Non-Franchised Attractions

[grizzlybarely]

Let's get this discussion going.

For a while now, the theme parks have stopped building attractions that are not based on any characters or properties. Disney hasn't done it since Everest (leave the Test Track re-do). Universal hasn't done it since Rockit. Will we see attractions like BTMRR, Space Mountain, Dueling Dragons, Horizons or Earthquake in the future?

 

[JungleSkip]

Will we see attractions like BTMRR, Space Mountain, Dueling Dragons, Horizons or Earthquake in the future?

Well, Earthquake was based on Earthquake. I'd say Disaster is more original than Earthquake was, but I digress.

For the most part, I think you've seen the last of them in the United States, at least for a good long while. The runaway success of WWoHP and Cars Land has basically insured we'll be seeing popular franchises pop up as lands. You could see a bone thrown out here or there by Disney, but I seriously doubt it.

The best chance you have at non-franchises is to go to TDR, Shanghai, or Hong Kong.

 

[Brian G.]

Well, Earthquake was based on Earthquake. I'd say Disaster is more original than Earthquake was, but I digress.

For the most part, I think you've seen the last of them in the United States, at least for a good long while. The runaway success of WWoHP and Cars Land has basically insured we'll be seeing popular franchises pop up as lands. You could see a bone thrown out here or there by Disney, but I seriously doubt it.

The best chance you have at non-franchises is to go to TDR, Shanghai, or Hong Kong.

Maybe Epcot when UoE and WoL ever get it's replacements.

But yea, non-franchised attractions don't pull in the merch sales like established properties.

 

[JungleSkip]

Maybe Epcot when UoE and WoL ever get it's replacements.

Yea, EPCOT is probably the only chance at seeing originals for a long time. UoE, Imagination, WoL, WS.

 

[Jakemeister]

Universal is a theme park that's a studio, it's very essence is riding the movies. Island's of Adventure relies heavily on IP as well, it's just they're more free flowing with it and don't rely completely on film. You'll be hard pressed to find anything at UOR that isn't based of an IP. If you want non-franchised attractions go to Sea World, they have the most

 

[jtsalien]

Suits are afraid of the perceived risk with an unproven property. I'm sure the ideas are there, they just will never see the light of day anytime soon.

 

[grizzlybarely]

I wish Universal would try it more. They've proven with HHN that they can do their own stuff. At Disney, most of the E-tickets are not based on franchises. Come on, Comcast, find another $100 million somewhere.

 

[Brian G.]

I wish Universal would try it more. They've proven with HHN that they can do their own stuff. At Disney, most of the E-tickets are not based on franchises. Come on, Comcast, find another $100 million somewhere.

But HHN is already an established property, so they can take risks for a month, and start over for the next year. With that said, they still look out to use already established properties likes Jason, Freddy, Saw, Chucky, Walking Dead.

Universal is where blockbusters come to life, and IOA is where literary stories come to life. The chance of non-franchise attractions are slim.

 

[JungleSkip]

The best and probably only chance at one in Uni is if something is ever done with the LC. But there aren't really any plans for that. So don't hold your breath.

- - - Updated - - -

But even then...I've never really found the fascination with "original". Yes, Disney put out some great original stuff...but none in what? 30 years? And in the past 15-20 we've gotten some amazing stuff based on properties, from the original USF lineup to ToT, Radiator Springs, Indiana Jones, Transformers, Spidey, and Forbidden Journey.

I dunno. I love the old classics, but in reality there hasn't been any of them in decades, and the rides we're getting now are just as good, IMO.

 

[grizzlybarely]

Universal is where blockbusters come to life, and IOA is where literary stories come to life. The chance of non-franchise attractions are slim.

Certainly a fair point. They've essentially built into a corner where if an attraction isn't based on a franchise, it doesn't fit in the parks. How would everyone feel if they ignored the theme of the park and focused on the theme of the land? This generation's Figment could go in Toon Lagoon. This generation's Pirates could go in Lost Continent. This generation's Haunted Mansion could go in Hollywood.

 

[Cecilia]

In all honesty, I don't care if it's a property or even what property it is. I just want a beautifully executed and immersible environment. That's it. And if that can be executed with a property (which as we've seen, it can) then I don't care.

 

[jtsalien]

In all honesty, I don't care if it's a property or even what property it is. I just want a beautifully executed and immersible environment. That's it. And if that can be executed with a property (which as we've seen, it can) then I don't care.

I think because of the Disney classics people automatically tie original with great, and that's not necessarily true. You're right: it's all about execution in the end.

 

[Eric]

I think Soarin' proved that you don't need a franchise for a ride to be successful (in terms of newer rides at least). People flock to that over-glorified simulator. Maybe its simply because its something the whole family can do, but I really don't understand all the hype.

Regardless, I like franchised rides, they take a story I've seen on screen or in books and transform it to reality, which I like.

 

[Teebin]

Have there been any rumors of a Disney movie about a Yeti in the Himalayas?

 

[Elizabeth.June]

Regardless, I like franchised rides, they take a story I've seen on screen or in books and transform it to reality, which I like.

This is what I find the most fun about theme parks; the ability to take something that was once entirely fictional and make into something real that guests can enjoy. I have more fun on franchised rides where they are based on stories I grew up with, specifically in the case of Harry Potter.

 

[grizzlybarely]

This is what I find the most fun about theme parks; the ability to take something that was once entirely fictional and make into something real that guests can enjoy. I have more fun on franchised rides where they are based on stories I grew up with, specifically in the case of Harry Potter.

I totally understand and for the most part agree. There is room for all. I do think there is more staying power for non-franchises though whereas franchises tend to be a bit more flavor-of-the-month. What franchise-based attractions have the fanbase of HM, Pirates, or Horizons? I enjoy franchise-based attractions but how many of them will be classics? I'd really like to see both creative development groups let their imaginations fly and create new characters for the parks.

 

[Jakemeister]

Albeit not a franchise, nothing in Lost Continent was "original". Sinbad, Merlin, Poseidon, Mythology.

 

[BJCool]

I don't think anything at SeaWorld is based off a pre-existing property or franchise. SeaWorld wins!

 

[Jakemeister]

Polar Express is it...well and the 'Beetlejuice' theme in JTA.

 

[TheMackMachine]

I think Sea World and Busch Garden are the best when it comes to non-franchise attractions, even though they have Seseme Street. Personally, my second favorite park, behind IOA, is Busch Gardens Williamsburg. If anyone has been to BGW in the last 7 years, they would know about Curse of Dark Castle, the only non-Universal based ride that uses the motion simulator technology from Spiderman. Sure the technology can use an update, but they created an incredible ride with an unknown story that is explained in the queue. It also has the better queue than Spiderman in my opinion. Even without Seseme Street, they prove that you can have a popular theme park without franchises.