Here we are, following Disney’s D23 expo, with every fan reacting to each announcement in their own unique way.
Some are ecstatic, others disappointed, but one group that has become extremely prominent (especially in recent years) is the camp who believe that Walt Disney Imagineering, the group responsible for the development and design of attractions in Disney theme parks, have given up their design integrity in favor of one that promotes income over original products. This can be seen recently, as WDI have put less time into creating original attractions and devoted their entire efforts into rides that attempt to immerse the audience in the world of one of the many Disney properties. Frozen, Ratatouille, Avatar, and Tron have been headline news for Disney, where their last attraction in the United States that was not based on an intellectual property (which are referred to as IP’s) was Soarin’ Around the World, a sequel to an already popular experience.
In fact, one of the central topics discussed during the parks and resorts panel at D23 2017 was “Brand Synergy,” something head of parks Bob Chapek wears on his sleeve. Unveiled at the show was an attraction about the Guardians of the Galaxy and one based on Ratatouille, both at EPCOT. This falls in line with a series of rumors spread across the internet which seem to hint at the future of EPCOT involving Disney IP’s in some fashion or another. In fact, during the panel at D23, Chapek specifically noted that the future of EPCOT will both encompass the ideology of Epcot Center, but blend those ideas with the introduction of the characters Disney fans have come to love. Many assume that this hints towards future implementation of IP, including a possible Inside-Out overlay of the Imagination pavilion amongst other changes.
What has resulted has been a series of arguments between those who denounce EPCOT purists as “fanboys”, and those that will miss the current incarnation of the park, holding an almost unhealthy grudge towards anybody supporting the new design.
It seems that everyone has failed to understand why exactly we see what we do. The community wants the company to stay the reigning entertainment superpower that Disney is, however many criticize the choices the company makes regarding the usage of their theme park as an advertising tool rather than a separate entity. To understand this issue, it’s fair to draw a few comparisons.
Let’s talk about movies.
This isn’t news to any movie buffs here, but the distinction to differentiate films when released makes up a large part of the movie industry.
Movies that make money and movies that change the world will never be two groups that mix. It’s just not how it works. Sometimes we’ll see a film like James Cameron’s Avatar that blends impactful moviemaking with an entertaining blockbuster, but that’s extremely rare.
Take a look at the box office results vs. the Oscar results for 2016.
The winner for best picture during 2016 was Moonlight, an incredible film that blended real world issues with a down-to-earth storyline revolving around the prejudice and hate that minorities in America will feel on a daily basis, and how their lives persist despite this adversity. Even though it won the Best Picture award, it grossed only $65 million worldwide. This film, that wore its commentary on its sleeve and used creative filming techniques to develop a unique story, failed to bring audiences into the theater.
Disney however made a total of $2,934,895,752 total at the box office in 2016 alone. (http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2016/top-grossing-movies)
In fact, four out of the top five highest grossing films in the year 2016 were developed by The Walt Disney Company. None of those movies, let alone any their films were nominated for the Best Picture Oscar.
Now, of course there are variables in play. It’s not likely that the Ocasr committee would put an animated film in the running for best picture, nor would they even take the film seriously, but as a film buff I can say that while enjoyable, none of the films by Disney even came close in quality to a single one of the nominees for best picture.
What we can learn here is that Disney is not in the quality film industry, rather, they are in the money-making industry.
Disney wants to do absolutely anything and everything that can guarantee them money, and that’s fair. As a business they are making the right choices. Focusing on what the general public wants from an animated picture allows them to maximize profits and develop a brand that stays uniform in its products.
This leaves an interesting issue on the table. When Disney DOES make a film that is revolutionary and thought-provoking, even if its at the bare minimum of intelligent thought, it is regarded as the next sighting of a Dodo. Zootopia was a film that questioned societal norms and offered social commentary regarding societal divides, which, while not a topic rarely discussed, was at least more mentally stimulating compared to the simple Disney story structure.
But companies don’t really want to take that risk. It’s not economically viable to take these risks. Moonlight was a risky film, and the box office results were evident of that. Finding Dory however was a smash hit, topping the box office charts at nearly half a billion dollars. Disney took no risks with their films in 2016 but made more money than any entertainment group that year.
Independent directors will lead the filmmaking world in the future, with companies exploiting the need for thoughtless films in the minds of consumers to make a pretty penny reaping the benefits. Even this year we have films like Baby Driver by Edgar Wright being more impressive than most of the releases by big budget companies this year, but Disney’s Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 outperformed the film enormously.
This even explains Disney’s reliance on sequels in recent years. Pixar has for decades been solidifying their brand and characters as household names, so Disney’s idea to capitalize on each of these properties rather than to allow Pixar the time to focus on newer and fresher stories makes more sense economically. Why focus on new properties when you aren’t finished milking the previous ones?
So how does this connect to Disney Parks?
What fans have to realize is the fact that there are no independent designers at WDI. Everything is ruled by the company, and what is said by executives is what goes. Everyone must abide by a strict code that adheres to the companies economic goals and uniform ideas.
Referring back to “brand synergy”, Bob Chapek seems to envision a world in which the Disney Parks and Disney Films exist in the same world, and the films influence the parks hand in hand. It’s much cheaper to make a movie than to make a new theme park attraction, so they use film as a testing ground, or use the theme parks as a way to support their movie industry.
But why do this? Why would Chapek change the mentality that surrounded the parks for years? The answer lies in the comparison to film.
Imagine a world in which the only films are Disney films. No other directors are allowed to share their own stories unless it was given the “ok” by Disney.
Disney loves to tout their theme parks as worlds of their own. In the beginning, it was Walt Disney and a couple of his co-workers in animation that made decisions on this uncharted territory. No one had ever dreamed of an entire themed park (aside from a few, small exceptions) which allowed animators to use ideas in the park that would otherwise be used in film or television. Theme parks were another venue of creation, another area to express ideas of the Disney team.
Once Imagineers like Tony Baxter and Marty Sklar took jobs at the company, Parks were no longer a space to create but a space to fulfill completely new ideas. Imagineers weren’t people who had previously worked with the company in the animation industry, rather, they were design engineers who had grown up with such experiences. Every idea was created to do justice to the company and revive the childhood memories they had developed. EPCOT wasn’t created in the same way Disneyland was, defining the new era of Imagineering.
This era would stay stagnant for multiple years, fluctuating with the changes in company officials. New executives would order for price cuts resulting in poor park quality. New Imagineers like Joe Rohde would join the company and demand that the previous standard of quality return to WDI. For years, everyone respected the history of Imagineering while continuing its legacy. That is, up until Universal came into the mix.
When Universal debuted The Wizarding World of Harry Potter in 2010, the Theme Park world freaked. Everyone was touting that Universal had taken over, delivering themed experiences that beat what Disney had developed at the time. Guests loved that they could enter a well themed world about their favorite properties, feeling as if they’re in that property’s world itself.
Disney knew it was time to change. Creating unique experiences that developed new worlds cost too much money and time, whereas taking an existing property and transforming it into a theme park attraction both advertises their films while immersing guests into a world that they already know. No longer does WDI have to spend time worldbuilding, everyone will already know they world because they will have seen the movie. For example, Pandora at Animal Kingdom is breathtaking, but Flight of Passage has absolutely no worldbuilding in it whatsoever. It’s a scenic trip through a world from one of the most popular films of all time. The world is beautiful don’t get me wrong, but my prior knowledge saved them time and made any backstory development, aside from a short pre-show introduction, pointless.
Disney can’t have independent theme park directors. They can’t have someone sell an attraction that, while not maximizing profits, will develop an artistic message that supports the ideals of the company’s former self. Disney Parks is controlled by business at this point, because too much competition has arisen. No longer are Disney the only fighters in the ring, moreover they have to comply with the demands of guests from other successful parks. Guests want to visit familiar worlds, ones that they have seen before in their favorite movies or T.V. shows. That’s why Harry Potter, Frozen, and Guardians of the Galaxy Mission: Breakout did so well despite being based on intellectual property rather than completely new and fresh concepts.
We as Disney fans lament these changes, and rightfully so. We grew up in a world where experiences were tailored towards us. We were the fans in charge, with every new property and park being developed for our liking. Sure, families still flocked to the park, but each new attraction seemed like movies directed just for us fans. Imagineers used to take the job to work for the parks, now the job involves working for the animation studio.
The vision that was revealed at D23 for the parks showcases a new era of Disney design theory. One that both places highly detailed storytelling on a pedestal, sharing that seat with IP driven attractions.
While I may personally hold reservations with introducing so many Intellectual Properties to the Disney Parks, recently my mindset has shifted in a positive direction. Pandora: The World of Avatar showed me the lengths WDI could go to create a fantastic theme park experience, while Pixar Pier defined the absolute laziest introduction of IP’s to date.
In a world without independent designers,what matters most is that the designers use the Intellectual Properties in meaningful ways. Guardians of the Galaxy and EPCOT are in no way a meaningful blend of properties, where the introduction feels like blatant shoehorning in an effort to meet the consumer need of Marvel experiences. However, the TRON coaster that is going to be placed in Tomorrowland at the Magic Kingdom matches the kinetic energy of the themed area, perfectly encapsulating the purpose of the land.
IP’s are not necessarily inherently negative, but when mismanaged by the company, they can lead to devastating effects.
As Disney Fans, we should not immediately submit to acceptance. We should not inherently respect every business move as a positive one just because Disney did it and “Disney knows best.” We should not forget the history of the company, nor look away from its present. We should not accept that Intellectual Properties are a necessary part of the parks, but we must not shut out such a deep library of source material. We must not be blinded by distaste for the company due to one bad administration, but we must not give all faith to the company that searches for profit over entertainment.
Independent directors love to entertain, while companies like Disney fund films and other experiences only to make a merchandisable franchise and nothing else.
The same can be said regarding the future of theme parks, and the sooner we realize this, the sooner we can realize such, and take a stand against it.
Ryan Dorman is a Columnist and the Content Director for The Boardwalk Times
