Disney Brand Fatigue Is Damaging Its Parks

Summary

视频剧本深入探讨了迪士尼乐园依赖其电影IP（知识产权）的策略，以及这种策略可能带来的长期风险。作者质疑，将电影IP简单粗暴地应用到乐园的新设施上，是否真的能够吸引游客，还是仅仅因为这些设施本身有趣。随着消费者行为的转变，以及对已建立的特许经营电影的兴趣减少，作者预测迪士尼的这种依赖IP的策略可能不会持续有效。视频还比较了迪士尼和环球影城在将IP融入主题公园方面的差异，指出环球影城的新设施即使脱离了其IP，也能独立存在并提供有趣的体验。作者认为，如果迪士尼不改变其策略，继续依赖IP而不是创造真正有创意和吸引力的游乐设施，那么随着品牌忠诚度的下降，这些昂贵但感觉廉价的乐园投资可能会对迪士尼产生昂贵的反噬。

Takeaways

• 🤔 迪士尼乐园依赖电影IP（知识产权）的策略可能在短期内有效，但作者质疑这种策略是否能持续吸引游客。
• 🎢 迪士尼的新游乐设施往往被认为是半成品，依靠知名电影IP来吸引游客，但这种吸引力可能只是因为新鲜感和游乐设施本身的趣味性。
• 📉 传统电影票房的下滑和消费者行为的转变，让人怀疑迪士尼对皮克斯和漫威等品牌的大型投资是否会适得其反。
• 🎟️ 迪士尼将乐园视为品牌广告牌，而不是真正的主题公园，这可能导致他们的新增加项目很快过时。
• 🚀 与迪士尼不同，环球影城在整合IP到其乐园和游乐设施时，似乎更加注重创造有趣和独特的体验。
• 🎬 电影行业正在经历重大转变，大型电影系列的观众兴趣和回报正在减少，这可能影响迪士尼乐园依赖电影IP的策略。
• 📊 流媒体服务的兴起提供了一种更便宜、更方便的电影观看方式，这可能会减少人们去电影院观看迪士尼或皮克斯品牌电影的兴趣。
• 🌐 迪士尼乐园的某些区域，如Galaxy's Edge，可能因为IP的过度饱和而变得乏味，缺乏与经典迪士尼乐园景点相媲美的细节和吸引力。
• 🎢 加州冒险乐园的汽车土地（Cars Land）是一个成功的IP整合案例，因为它即使脱离了电影IP，也是一个精心设计的主题区域。
• 🚫 迪士尼乐园的一些新景点，如皮克斯码头（Pixar Pier）和复仇者校园（Avengers Campus），可能因为缺乏深度和创意而很快过时。
• ❗ 迪士尼需要重新思考其乐园策略，避免过度依赖IP，而是创造独立于IP、能够提供真正有趣体验的游乐设施和主题区域。

Q & A

迪士尼乐园新景点是否因为IP而受到游客的欢迎？

视频作者认为，尽管迪士尼乐园的新景点如银河护卫队的过山车因其IP的知名度而具有一定的市场吸引力，但这些景点之所以受欢迎，更多是因为它们本身作为游乐设施的质量和新鲜感，而不仅仅是因为IP的附加。

消费者行为正在发生怎样的转变？

消费者行为的转变体现在对已建立的特许经营电影的兴趣逐渐减少，人们开始对新鲜和独特的文化体验感兴趣，而不是仅仅因为品牌的熟悉度。

为什么迪士尼乐园的IP战略可能在长期内不可持续？

作者认为，随着消费者对特许经营品牌兴趣的减少，迪士尼乐园过度依赖IP的战略可能会导致游客回流的减少，从而影响其长期的可持续性和吸引力。

视频作者对迪士尼乐园的哪些新增加内容持批评态度？

作者批评了迪士尼乐园的一些新增加内容，如皮克斯码头和复仇者校园，认为这些内容在创意上显得廉价，没有真正提升加州冒险乐园的吸引力。

为什么说迪士尼乐园的IP依赖可能最终损害其品牌？

如果消费者对迪士尼的特许经营品牌失去兴趣，或者迪士尼通过不断推出新内容而稀释了这些品牌的价值，那么迪士尼乐园的IP依赖可能会损害其品牌，导致游客对乐园的兴趣减少。

环球影城是如何与迪士尼乐园在IP使用上有所不同的？

与迪士尼乐园相比，环球影城在将IP融入其乐园和景点时，更多地注重创造独特的体验，而不是仅仅依赖IP的知名度。即使没有看过相关的电影或电视剧，游客也能享受环球影城的景点。

视频作者如何看待当前电影行业的转变？

作者认为电影行业正在经历一场巨大的转变，大型特许经营电影的观众兴趣和回报正在减少，而新鲜和独特的文化时刻更能吸引观众。

为什么迪士尼乐园的银河边缘区域可能不会长期吸引游客？

作者认为银河边缘区域可能不会长期吸引游客，因为这个区域缺乏像潘多拉或哈利波特世界那样的细节和吸引力，而且随着星球大战品牌被迪士尼不断推出新内容而稀释，人们对这个品牌的兴趣可能会减少。

迪士尼乐园的艾波卡特中心为什么没有达到预期的成功？

艾波卡特中心没有达到预期的成功，部分原因是迪士尼试图通过依赖IP来修复这个公园，而没有提供足够的刺激游乐设施或与公园原始愿景相一致的有吸引力的景点。

为什么迪士尼乐园的新景点可能随着时间推移而变得过时？

迪士尼乐园的新景点可能随着时间推移而变得过时，因为它们过度依赖特定的IP，而这些IP可能会随着消费者兴趣的变化而失去吸引力。此外，如果这些景点在设计和创意上不够强大，它们可能无法独立于IP之外吸引游客。

视频作者对迪士尼乐园未来的战略有何建议？

作者建议迪士尼乐园应该重新考虑其依赖IP的战略，并且创造更多独立于IP、具有创造性和吸引力的景点和体验，以适应消费者行为的变化，并确保其乐园的长期成功。

Outlines

00:00

🤔 对迪士尼乐园IP依赖的质疑

视频提出了对迪士尼乐园是否过度依赖其电影IP的疑问，担心这种策略可能最终适得其反。作者指出，迪士尼的新景点似乎都是将知名IP简单附加上去，质疑这种做法是否真的有效，以及消费者是否真的因为景点的核心吸引力而感兴趣，还是仅仅因为IP的市场营销。作者认为，尽管短期内IP策略看似有效，但长期来看，随着消费者行为的转变，这种策略可能不可持续。

05:02

📉 电影行业的变化与迪士尼的挑战

视频讨论了电影行业正在经历的巨大转变，尤其是大型电影系列的观众兴趣和票房回报正在减少。作者认为，电影质量的普遍下降和制片厂自身的行为是导致消费者行为改变的催化剂。视频还提到了流媒体服务的兴起和其对电影院观影体验的冲击，以及迪士尼加和其他流媒体服务之间的竞争。作者预测，未来几年，更具创意和新颖性的小成本电影可能会成为主流。

10:02

🌟 迪士尼乐园的IP依赖问题

作者对迪士尼乐园的IP依赖问题进行了深入探讨，特别是对好莱坞工作室和银河边缘等景点的分析。作者认为，尽管这些景点在短期内可能吸引游客，但长期来看，由于缺乏深度和细节，可能会导致消费者兴趣的下降。视频还提到了迪士尼乐园的建设不足和吸引力不足的问题，以及迪士尼如何通过IP来强化其品牌，但可能忽视了创造真正有趣的景点体验。

15:02

🎢 迪士尼乐园的转型与挑战

视频回顾了Epcot中心早期的景点，并讨论了这些景点被认为技术过时的普遍观点。作者认为，这些景点之所以伟大，是因为它们的细节、氛围和鼓舞人心的信息，而不仅仅是因为它们的技术。视频还批评了迈克尔·艾斯纳领导下的Epcot转型，认为引入更多刺激的游乐设施和相关IP是失败的。作者认为，迪士尼应该通过增加刺激游乐设施和减少对IP的依赖来修复Epcot。

20:03

🚀 迪士尼与环球影城的IP运用差异

视频比较了迪士尼和环球影城在主题公园中运用IP的方式。作者认为，虽然IP可以作为有趣概念的催化剂，但迪士尼的一些景点仅仅是为了品牌协同而存在，而环球影城的景点即使脱离了它们的IP也能够独立存在。视频举例说明了迪士尼乐园中的一些景点，如加勒比海盗和幽灵公馆，以及环球影城的哈利波特和超级任天堂世界，来支持这一观点。

25:04

🧩 迪士尼乐园的未来与IP的可持续运用

视频对迪士尼乐园的未来进行了展望，特别是对迪士尼如何继续运用其IP进行了讨论。作者认为，迪士尼需要创造真正有趣的景点体验，而不是仅仅依赖IP来吸引游客。视频还提到了迪士尼乐园中的一些景点，如玩具总动员乐园和银河边缘，它们可能因为IP的过时而变得不再吸引人。作者警告说，如果迪士尼不改变其依赖IP的策略，可能会导致昂贵但质量不高的景点投资最终损害公司。

30:05

🎶 结语

视频以音乐结束，没有提供具体内容。

Keywords

💡IP (知识产权)

在视频中，IP指的是迪士尼电影或其他媒体作品的知识产权，这些作品被用作主题公园景点的基础。例如，'Guardians of the Galaxy'是一个IP，它被用来在Epcot建立一个过山车景点。视频讨论了迪士尼是否过度依赖其IP来吸引游客，而忽视了创造新的和有趣的体验。

💡主题公园景点

主题公园景点是指在像迪士尼这样的主题公园中的具体游乐项目或区域。视频中提到了许多不同的景点，如'Galaxy's Edge'和'Epcot'，讨论了它们是否因为基于流行IP而受到欢迎，还是因为它们本身提供了高质量的娱乐体验。

💡品牌协同

品牌协同是指将不同的品牌或产品结合在一起，以创造更大的市场吸引力。在视频中，作者批评迪士尼将其电影IP作为品牌协同的工具，而不是为了创造独特的公园体验。例如，'Avengers campus'被提及为一个可能过于依赖品牌协同而不是独立吸引力的例子。

💡消费者行为

消费者行为涉及人们如何做出购买决策以及他们对品牌和产品的偏好。视频中讨论了消费者行为的转变，如对大型电影系列的兴趣减少，以及这如何影响迪士尼公园的长期成功。

💡票房

票房通常指电影在电影院的收益。在讨论电影行业的变化时，视频中提到票房收入，指出观众对某些已经建立起来的电影系列的兴趣正在减少，这可能会影响迪士尼公园依赖这些系列的策略。

💡流媒体服务

流媒体服务是指通过互联网提供的视频和音频内容服务，如迪士尼+。视频中讨论了流媒体服务的兴起如何改变观众的观影习惯，以及这对迪士尼的电影和公园业务可能产生的影响。

💡品牌忠诚度

品牌忠诚度是指消费者对特定品牌的忠诚和支持。视频提出，迪士尼公园的成功在一定程度上依赖于游客对迪士尼品牌的忠诚度，但随着消费者对某些系列的兴趣减少，这种忠诚度可能会受到影响。

💡主题公园设计

主题公园设计是指创造和规划主题公园的物理和美学特征的过程。视频中批评了迪士尼在一些公园区域的设计，认为它们缺乏深度和细节，依赖于IP而不是创新设计来吸引游客。

💡电影行业

电影行业包括制作、发行和展示电影的所有业务。视频中讨论了电影行业正在经历的变化，包括观众对大型系列电影的兴趣减少，以及这如何影响迪士尼依赖其电影IP的公园策略。

💡环球影城

环球影城是迪士尼的主要竞争对手之一，以其自己的电影和电视IP为基础创建主题公园景点。视频中将环球影城作为对比，指出它如何更有效地将IP融入其景点中，创造出即使没有IP也能独立存在的吸引人的体验。

💡品牌饱和

品牌饱和是指市场上某个品牌或产品过多，导致消费者感到疲劳和不感兴趣。视频提出，迪士尼可能正在经历品牌饱和，因为它在公园中过度使用其电影IP，这可能会减少游客的兴趣和公园的长期吸引力。

Highlights

迪士尼电影IP授权给其乐园的策略可能会适得其反，因为新景点似乎都是一些半成品体验，贴上了IP。

人们对于乐园中《银河护卫队》的过山车等IP景点的兴趣，可能更多是因为其本身作为过山车的乐趣，而非IP的市场性。

尽管短期内IP策略看似有效，但消费者行为的转变可能对迪士尼的长期吸引力构成挑战。

迪士尼将乐园视为品牌广告牌，而非真正的主题公园，可能导致其新增加的景点迅速过时。

环球影城与迪士尼不同，它将IP融入公园和景点的方式更加复杂和引人入胜。

电影行业正在经历巨大转变，大型电影系列的观众兴趣和回报正在减少。

观众对于电影的兴趣正在从大型系列电影转向具有文化时刻感、想法新颖的电影。

流媒体服务的兴起改变了消费者的观影行为，但流媒体并非像制片厂预期的那样盈利。

迪士尼乐园的某些区域，如《星球大战》的银河边缘，可能并不像预期的那样受欢迎。

迪士尼对《星球大战》系列的过度开发可能损害了该品牌，并导致观众对相关内容的兴趣下降。

迪士尼乐园的Epcot中心由于过度依赖IP而失去了其原有的魅力和未来主义主题。

迪士尼乐园的新景点如《冰雪奇缘》和《银河护卫队》的吸引力可能并不持久，因为它们依赖于可能会过时的IP。

迪士尼乐园的IP景点需要超越其基于的电影或品牌，创造新的体验和故事，以吸引观众。

迪士尼乐园的某些景点，如汽车总动员的Radiator Springs Racers，即使没有IP也能独立存在，因为它们本身就设计精良。

迪士尼乐园的策略如果不考虑电影观众口味的转变，可能会导致其在公园上的昂贵投资变得无意义。

迪士尼乐园的IP依赖策略与环球影城的景点设计相比，后者即使没有强大的IP也能提供有趣和创新的体验。

迪士尼需要重新思考其公园策略，避免过度依赖IP，而是创造独立于IP之外的有趣和富有创意的景点。

Transcripts

[Music]

throughout the time that I produced

videos for this channel I have wondered

to myself if Disney's movie IP mandate

for its Parks will ever end up

backfiring on them

things have reached a point where every

new attraction is essentially some

half-baked experience with an IP slapped

onto it and I then have to wonder is

this actually working

do people see that the Guardians of the

Galaxy have a roller coaster at Epcot

and think to themselves that this is an

exciting idea

I think that when you add a major

attraction to an already popular Park

people are obviously going to see it as

a reason to come back

the IP itself also has a large degree of

marketability as a pre-established movie

brand like Guardians of the Galaxy is

pretty easy to advertise just through

its familiarity

however is this attraction popular

because at its core it's a fun roller

coaster which is already popular with

part goers and Word of Mouth has

generally been positive or is it because

of the marketability of the franchise

slapped onto it

I would posit that it's popular because

it's new and the actual ride track

layout is one of Dizzy's better coasters

regardless of what theme you attached to

it it would probably do really well

however it's clear that while the IP

strategy seemingly works in the short

term I have wondered if this is

something that could sustainably keep

people coming back and the reason I

question this is because I think we're

in the beginning phases of a shift in

consumer Behavior

it's no secret that established

franchise films have been doing worse

and worse at the box office this year

and when I look at Brands like Pixar and

Marvel which audiences are becoming less

interested in showing up for I then have

to ask if Investments like Pixar Pier or

Avengers campus will end up backfiring

on Disney as interest continues to wane

these were both creatively cheap

additions that have not at all helped to

improve the attendance for California

Adventure and Walt Disney has clearly

indicated that they see their franchises

as Timeless and I completely disagree

do audiences really care about something

so underwhelming like Avengers campus

when the franchise that elevates it has

continued seeing so many narratively

unsatisfying projects

I can somewhat understand why people

might be intrigued by the changing

roster of character interactions based

on recent films and shows but when

they're as bad as something like secret

Invasion will people even continue to

care

the point I'm making and we'll continue

to make throughout this video is that

Disney uses its film and television IPS

as a crutch for often underwhelming

attraction and Land Design as Disney

continues doubling down on sequels and

remakes as theater audiences actually

seem to be moving away from them I think

that many of these ludicrously expensive

yet cheap feeling additions to their

Parks will age extremely poorly

but wait you might ask is universal not

doing the same thing

with the exception of villancon I would

actually say no there's a fundamental

difference in how Universal incorporates

IP into its parks and attractions and

that this is actually a fascinatingly

complex topic when you compare and

contrast the two

so in today's video I'm going to discuss

what I think is the changing movie

industry and how Disney is failing to

adapt because of its obsession with

brand and franchises afraid to actually

try anything new or interesting

as a result of extending this strategy

to their parks and treating them like

Billboards for some nebulous Brands

known as Disney rather than well actual

theme parks their new additions will end

up damaging their Park's branding and

accelerate how they age in the public

eye resulting in what I believe will

have to be the inevitable rethinking of

their park strategy

so let's Dive Right In

[Music]

[Music]

by the way before we really begin I

would like to just ask you the favor of

hitting the like button if you haven't

done so already

if you've been keeping up with the movie

industry then you've probably noticed

that it's the middle of a massive shift

right now and that the big franchises

that Studios have relied on to make

money are continuing to see diminishing

audience interest and returns

I think that a general declining quality

in big franchise films is playing a part

in the winning interest in these

franchises but I also think that the

studios themselves have also worked as a

catalyst to change consumer behavior and

therefore the kinds of movies that will

be successful at the box office

for example while I like Indiana Jones

as a franchise and I've heard that the

dial of Destiny is actually a fun time I

just can't really bring myself to

actually go and watch it in theaters at

least at the time of writing the script

if I ask myself why it's because it's a

story that just didn't need to be told

it is instead seen as a safe bet from

Disney because of its brand recognition

even if the film is competently put

together by most accounts

it's a movie that audiences can't really

be bothered to see in theaters but I

think we'll do well in streaming which I

think gets to the core of the problem

there's a lot that can be said about the

decline of the movie going experience as

prices continue to rise but along with

this streaming has offered an

alternative for the Casual movie Watcher

who has no interest in spending the

money for the theater experience that

probably wasn't too appealing to them

anyways

when I think of films that have done

really well relative to their budgets

this year it's because they all felt

like cultural moments that you had to

see as soon as possible because their

ideas were interesting and new

the Super Mario Bros movie is obviously

written around characters just as iconic

as many of Disney's and while I'm sure

that such strong recognition played a

role in its success I think that many

people showed up because they were

curious to see how a massive video game

franchise would translate as an actual

film creating something that felt like

an event

I also think of two movies I just saw

barbie and Oppenheimer both of which

gained attraction not just through the

barberheimer meme but they actually felt

like unique opportunities to experience

something different in the cinema as

cultural moments

mother both helped by Brand's

recognition with Barbie being well

Barbie and Oppenheimer being a

Christopher Nolan film what I predict

really Drew audiences in was that these

just felt like fresh and unique artistic

Blockbusters in a way that established

films like fast 10 or Indiana Jones just

did not

those felt like obligatory franchise

entries that can be missed for streaming

the issue though is that it's being

revealed that streaming just isn't that

profitable and in many cases most

studios are apparently losing money but

continuing to host these services

I can certainly understand why streaming

would be perceived as the future of home

entertainment and I think that it was an

inevitability but when Bob Iger set out

to launch Disney plus with what he

perceived as unshakable juggernauts of

distinct Movie brands he also launched a

streaming War where paramounts Warner

Brothers and universal one of the piece

of the pie two resulting in way too many

options for consumers

if networks and its two competitors Hulu

and Amazon Prime were successful in

turning people against cable because

they provided a lot of content in one

place for relatively cheap then the

studios launching their own services and

pulling their content from these

third-party platforms did the opposite

if you want access to everything then

you have to pay for multiple streaming

services which is Impractical meaning

that people had to pick and choose the

few that they actually want creating all

the competition between them

however it has become clear that this

isn't working and with mergers such as

HBO Max with Discovery plus and Disney

plus with Hulu it's becoming clear to

this new type of Market needs to sort

itself out

however it's also clear that streaming

is not the endless Cash Cow that these

Studios anticipated and that a return to

traditional theatrical releases is still

the way to go

unfortunately many consumers enjoy the

convenience of streaming from their own

homes because of such short theater

windows and are now skipping films in

theaters unless they feel like must-see

events or fresh and novel ideas

I think part of the reason for this is

that the heavy focus on franchises which

also happen to be declining in quality

have resulted in over saturating the

movie landscape to the point of becoming

tedious obligations

I think back to the many movies I've

seen this year whether it be Renfield a

movie about a bear that YouTube wouldn't

want me mentioning the title of and

Megan which all have unique promises

that feel new and interesting

granted these were all films that could

be categorized in the horror or thriller

genres and were all released through

Universal but at a time when Disney and

Warner Brothers are doubling down on

franchises when consumers are feeling

fatigued with the current slate

Universal is really positioning itself

with its smaller budget films to see

decent box office returns

I think that there's a lot of

uncertainty with how consumer interests

are changing at the box office but if

you look to different historical Trends

in Hollywood that are no longer relevant

such as movie star driven films or films

sold on The Prestige of certain

directors those eras have long passed

so too do I think that Studio's

obsessions with Brands and franchises is

coming to an end and I think that more

creative smaller budget novelty films

may end up becoming the primary seller

within the next few years

Studios and especially Disney have

counted on consumers to always love

their favorite franchises but when you

beat them over the head with it

especially by pumping out TV show after

TV show to desperately get streaming to

be profitable it just oversaturated the

entertainment landscape in a way that is

tiring and exhausting

if you design your streaming service

around Brands like Disney plus has the

irony is that the rise of streaming has

also changed consumer Behavior at the

box office and now those big franchises

are becoming less profitable to make

because your target audience is choosing

to skip them

I think that Studios might either have

to just write off streaming as an

expensive loss and partner with others

to achieve profitability or they have to

risk completely abandoning big

franchises in favor of more unique and

Novelty films

we have yet to really see what kind of

shift may be occurring or if Studios can

adapt their franchises to this new

Behavior but what they're doing right

now is clearly not working and when you

have a company like Disney which has

done nothing but flood its parks with

Disney movie IP the results could really

backfire on them

if you're visiting Hollywood Studios one

of the busiest areas of the park is

going to be Galaxy's Edge

still though is this truly popular or is

the park just so ill-equipped to handle

capacity that this is where people tend

to gravitate

the park otherwise only contains a

handful of attractions in Toy Story Land

Star Tours runaway Railway the Tower of

Terror and rock and roller coaster among

what is mostly just a lot of dated and

uninteresting shows

for seeing such expensive investment

over a three-year period from 2017

through 2020 the park is still

incredibly underbuilt and its attraction

lineup feels underwhelming

I think that put into the context of

Disneyland though Galaxy's Edge does not

fare nearly as well

I think it's telling that I continue to

hear Disneyland locals refer to this as

the quiet area of Disneyland and when

you stack it up against the many awesome

attractions located in the park I think

it's no wonder that it's often forgotten

I wouldn't say that it's unpopular as

there's always a fair number of people

back there but I doubt that it's seeing

the financial success that Disney has

anticipated

so if that's the case why

I've said this many times but I think

that Disney sequel Trilogy just does not

resonate with most audiences because

those films are so narratively

unsatisfying

as a consequence solo which was a decent

film did poorly at the box office and

despite being a Star Wars branded show

even something as excellent as Andor did

pretty poorly on Disney Plus

the only reason that I think people are

turning out for other shows is because

of previously recognizable characters

such as Obi-Wan Kenobi and while I still

really liked the Mandalorian I think

that grogu's market ability has allowed

the show to last for much longer than I

would have anticipated

the fact is is that the Star Wars brand

has very much been damaged by Disney and

as it continues to pump out more content

it in turn only continues to dilute that

brand and people forget about the

original films that they liked so much

in the first place

was designing Galaxy's urge to be based

around Disney's Trilogy before it was

even over a smart idea

absolutely not and while rise the

resistance is a decent ride I think that

it has very much lost the hype Narrative

of being the best attraction ever

designed as those kinds of people have

now moved on to saying the same exact

thing about Guardians of the Galaxy and

Epcot

they're both fun rides but they just

don't resonate with me and others in the

same way that many of Disney's Classics

Like Pirates or the Haunted Mansion

still do

while the Star Wars brand has

unfortunately been damaged and

disinterest continues to rise I have to

wonder then how does something like

Galaxy's Edge age

to me it's already stale and now that

the newness has worn off I think that a

lot of other people see it as a hollow

and unsatisfying experience unless

you're going specifically to ride rise

of the resistance or buy a lightsaber

it lacks the detail of a lens like

Pandora it lacks the fascinating

Intrigue of something like the Wizarding

World

at its core Galaxy's Edge is a

non-distinct land designed as a brand

vessel meant to sell merchandise and

reinforce Disney's iteration of Star

Wars which audiences have now made clear

that they are creatively disinterested

in

I think that Galaxy's Edge will continue

to remain fairly well traveled for the

next few years at least but what happens

when it isn't

part of the push for IP integration in

the Disney parks was that these were

Timeless stories that would appeal to

everyone and so has that been successful

do people enjoy the tackiness of Pixar

Pier

is Avengers campus a popular place

does shoving characters into Epcot allow

Disney to not have to put forward

meaningful investment into its future

I would say no and as audiences lose

interest in these Brands and franchises

the parks are only going to age only

accelerating the problem that Disney

leadership was wildly off base and

trying to fix

what exactly do I mean by this

well let's take a look at what this has

done to Epcot

[Music]

in one of my older videos I took a

detailed look at the many former

attractions that defined the early years

of Epcot Center

over time a narrative has risen around

the park asserting that its attractions

have focused on the future were

unsustainable as technology quickly

caught up and made the futurism theme of

the park irrelevant

but is that actually the case

it's obvious to me that it isn't and

that the people who continue to pair

this message around have long forgotten

what this park used to be

in that particular video I explored

these attractions in depth and made it

clear that the majority of them were

focused on the history of a particular

subject with their futuristic

predictions being vague and not specific

enough to not really date themselves

world of motion was not trying to sell

you on the idea of jet packs and flying

cars but instead concluded with a

message about the importance of

transportation and how bold's new ideas

would allow us to travel quicker and

farther into the future

what made these rides so great was not

the relevance of their technology but

rather their details atmosphere and

inspiring messages that made you feel

like you were part of something bigger

and more important than yourself

these were Classics that resonated as

strongly as attractions Like Pirates The

Haunted Mansion The Great Movie Ride Etc

that would probably be seen as essential

Classics like spaceship earth today if

they were still around

so how did the outdated Epcot myth end

up becoming so prevalent

well while I agree that Epcot probably

needed more variety as most of its

attractions were dark rides and thrills

would have been welcome the major

Catalyst for change was Michael Eisner

and his desire for more thrilling rides

and relevant IP

while not all of this was bad as I

actually think that Ellen's Energy

Adventure was better than the original

Universe of energy I see a lot of failed

projects like the overly intense but

underwhelming mission space replacing

Horizons the pointless incorporation of

Nemo into the living seas and the

destruction of magic Journeys and

journey into imagination in favor of

Captain EO and later Honey I Shrunk the

Audience with journey into imagination

changing the fit into its theme of the

imagination Institute too connected to

the show

ironically what aged Epcot was a lot of

new underwhelming rides a very 90s

interventions and inappropriate

placement of intellectual property or

star power that lost relevancy pretty

quickly

not to say that Michael Jackson is

irrelevant today or that you can't enjoy

the Honey I Shrunk the Kids franchise

but it wouldn't say that these

attractions would currently resonate

with audiences in a way today that the

original journey into imagination still

would

I don't dislike mission space but its

intense novelty has not aged nearly as

well as I anticipate that Horizons would

have

so Epcot aged not because of its

original iteration but because removed

those iconic attractions in favor of

stuff that was seen as more relevant to

contemporary audiences which ultimately

revealed itself to be a short-sighted

move

so with a broken apcot how do you fix it

with Igor and jpeg their response was to

double down a Disney IP believing that

it was a Timeless fix so that they

wouldn't have to touch the park for

another decade failing to realize that

this was exactly the problem that led to

it becoming a mess in the first place

I think that the original Epcot would

have benefited from thrill rides and I

think that the original test track was

actually one of Disney's best

attractions ever created but it would

have made more sense to go with ideas

like the Swiss Pavilion with a

Matterhorn roller coaster rather than

something so alienating to many guests

like mission space

has Ratatouille Frozen the Guardians of

the Galaxy or the soon to open Moana

water Trail really working to fix this

park

is this an exciting place to be with

must-see attractions

returning back to the potential for

audiences to lose interest in certain

brands how long until these new

attractions begin to date themselves in

the same way that Honey I Shrunk the

Audience did and how will people look

back at Iger and chapek as people who

have damaged this park with a lot of

pointless and expensive projects

you cannot rely on your brains and

franchises to carry what are otherwise

an interesting half-baked experiences

especially when the consumer landscaper

films actually appears to be losing

interest in this

[Music]

oh

[Music]

am I saying that incorporating IP into

theme parks is an inherently bad idea

well certainly not because they think

that they can work as a catalyst for a

lot of really interesting Concepts

I very much enjoy the money small dark

rides located throughout Disneyland's

Fantasyland based on their classic films

and the reason for that is that the land

itself was purpose built to Showcase and

celebrate these properties in a way that

makes thematic sense

however while some of these attractions

follow scenes from their respective

films others manage to move Beyond those

narratives and create something new

[Music]

the original Snow White scary Adventure

focused on creating fear as its theme

and my favorite attraction there Mr

Toad's Wild Ride is hardly based on the

film at all instead taking the concept

of an out of control Mr Toad terrorizing

the English Countryside in his

automobile and putting you right into

the chaos

another good example of Ip

implementation is Pandora at Animal

Kingdom

I've spoken at length in another video

about how incredible this land is and

while it's not perfect it very much does

transcend the Avatar IP and becomes its

own distinct experience that stands

without it

it fits into Animal Kingdom themes such

as conservation and is an intriguing

impressive land to explore independent

of you having any context from the film

franchise

every element is placed with purpose to

tell a story in a way that Galaxy's Edge

is lacking and I think that's why this

land is so incredible

yet I think that conceptually basing a

land around Avatar and placing it in

Animal Kingdom was a stupid idea

Bob Iger proposed this because he saw

the box office numbers but failed to

realize that despite being the highest

grossing movie of all time it still

managed to have a low cultural impact

its sequel has not helped Pandora as the

land and according to the latest theme

park numbers from the themed

entertainment Association it seems as if

Animal Kingdom has reverted back to the

lowest attended park at Walt Disney

World

I think the reason for this is that

despite people still really enjoying the

land itself and people still raving

about flight of Passage because it is a

truly well-developed experience the

Avatar franchise is just not strong

enough to bring people back to this park

especially when it's still so massively

underbuilt and Disney has let one of its

better rides fall into disrepair

threatening to eventually replace it

with zootopia

I think that really gets to another core

problem though

does a zootopia ride in Moana area

really make sense for a park like this

I think that while you'll see a lot of

excitement from non-parks people and

children these ideas are generally

off-putting to money because

conceptually they're inherently

nonsensical and rely on your saying hey

that's the thing I'm familiar with

instead of putting meaningful effort

into creating interesting rides and

themed spaces

again though if consumers are changing

their behavior at the theaters then this

might very well backfire on Disney

going and seeing a movie is obviously

expensive especially when you're

bringing young children or your entire

family and so this is another reason

that streaming has really taken off

because it's an easier and less

expensive way of exposing said children

to that content

a good example would be in Kanto where

its box office was abysmal but its

streaming presence is excellent with

what I assume are young children

watching it on repeat

now granted the film was released on the

tail end of mask mandates so I'm sure

that played a part but I still think

that parents are opting for Disney plus

over actually bringing children to

theaters

when consumers are opting for Disney

plus to watch theatrical films over

actually going and seeing them in the

theaters though

well I think you see the problem

with streaming potentially bringing

casual moviegoers and young children

away from theaters then that also

results in diminishing interest in

Disney or Pixar branded films which is

exactly what has been happening

so when you create poorly conceptualized

Theme Park attractions and cannot rely

on your Brands to draw people in that

leaves you with dated irrelevant and

uninteresting theme parks that appeal to

No One Like with what happened to Epcot

Disney IP certainly has its place but

the important distinction is that it has

to result in a fantastic experience that

feels like a cool idea because it's cool

and not because it's brand synergy

while I am disappointed that California

Adventure never got its land themed to

Classic Car culture Cars Land is still

an incredible addition because so much

effort went into creating a detailed

land that stands on its own even if you

were not familiar with this franchise

the town itself is full of interesting

shops and dining and its supplemental

attractions are fun kinetic additions

that add needed capacity

however the land's major e-ticket

Radiator Springs Racers is a well-paced

well-detailed atmospheric and cleverly

executed attraction that has been rare

since the Eisner era

if California Adventure were not full of

tons of misplaced IP shoved into it I

would be willing to overlook that car's

land is thematically inconsistent

because of its Arizona location because

it's just so good it stands independent

from the IP that it's based on

in fact if it wasn't actually based on a

film it could conceivably work as a

California themed expansion which is

what distinguishes it from other weird

additions in the park like Monsters Inc

Pixar The Little Mermaid and the

Avengers

so I am certainly not against the idea

of Disney IP in its Parks when it makes

sense but it actually has to reach a

quality standard that it used to expect

from the company and not exist as

half-baked brand Synergy which is pretty

much everything that we're currently

getting

foreign

[Music]

of Toy Story lands being anything other

than a cheap addition to quickly add

capacity and expand the part footprint

of Hollywood Studios but this is exactly

my problem with it

I like Toy Story Mania but over time it

has devolved into a sea ticket that does

not justify its wait times and alien

swirling saucers in Slinky Dog Dash are

incredibly subpar editions along with

the rest of this quickly slot together

land

still Toy Story as a brand is popular

and Slinky Dog in particular seems to be

one of Disney's largest marketing pushes

for this park

while myself and others enjoy Toy Story

as a franchise though I think that our

Goodwill has been extended for long

enough

Toy Story 4 was really pushing it but

Bob iger's plan for a Toy Story 5 is

absolutely ridiculous and I think that

there is the very real chance that it

too is likely to suffer from franchise

fatigue however I'm of the opinion that

even if early entries are good

oversaturation of any particular

franchise has the very real chance of

souring you on those original films and

a Toy Story 5 could have the same effect

that Disney Star Wars has had on

diluting the interest and influence of

the george lucas films

so if consumers lose interest in Toy

Story because they've been beaten over

the head with it does Toy Story Land

stand on its own

well no the attractions are

underwhelming and the IP becomes dated

just like the many films and attractions

that the park once offered before it was

transformed

pivoting off of this to Universal the

advantage that I think they have is that

their new attractions are much more akin

to stuff like Pandora or Cars Land

I'm of the opinion that you don't have

to be familiar with the Harry Potter

franchise to appreciate hogsmeade Diagon

Alley or their respective attractions

in fact I would even say that Escape

from Gringotts is rather mediocre but

it's elevated because it exists within

the context of daigon alley which is

fantastic in terms of atmosphere

Intrigue and exploration

having experienced Super Nintendo World

in Hollywood I think the same very much

applies there as well even if you're not

familiar with the Mario franchise and it

seems as if all the lands in Epic

Universe are shooting for this level of

ambition too judging from the more

credible rumors out there

while Universal has had a pretty rough

history of too many poor attractions and

oversaturating its parks with what

essentially Mount simulators I have

continued to argue that they have really

worked to turn things around

hagrids which premiered in 2019 is

arguably the most popular attraction in

Florida is just so strong in so many

different aspects ranging from the

quality of its theming to its layout to

the clever use of track elements and

thematically satisfying ways

the strength of its attraction design

outshines the IP it's based on which I

think is the trend with a lot of these

newer Universal Editions

you don't need to care about or have

seen the Jason Bourne franchise to

appreciate this spectacular stunt show

it is someone who does not care at all

about Jurassic world I am very much a

fan of their new Jurassic World rides

the velocir coaster is an excellent

roller coaster first and the theming

while it is admittedly minimal is still

icing on an already excellent cake

the Jurassic World attraction adds new

Thrills and animatronics to the former

Jurassic Park ride in Hollywood and

while many people myself included prefer

Jurassic Park as a film I personally

prefer this ride because it keeps the

spirit of the original intact but

refreshes it in meaningful ways

regardless of the strength of its

attached IP

the Jurassic World attraction in Beijing

is incredibly Innovative and far more

impressive than needs to be and I know

that it has essentially become a meme at

this point but I still can't get over

how good the secret life of pets is in

Hollywood

I would argue that it's one of the

cleverest well-designed dark rides in

decades and even though the film it's

based on is just kind of okay the

attraction design far outshines it

the only real negative I have about

recent additions is villancon but even

then I think it's a matter of failing to

execute its gameplay well and not the

actual run concept which is at least

interesting on paper

when I think about epic Universe I

already know that Super Nintendo World

will resonate well with people and when

I think of rumored lens even they sound

strong Independence of the IP that

they're based on

one of these rumors is of course

centered around Universal monsters and

my assumption is that a land based

around these classic franchises will

likely try a new interpretation

resulting in something that feels more

original and specifically tailored to a

theme park land not dissimilar to the

various Halloween Horror Nights houses

that have taken a lot of creative

Liberty with this franchise

another strong rumor is that the

Wizarding World will likely come to this

park Loosely based on the streets of

Paris from the Fantastic Beasts films

well I know that those films have done

poorly at the box office the idea of

walking around the streets of Paris with

intriguing Magical elements to discover

sounds appealing even if I haven't seen

those films because the idea seems

interesting independent of the IP

if we go back to toy storyline though

and removed the Toy Story IP what's left

nothing really other than unshaded

walkways and an underwhelming attraction

lineup

if you removed familiarity with a frozen

franchise from Frozen ever after is this

a ride that's still well designed and

interesting to experience

I would say probably not

if you removed the Guardians of the

Galaxy from cosmic rewind I feel that

very little would change because it's

actually a pretty solid version of a

Space Mountain which I think attests to

how pointless the incorporation of the

IP is there

the fundamental difference between

recent Universal attractions in Disney

is that Universal attractions are

interesting regardless of the strength

or implementation of their IP whereas

Disney builds mostly weak attractions

that rely on IP as a crutch due to a

lack of interesting design

if audiences lose interest in franchise

films or if Disney damages their brands

no matter how good the originals were

well whose attractions are more

interesting

foreign

[Music]

if you've watched through to this point

in the video then you've probably

recognized that this is one of my more

Messier scripts but the overall point of

this video is to recognize that Disney

just does not build great attractions

anymore and realize far too heavily on

their IP integration to cover up for

their lack of effort and care

and chapek have embraced a park strategy

that relies on people coming and

embracing their favorite franchises in

an extremely superficial way treating

these attractions as vessels of brand

Synergy and completely discarding any

meaningful part messages or thematic

cohesion

if a symbol of a popular franchise can

be slapped onto a generic attraction or

land plague Avengers campus then current

leadership will absolutely do it because

things have gone into a weird obsessive

realm of Disney branding Beyond just

Basic Marketing

people may be disillusioned with

Jurassic world but marketing a themed

attraction like this still promises an

exciting dinosaur-themed Adventure

yet who exactly was Pixar Pier intended

to appeal to

are people clamming for a Moana water

Trail or a half-baked San Francisco

the decisions are often bizarre and

incorporate IP because of some out of

control and nonsensical mandate and

while Universal obviously Embraces IP as

well it always feels like there is a

purpose behind it like experiencing the

Mushroom Kingdom in a real physical

space or creating an impressive

technologically advanced stunt show

using Jason Bourne as an appropriate

vessel

these attractions also stand on their

own as well developed in interesting

experiences regardless of whether you're

familiar with the IP or not and while

liking that property certainly helps

their existence is still Justified

yet when I walk through Avengers campus

it superficially attempts to appeal to

Marvel fans which is all that it really

has going for it

at a time when the Marvel Cinematic

Universe is waning at the box office

though Disney may very well be stuck

with an entire land that's appealing to

absolutely no one

it happened to Epcot and it can happen

here

it can happen to Galaxy's Edge

it could happen to any of these rides or

lands unless you design them to exist as

fun and creatively engaging spaces and

dependent of the IP that they're based

around

what happens when your Target

demographic of brand loyalists lose

interest at the box office or Worse

begin showing interest in Brands like

Nintendo and start going to Universal

this slate of costly yet meaningless

Park investment is something that I

think will come back to buy Disney in a

very expensive way and while we have yet

to understand how a shift in moviegoer

tastes will play out and do predict that

the current status quo is something that

Disney is not equipped to handle

instead they've chosen to double down on

the strategy as if the ship wasn't

sinking at their feet now predicting

that this oversaturation resulting brand

fatigue will backfire on all the

expensive yet cheap feeling editions

that they made to their parks

so if you made it here to the very end

of the video and have it left a like

that's a really good way of helping

videos like these reach a wider audience

as always if you have not yet subscribed

and hit the Bell icon you can do so now

so as to be alerted to new videos as

they release

foreign

[Music]

foreign

[Music]