- Sep 4, 2018
- 390
- 1,030
When it comes to the IP discussion in parks, for me a lot of it is what is that IP generally based on. If the IP is itself based on something "generic" then it can be great and evergreen regardless of the IPs popularity itself.
You could never have seen a single Potter movie, or have read any of the books but you still know "witches and wizards" and it can make for great themed lands and attractions. You could have never seen a single "How to Train your Dragon" movie but still know "Vikings and Dragons" and have a gloriously beautiful land and themed attractions. Monsters while technically an IP have been around for ages and have become timeless as well.
My first visit to Hogsmeade, all I knew about Harry Potter was "Oh that's those kids books and movies about witches and wizards". It blew me away and actually got me interested in exploring the specific IP itself (books, movies, etc).
So for me a land based on witches and wizards vs. a land based on specific witches and wizards doesn't make much of a difference.
You could never have seen a single Potter movie, or have read any of the books but you still know "witches and wizards" and it can make for great themed lands and attractions. You could have never seen a single "How to Train your Dragon" movie but still know "Vikings and Dragons" and have a gloriously beautiful land and themed attractions. Monsters while technically an IP have been around for ages and have become timeless as well.
My first visit to Hogsmeade, all I knew about Harry Potter was "Oh that's those kids books and movies about witches and wizards". It blew me away and actually got me interested in exploring the specific IP itself (books, movies, etc).
So for me a land based on witches and wizards vs. a land based on specific witches and wizards doesn't make much of a difference.