If you’ve been around the Disney Parks fan community long enough, you’ve no doubt taken sides in a whole lot of well-meaning debates… Management, beards, “political correctness,” tattoos, screens… Fans are always taking sides and talking about something. But in the last decade, there’s been one debate that reigns supreme: IP, or intellectual property – the use of licensed, owned, or acquired brands, movies, characters, stories, and settings in Disney Parks. Recently, a Twitter user raised the question:
It’s a good question! After all, if you spend time scouring #Distwitter or Disney Parks social media groups, you’ll undoubtedly see a lot of pushback against Disney Parks projects based on big IPs! Some fans practically beg for Disney to stop adding so much Pixar, so much Marvel, so much Star Wars, and even so much Disney into the Disney Parks!
Of course, IP has been a part of Disneyland since its 1955 opening, and many of the park’s most beloved attractions are based on films – sometimes, films that didn’t even belong to Disney! So even the most fervent fans can’t possibly “hate IP in the parks.” Rather, it has to be a case of debating how IP is used… And to help us weed out the good from the bad, we propose four questions Imagineers should ask themselves before permanently planting an intellectual property into Disney Parks.
1. The Timeless Test
The question: “Will it still matter in 10 years? 20? 50?”
To our thinking, one of the most important questions Disney Imagineers need to ask themselves before incorporating intellectual property into the parks is simple: will it last? The push for modern IPs in Disney Parks began in earnest in the 1980s, and though there were some stumbling blocks (like the Lost Legend: Captain EO with its distinctly-’80s style and its star who became embroiled in controversy), the movies Eisner brought in (like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Toy Story) had largely already proven to be generation-defining by time they appeared in the Parks. That’s why Star Tours and Indiana Jones Adventure still hold up!
Universal had that too… at first. Despite opening with epic, elaborate Lost Legends: Kongfrontation, Jaws, Back to the Future, or Earthquake acting as throwbacks to iconic, timeless films from the ‘70s and ‘80s, only one survives today. In the early 2000s, Universal became wildly aggressive about updating its Studio park with whatever’s hot at the moment… without applying the Timeless Test. The result is a park where ride lifetimes are measured in seasons, not decades, and where attractions sometimes feel designed for short-term installation in “flex spaces” more than built-out, physical, “permanent” attractions.
If that’s how Universal wants to operate, that’s their prerogative! But it is a little worrisome to see aspects of the M.O. seep over to Disney, where there’s a perceived rush to get hot brands into the parks come hell or high water. Cynics might suggest that Disney’s pursuit of Parks projects is guided by the company’s focus on franchising and consumer products more than any multi-decade strategy or longevity – a proposition seemingly supported by the often-short tenures of Resort-level executives looking to demonstrate year-over-year returns versus thinking a decade out, or about such silly concepts as a park’s spirit.
Even when IP is part of an established, successful franchise, sometimes fans worry that its execution in the parks is a little-too-Universal. For example, it’s hard to imagine that California Adventure’s Guardians of the Galaxy – Mission: BREAKOUT! will still be around in 20 years; but of course, it’s probably not meant to be. The six month changeover from the Lost Legend: The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror that created it can just as quickly be done again to swap it to whatever action film’s hot in the 2040s… But to think that the 2017 version of Chris Pratt or his character Star Lord will still occupy that building in 2041? Eh… Doubtful (but possible!).
Another example of “The Timeless Test” is being put to work right now. At Shanghai Disneyland, an entire land themed to Zootopia is joining a “castle” park, which is objectively kind of weird (but maybe more understandable since Shanghai Disneyland is pretty unapologetically different, and since Zootopia was a pretty resounding box office hit in China).
Increasingly, though, it seems likely that Disney could “double dip” on the project with a copy at Animal Kingdom despite the park’s (now-retired) creative lead Joe Rohde stating explicitly that Zootopia wouldn’t fit. With a Disney+ series and sequel on the way, you can imagine why the Resort’s leadership would say of a Zootopia land, “Sure, we’ll take one!” But has Zootopia really proven itself as a film (much less franchise) that’ll still be relevant in ten years? Twenty? Fifty? Is it worthy of a permanent land at a Disney theme park? Or perhaps more to the point, that Disney theme park? Which leads us to our next thing for Imagineers to consider…
2. Respect for Parks’ Identities
Question: “Why should it go into this park?”
When EPCOT Center opened, it was a revolution! Disney World’s “permanent World’s Fair” was closer to the ambitious and industrious later years of Walt’s life than his fairy tale, animated origins. Devoid of characters, bolstered by corporate power, and glowing with the monumental architecture of the ‘80s, it was marked by big, bold ideas and adult authenticity. When the Disney-MGM Studios opened less than a decade later, it, too, was a revolution with its “Ride the Movies” M.O. championed by new leadership; so was Animal Kingdom. Even California Adventure was born (then reborn) with a particular spirit; a vision; an identity!
Today, it’s clear that the ultra-ambitious origins of EPCOT or the distinctly-Californian stories of California Adventure are long, long gone. But more to the point, they haven’t really been replaced with anything as bold or strongly adhered to. The notion that Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy can “fit” in both is a pretty damning example of just how muddled any given park’s particular identity has become. Few would argue that Galaxy’s Edge makes much sense in the historic Disneyland with its diminutive storybook-scaled areas. Even the once-impenetrable DisneySea has seen Finding Nemo overtake its “nautical Tomorrowland,” and even the most stalwart defenders of the park would find it hard to narratively excuse the spectacular Fantasy Springs that’s on the way, bringing Frozen, Peter Pan, and Tangled to the otherwise literary, grounded park.
Once upon a long time ago, Disney World largely kept “modern” IPs (and particularly outside ones like Star Wars and Indiana Jones) at its Studio park, relegated to boxy “soundstages.” Though Disneyland seems somewhat immune from impermanent IP additions, every other park seems to have settled into being some degree of “Studio” park itself. Pixar Pier, Galaxy’s Edge, Avengers Campus, Moana’s Journey of Water, Zootopia, Toy Story Land, Arendelle: The World of Frozen, a Tomorrowland populated entirely by Pixar… Though Imagineering’s latest group of projects are big, bold, and elaborate, their somewhat “drag-and-drop” placement in parks can make them feel out-of-sync, with little care about fitting a park’s spirit, story, or scale… Which brings us to our next thing to consider…
3. The Balance of ‘Old’ and ‘New’
The question to ask: “Does it respect the park’s history?”
“Disneyland will never be completed as long as there’s imagination left in the world.” For those “outside” the Disney history bubble, Walt’s quote is hopeful and inspiring! For the rest of us, it sounds like a threat – probably because it often accompanies Disney Parks Blog posts announcing the closure of a classic ride or experience.
On one hand, it’s absolutely essential that Disney Parks grow and change and incorporate new intellectual properties (so long as they pass the Timeless Test and respect the park’s identity, we hope); on the other, though, Disney Parks are not mere showcases for modern blockbusters. Disney parks are not museums, but they are historic places. Generations of tradition lie within every square foot of the parks, so the decision to insert intellectual property has to be made carefully, and with balance.
It’s probably why both the Declassified Disasters: Stitch’s Great Escape and The Enchanted Tiki Room: Under New Management are both remembered as pretty colossal disappointments. Not only were they pretty objectively bad attractions in their own rights; they also “defaced” Disney “classics” with unneeded characters.
And so it goes with Pooh replacing Toad; Jack Sparrow joining Pirates; a Star Wars land without Luke and Leia; the “Pixarification” of Disney Parks; Marvel heroes assembling in Epcot; characters “invading” It’s a Small World; an “upgraded” Star Tours axing the beloved Rex… Each upgrade, plussing, or infusion of “hot” IP does have to be done with care. Imagineers walk a tricky tightrope of keeping parks both reverent and relevant.
Parks need to feel current. Disney would be downright daft to just ignore its $100 billion in content acquisitions in the last two decades, including The Muppets, Pixar, Marvel, and 20th Century Fox, much less Disney’s own home-grown hits of the 21st century. But in addition to applying the Timeless Test and respecting each park’s identity, Imagineers should be careful to let Disney Parks be historic places, too, not just showcases for blockbuster movies.
4. Remembering Originality
The question: “Can we create something more timeless, park-appropriate, and additive without the IP?”
As we’ve suggested, Disney has a whole lot of media-based IP, and a whole lot of reasons to use it. Cars Land wouldn’t be half as incredible if it had been a generic desert town as originally envisioned; inventing a generic alien planet would be a lot harder than using the built-in imagery of Avatar or Star Wars, and it would lack the cultural resonance. But applying the simple questions we’ve asked so far (“Will it matter in 10 years?” “Is it park appropriate?” “Does it respect the park’s history?”), sometimes Imagineers may run into the answer, “No.” So… what then?
Well luckily, we know Disney Imagineers don’t just use IP; they can create it. In fact, some of the most sensational attractions in Disney’s entire portfolio are ideas born from the minds of Imagineers! It’s not just historic classics like Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean…
It’s also the Modern Marvels: Mystic Manor or Tokyo’s Twilight Zone-free Tower of Terror, wrapped into the mythos of S.E.A.; the Lost Legend: Journey into Imagination; an entire portfolio of characters, expanded worlds, and mythologies created just for the theme parks! Those stories become so ingrained in generations of visitors that they become pop culture staples. Disney Imagineers add to the cultural zeitgeist by way of their theme parks.
And whether you’re talking about old classics like Jungle Cruise or new originals like the Modern Marvel: Expedition Everest, some of Disney’s most magical worlds, strongest stories, and coolest characters are those invented for the parks.
Which makes it so strange that U.S. Disney Parks haven’t received a genuinely IP-free anchor attraction since 2006, and it’s hard to imagine any are on the way. If Disney Imagineers aren’t empowered to generate strong original ideas, the Parks are only taking from the zeitgeist instead of adding to it. Eventually, that’ll catch up with the Parks!
So yes, it’s absolutely true that the same fans who once faulted California Adventure for being “too much California, not enough Disney” now accuse the park of being “too much Disney, not enough California”! It’s not that those fans are hypocrites; it’s that Disney arguably overcorrected! With the scales tipped so heavily away from original ideas or homemade IP, it can feel that Disney’s parks are mere marketing tools.
As with everything on this list, the answer is simple: balance. It’s frustrating to imagine how easily California Adventure could make use of Mystic Manor, or bring to life the never-built Possibilityland: Discovery Bay, even in addition to IP-focused add-ons like Avengers Campus and Incredicoaster.
Putting it all together
Anyone who suggests that Disney Parks ought to just “freeze” in place and time in their current states clearly hasn’t been around long. Disney Parks are defined by change, and most of the time, that change has come through intellectual property that makes the parks relevant for the times. As long as Disney keeps producing (and acquiring) brands, characters, stories, and portfolios that matter, those brands will keep finding homes in Disney Parks.
So all we can hope is that Disney Imagineers decide to carefully consider the four points we raised here.
“Will it still be relevant in 20 years?” “Why should it go into this park?” “Does it respect the park’s history?” “Can we tell a stronger story without the constraints of IP?” Those four questions could be revelatory ones, ensuring that when movies make their way into Disney Parks, it’s done well. And by just applying those simple standards, would Zootopia come to Animal Kingdom, or Guardians of the Galaxy to Epcot? We’ll leave you to decide…
