Mice generally aren’t viewed as supreme predators within the proverbial walls of the animal kingdom (the taxonomic rank, not the theme park), but when it comes to corporate acquisitions, they at least pack a more powerful bite than that of a fox.
The Walt Disney Company verified this sentiment in March of 2019 when it finalized its acquisition of 21st Century Fox, a $71 billion transaction that brought under the House of Mouse’s umbrella a myriad of companies, production studios, and intellectual properties long associated with an entirely separate media behemoth. Assets like 20th Century Fox, Searchlight Pictures, FX Networks, and National Geographic were folded into Disney as a result of the acquisition, with the sale giving the company a more robust content library for its as-of-then unlaunched Disney+ streaming service, an increased ownership stake in Hulu, and direct ownership of cherished film franchises like Avatar and X-Men, which the conglomerate already had vested interest in through its various other arms.
And though these, at the time, were widely considered to be the Mouse’s primary motivations for the acquisition (with Comcast, and, thus, Universal making a competitive bid certainly playing a role, as well), the broader repercussions are just now starting to be felt as the new-look Disney begins to operate as a more cohesive entity. The growing pains associated with a multi-billion-dollar quasi-merger have largely subsided now six years removed from the sale, with Disney setting its own visions for assets like Searchlight, FX, and the renamed 20th Century Studios and just now having the opportunity to implement them fully.
20th Century has seemingly evolved into the conglomerate’s hub for innovative storytelling, with studio head David Greenbaum envisioning the reworked branch as a home for “original filmmaking” with “A-list talent.” Searchlight and FX, meanwhile, have become the company’s prestige arms, with Searchlight bringing Disney its most Academy Awards in four of the last five ceremonies and FX taking home a record-breaking 36 awards at last year’s Primetime Emmys. Now operating as seamless and integral parts of The Walt Disney Company, the Mouse’s long-term aspirations for its acquired assets are clear: while its traditional arms continue to leverage established IPs in the form of family-centric media, the former Fox-branded entities will create largely original content that caters to previously underserved markets while simultaneously garnering general company prestige.
With this in mind, it’s perhaps unsurprising that the one area we’ve seen a conspicuous lack of large-scale cohesion between Disney and its adopted studios is at its theme parks, with enthusiasts debating over the past half-decade whether the company’s acquired properties — particularly those under the 20th Century Studios banner — belong at Disney parks.
Though there’s been a discernible recent pivot to original content at the studio, 20th Century owns a litany of recognizable brands and franchises, which Disney leaned into as it attempted to rebuild a foundation for the branch; it’s released new entires in the Avatar, Alien, Predator, Planet of the Apes, Ice Age, Home Alone, and Night at the Museum series (either theatrically or on Disney+) over the past six years, with additional films or television programs in the first five listed franchises either dated or in development at the studio. 20th Century’s animation arm is also the production company behind iconic adult-oriented sitcoms like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and Bob’s Burgers, with Disney not only maintaining ownership and production of these programs post-acquisition, but (in the case of The Simpsons and Family Guy) expanding their footprint in the form of streaming specials.
These are all properties with historic name value and demonstrated mainstream appeal, and given Disney’s recent (or, in the case of the animated sitcoms, sustained) attempts at introducing them to fresh audiences, it’s clear that the company sees contemporary value in them. That said, are past relevance and recent reimaginings strong enough justification to introduce into Disney Parks franchises that have no historical link to or association with the company? Should Disney add a Koba meet and greet to Animal Kingdom or put a xenomorph on “it’s a small world” simply because the conglomerate now owns these properties? Do 20th Century-owned brands, or more broadly, IPs not historically owned by Disney, have a rightful place at the parks because the apex atop the corporate pyramid has shifted?
The simple answer is, there’s no simple answer; that said, there exists plenty of precedent for non-Disney IPs not only having representation at the parks, but being cohesive and logical thematic fits within their respective settings. Disney’s Hollywood Studios is perhaps the principal example of this idea, as it quite literally shared its name with another film studio at the time of its opening; Disney-MGM Studios commenced operations at Walt Disney World in 1989 as a celebration of cinema and general entertainment, a combination theme park and working production studio in which guests could not only experience iconic film moments first-hand, but take a peek behind the curtain to learn how movies are produced. Disney-owned franchises certainly had representation at the park in its early years, but they held almost equal billing with external IPs; The Muppets, Indiana Jones, and Star Wars all received themed experiences at the park shortly after its launch, this despite Disney not owning any of these properties at the time of their respective openings (it would ultimately go on to acquire all of them).
It was the park’s premier traditional attraction, however, that was perhaps the most prominent manifestation of this sentiment, a 22-minute ‘traveling theater’ dark ride that took guests through recreations of quintessential film scenes regardless of the studio responsible for their production. Housed in an East Coast facsimile of Grauman’s Chinese Theatre, The Great Movie Ride opened alongside the park in 1989 and featured immersive scenes representative of 12 iconic films distributed by six different studios; 20th Century Fox was among the companies represented in grand scale, with a portion of the attraction taking guests aboard the Nostromo for a spine-tingling encounter with an animatronic xenomorph.
It’s that scene on a now-defunct dark ride that debases any argument purporting that 20th Century-owned IPs have no justifiable place at Disney Parks, as they’ve been present for over 35 years, and though that particular instance of representation is no longer accessible (The Great Movie Ride closed in 2017 to make way for Mickey & Minnie’s Runaway Railway), the formerly independent studio’s presence lives on in the form of Pandora — The World of Avatar at Disney’s Animal Kingdom. Needing a jolt after the nearby Universal Orlando Resort ate into market share with the 2010 opening of The Wizarding World of Harry Potter at Islands of Adventure, Disney licensed the theme park rights to Avatar from 20th Century Fox and Lightstorm Entertainment in 2011, earmarking Animal Kingdom for the first of what the company hoped would be several immersive lands based on the highest-grossing film in the history of cinema. Pandora — The World of Avatar ultimately opened at the park in 2017 and is widely considered one of Walt Disney Imagineering’s crowning recent achievements, with another Avatar-themed land currently in development for Disney California Adventure.
And if both the historic and contemporary ties between 20th Century Studios and Disney Parks aren’t enough to satiate you, consider that there’s an intrinsic link between the two formerly separate entities, as Dick Irvine, an art director who was among the most influential figures in Disneyland’s construction (and, thus, the modern state of The Walt Disney Company), left his job at 20th Century Fox in 1952 to help Walt Disney conceptualize what would become the happiest place on earth. The connections (both tangential and direct) between 20th Century Studios and Disney Parks predate Disney Parks themselves, and it’s, thus, difficult for one to make a sweeping argument against the studio’s representation in good faith.
What’s working against 20th Century-owned IPs in this exercise is logic, as there exists a common-sense argument opposing their inclusion that’s not without merit: Disney Parks are, well, Disney Parks. Guests travel to Anaheim, Orlando, Tokyo, Paris, Hong Kong, and Shanghai to meet Disney characters old and new, to experience attractions reminiscent of Disney movies, to bask in an atmosphere that’s distinctly Disney; 20th Century Studios, given that it existed as a disparate entity for over 80 years prior to Disney’s acquisition, lacks this seamless entwinement with its new parent company. Its properties (in the vast majority of cases) aren’t historically associated with Disney, and thus, one could argue that they offer little in the way of augmenting Disney Parks.
This was, however, also a sentiment true of Avatar ahead of Pandora’s construction, with project lead Joe Rohde advising Disney against licensing the rights to the 2009 film on numerous occasions (his concerns were more practical than thematic, but the point stands); Pandora — The World of Avatar is a contemporary Imagineering triumph, this despite the blockbuster on which it’s based having zero ties to Disney upon its release. There’s also a conspicuous lack of large-scale historical association between Disney and Marvel Comics, to the point that there still exists an entire land dedicated to the latter company’s cherished characters at a rival Orlando theme park; this hasn’t stopped Disney from exercising considerable capital to give Marvel a significant parks presence since acquiring the company in 2009, building Marvel-themed attractions or lands at Disney California Adventure, EPCOT, Walt Disney Studios Park, and Hong Kong Disneyland (with plenty more in development).
What, inherently, makes 20th Century Studios any different than Marvel? Or Lucasfilm, a Disney subsidiary with immense parks representation despite only being acquired in 2012 (one could argue that the Star Wars brand has had a presence at the parks since 1987, but again, Alien was at Disney-MGM Studios in 1989)? There’s no convincing argument that comprehensively discredits 20th Century’s proverbial claim to theme park representation; this isn’t to say, however, that notable 20th Century-owned properties should be infused into Disney Parks simply because the company now has the unchecked legal capacity to do so.
A not insignificant portion of the studio’s recognizable IPs are in stark tonal contrast to what one would expect to find at Disney Parks. Should Disney construct a Die Hard E-ticket or introduce a Predator walkaround character to Tomorrowland merely because these are established properties they now own? No, as they would seem utterly out of place, distracting from the overarching park experience as opposed to enhancing it; that said, just as an IP shouldn’t be added simply because it’s owned by 20th Century, an IP shouldn’t be avoided because it’s owned by 20th Century.
The most effective way to approach the studio’s future Disney Parks implementation and representation is on a case-by-case basis: franchises thematically and tonally incompatible with the parks shouldn’t be shoehorned in as part of a corporate synergy initiative, but if there’s a specific property that catches Imagineering’s eye as an opportunity to tell an engaging story and holistically complement a particular park, it shouldn’t be avoided simply because it isn’t historically Disney.
Would a proper xenomorph attraction (à la the terribly unsubtle ExtraTERRORestrial Alien Encounter) be a fit in today’s Magic Kingdom if it were to replace the long-idle Stitch’s Great Escape!? Likely not, but one could envision an Alien E-ticket finding cohesion and success at Disney’s Hollywood Studios (after all, the property has had representation there in the past). There’s enough flexibility in the worlds of Planet of the Apes and Ice Age to craft a story thematically consistent with that of Disney’s Animal Kingdom. I know I’d be the first in line if a rendition of Moe’s Tavern or Bob’s Burgers were to open in either the Downtown Disney District or Disney Springs (good riddance, Chicken Guy!).
While not a sentiment true of 20th Century Studios’ entire library, the subsidiary boasts a handful of properties that strike the delicate balance of having both historic and modern relevance, an engaging premise that would lend itself well to themed entertainment, and a general feeling consistent with that of properties already found at Disney Parks. Quality is also an important factor to note, as if an attraction or land is enjoyable and merits additional rides or visits, the attached property (and the studio responsible for its production) becomes secondary; Imagineering has demonstrated that it can create captivating experiences derived from 20th Century-owned IPs, and it should not shy away from doing so again in the future simply because the franchises don’t come from Disney proper.
The current creative state of The Walt Disney Company also bears mentioning here, as several of its production arms (namely Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Animation Studios, Marvel Studios, and Lucasfilm) have fallen into the trap of producing almost exclusively IP-based cinema. This isn’t an issue unique to the Mouse, but it presents particular challenges for Disney, given its standing as a themed entertainment giant, as cycling through familiar franchises already visited by Imagineering inherently limits their ability to conceive fresh ideas. This is what makes 20th Century’s theoretical standing as the conglomerate’s primary home for original content so interesting in the context of Disney Parks; while the company’s traditional arms leverage established IPs, 20th Century can be popularizing new ones that can, in turn, be implemented into the parks.
Not every original concept currently in development at 20th Century Studios has theme park potential (sorry, Martin Scorsese and Dwayne Johnson), but not every movie needs parks representation. 20th Century, in its intended form, gives Disney an avenue through which to produce original films with mainstream appeal, a handful of which will inevitably boast scenes or settings that audiences will want to experience tangibly.
It’s a perhaps mundane and anticlimactic conclusion, but it’s likely the most sensible one: Disney shouldn’t necessarily make a concerted effort to further infuse 20th Century IPs into its parks, but it shouldn’t shy away from the possibility, either. Should the company construct a broad 20th Century Studios-themed area featuring a medley of franchises at one of its existing parks, or an entirely new gate dedicated to the subsidiary and its properties? No, as this opens up a litany of potential theming conflicts and significantly overstates the value of 20th Century as a brand; that said, if Imagineering finds inspiration in a particular IP and conceives of an attraction or area that’s innovative, engaging, and enhances the story of a specific park or land — i.e., if another Avatar situation presents itself — it should move forward with the concept regardless of the studio logo that plays ahead of the film.
The further implementation of 20th Century Studios-owned properties into Disney Parks seems inevitable as the two entities become more intrinsically entwined, but this isn’t necessarily a cause for concern. Imagineering has demonstrated that it’s capable of crafting captivating experiences that feel not at all incongruous with the parks while using IPs from the branch (and, more broadly, non-Disney proper studios) in the recent past, and there’s no good-faith reason to doubt their ability to do so again in the future. What Disney Parks — and general themed entertainment — fans ultimately want are cutting-edge experiences renowned for their innovation, immersion, and quality; 20th Century’s content library offers several avenues for Disney to provide such experiences, and while the studio shouldn’t be overexposed, it should be embraced, when applicable, as the conglomerate moves into the future.
Be sure to continue to follow Boardwalk Times for more coverage of The Walt Disney Company.
Support Boardwalk Times on Ko-Fi.
Support Boardwalk Times by shopping on Boardwalk Store:
If you like this article. Subscribe to my free newsletter Boardwalk Times: Stories from the Seashore, a monthly dose of Disney, its businesses, and the wider themed entertainment industry.
Kyle Silagyi is a columnist for the Boardwalk Times
