularity of its newer ones. This was never more clearly seen than with the Frozen frenzy that hit the parks in early 2014. After raking in a worldwide gross of $1.2 billion, Frozen (2013) spawned a plethora of singalongs, parades, character meet-and-greets, stage shows, storytelling performances, firework spectacular segments, and themed dining events, culminating with the development of Frozen Ever After, a boat ride that supplanted the more culturally-minded Maelstrom in Epcot’s Norway pavilion.
Although the Frozen fever wasn’t received well by all subsets of Disney fans, particularly those who embraced the parks’ more retro elements, it’s difficult to argue that the franchise’s sudden and overwhelming representation at the parks wasn’t satisfying a great public demand. Merchandise sales soared, queues pushed into four- or five-hour wait times, and children from Main Street, U.S.A. to Mickey’s Toontown were clad head-to-toe in Arendelle’s finest.
On some level, it may be disappointing to hear someone like Chapek blatantly admit that the development and expansion of the Disney Parks is not driven by a need to innovate, to make art for art’s sake, to think out of the box the way Spaceship Earth and Kilimanjaro Safaris and Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln proved they could. It may feel like a cop-out that Disney chooses instead to direct all of their efforts toward Frozen and Star Wars and Marvel simply because they know they’re sitting on a veritable gold mine of ticket and merch sales. But, at the end of the day, they are paying attention to the stories and characters their guests care about—guests whose money is just as good and whose opinions are just as valid as those who would see Disneyland revert to its 1955 self.
It takes more than superior IP in order to stay ahead of the competition
Image: Loren Javier, Flickr (license)
It’s not what you have that matters; it’s what you do with what you have. In the winter of 2012, Disney acquired Lucasfilm for the sum of $4.05 billion, gaining unfettered access to the studio’s bounty of Star Wars and Indiana Jones films, among other assets. The acquisition furthered Disney’s preexisting involvement with the franchises, as they had already collaborated with George Lucas on multiple attractions for the Disney Parks, including Star Tours (1985), Indiana Jones Adventure: Temple of the Forbidden Eye (1995), Indiana Jones Adventures: Temple of the Crystal Skull (2001), and Star Tours – The Adventures Continue (2011).
It may have been too soon to expect Disney to develop something as expansive and ambitious as Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge; after all, they’d only started to test the waters with Cars Land. But the few attractions they had already developed for Lucasfilm hinted at their ability to blend compelling IP with mesmerizing tech—from the Enhanced Motion Vehicle (EMV) system that randomly generated hundreds of thousands of variations in vehicle movement to the choose-your-own-adventure feel of Star Tours – The Adventures Continue and its eight possible destinations.
Image: Disney
Now, with the opening of Galaxy’s Edge in May 2019, Disney is once again infusing its IP-based attractions with innovative tech. Guests who step aboard Millennium Falcon: Smuggler’s Run may be asked to take over the controls of the fastest Corellian light freighter in the galaxy, while those who experience the forthcoming Rise of the Resistance ride have been promised trackless vehicles, gargantuan AT-AT walkers, and a frightening face-to-face confrontation with the Audio-Animatronic Kylo Ren.
Where Chapek’s arguments veer into hyperbole (or perhaps just a skewed perception of the Disney Parks’ competition) is when they claim that Disney is doing things that nobody else in the theme park industry is doing. Yes, the company has a claim to Star Wars and Pixar and Frozen and any number of successful films and franchises that Universal and Six Flags will never get their hands on. But when it comes to the theming and tech behind the attractions, elements like large-scale animatronics and launched steel roller coaster systems, responsive merchandise, 3D projections, and in-depth character experiences, it becomes harder to make a case that Disney is still performing a cut above the rest. They have the IP in-hand, but whether they have the vision to keep pushing the boundaries of the theme park experience remains to be seen—though, if Chapek’s comments about Rise of the Resistance are anything to go off of, we may see it happen sooner rather than later.
A wealth of franchise material may motivate Disney to keep Walt’s brand alive, albeit in a different way
Image: Disney
Visit the Disney Parks often enough, and you’re sure to hear the refrain of this now-iconic quote: “Disneyland will never be completed. It will continue to grow as long as there is imagination left in the world.” It’s been trotted out to cover any and every ‘new’ element at the parks, but rarely is it delivered in the same spirit that it was given.
The nature of theme parks (even those beyond Disney’s berm) is to expand and improve with age. The debate is never whether or not Disney’s parks should change, but what might be the best way to enhance their most charming, well-made, and magical qualities. Are they made better by adhering to a philosophy that prizes innovation and experimentation? Or are they doing fans a greater service by basing their future attractions and lands only on viable IP?
Image: Disney
It’s not necessarily an either-or conundrum. For Chapek, the path forward is clearly marked by the stories and characters who have best served Disney fans. And Disney has proven that, for the most part, they can be trusted to supplement that ‘franchise orientation’ with the kind of forward-thinking technology and guest experiences that even Walt himself would have approved of.
