Should Disney use other Franchises for the Parks?

[dagobert]

There is a very interesting discussion about Disney using other intelectual property, like Star Wars, Indiana Jones or Avatar, for their themeparks going on in the comments section of the AVATAR article on DLRPToday. I think it's worth to discuss it here.

Some argue that Disneyland should only be about Disney and so no other franchise should be used, while other people think that Star Wars or Indiana Jones are perfect additions to the parks.

So what do you think?

In my opinion Star Tours and Indiana Jones are perfect additions to the Disney parks, while I think Marvel, although it's now part of Disney, shouldn’t be in the Disneyland Park. I just think the superheroes would fit better into WDSP and I'm sure Disney will build attractions around them in the future. Otherwise the purchase of that company wouldn’t make any sense. I also want to say, that I don’t like the Marvel merchandise in the shops of DLP. They should only sell these products inside DV and WDSP.

If Disney wouldn't use other franchises, Tower of Terror wouldn't there be either, since it is based on the Twilight Zone TV Show owned by CBS. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Marvel and now Avatar help to bring more than just Disney fans to the parks.

While I'm a big fan of Star Wars and Indy, I don't like Avatar at all. In my opinion it's one of the most overrated movies with bad storytelling and weired characters, but at least James Cameron created a fantastic world that gives WDI the opportunity to create something big. I want to say as long as the attraction is really great, I don't mind if Disney uses franchises. I think it wasn't really necessary to use Indy for that coaster in Paris.

Nevertheless none of the best Disney attractions is neither based on any Disney nor other franchise and so I think WDI should try to create something original again.

[gingajen]

Since many people, on this site included, seem to rate the 'non Disney' rides such as POTC and ToT as some of their favourites in the park, it would seem that Disney are right to use other franchises. When I say 'non Disney' rides I don't actually mean they belong to other franchises, just that they don't specifically relate to any Disney story, but the principles are the same I think.
I think that Disney need to watch which franchises they allow into which park though. As you say Dagobert, Marvel merchandise has no place in Disneyland Park in my opinion. I have never seen all of Avatar, but the little bits I have seen, seem to show beautiul landscapes and a magical/mystical feel. I don't know if that is the gist of the film, but if that is the case, I think there is a place in Disneyland Park for a different sort of magic.
WDSP, can afford to be a bit more creative with their franchise allowances because the essence of the park is film. Marvel would fit in well here, the Marvel area of Islands of Adventure in Florida has some of the best rides I have been on. The incredible Hulk is brilliant. And what about doing something similar to the Harry Potter land in Islands of Adventure? This would appeal to so many more people and bring a whole new audience to the parks.

[Josh]

I think there are some places where it's appropriate (such as Discoveryland or the WDSP), but others where it would be inappropriate (such as Fantasyland).

The reason why I'm sceptical about AVATAR Land is that it's going to be an entire land based off one franchise. Personally, I don't think any land should have that exclusivity. Disney's California Adventure is in a similar position with franchise like Cars and Bug's Life having their own lands, and I can't think of any other Disney Park like that. While they are brilliant on their own, I just don't think they fit together or provide opportunity for expansion.

Also, if one ride based off a franchise becomes outdated, you can just replace it with something else. Disney have done that many times before with other rides, but they couldn't as easily replace an entire land! That's never happened before.

[Patrick89]

So what do you think?

In my opinion Star Tours and Indiana Jones are perfect additions to the Disney parks, while I think Marvel, although it's now part of Disney, shouldn’t be in the Disneyland Park. I just think the superheroes would fit better into WDSP and I'm sure Disney will build attractions around them in the future. Otherwise the purchase of that company wouldn’t make any sense. I also want to say, that I don’t like the Marvel merchandise in the shops of DLP. They should only sell these products inside DV and WDSP.

If Disney wouldn't use other franchises, Tower of Terror wouldn't there be either, since it is based on the Twilight Zone TV Show owned by CBS. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Marvel and now Avatar help to bring more than just Disney fans to the parks.

While I'm a big fan of Star Wars and Indy, I don't like Avatar at all. In my opinion it's one of the most overrated movies with bad storytelling and weired characters, but at least James Cameron created a fantastic world that gives WDI the opportunity to create something big. I want to say as long as the attraction is really great, I don't mind if Disney uses franchises. I think it wasn't really necessary to use Indy for that coaster in Paris.

Nevertheless none of the best Disney attractions is neither based on any Disney nor other franchise and so I think WDI should try to create something original again.[/quote]

I also think that Indy and Star Wars fit in DLP. Even if Indy doesn't really have a story (which make the "non-Disney" rides PotC, BTM,PM (well, the whole Frontierland) so special), i really like it. So good rides do not necessarily have to be based on Disney. In my opinion, we already had too many new Disney-attractions in the recent past (according to the motto: No story, but Disney...). Do not understand me wrong - I really love Disney, but you just mustn't create every new ride on the basis of a Disney movie.

So new franchises? I don't know. I don't like the Marvel merchandise, too, it simply doesn't fit... Other rides show that there is no need to base your attraction on any former movie, so why not creating a ride with a whole new story? These are still the favourites of most visitors, aren't they?