The Missed Opportunities
The “Star Wars�? series has enough material for an entire theme park. But then, it isn’t Disney’s property so Disney has less incentive to use it. Still, I salivate at the thought of a T2-3D-style treatment of “Star Wars�?, or any number of other attractions that could be based on the films. I'd wait three hours to be able to fire a blaster at Jar-Jar Binks.

It is strange that “Beauty and the Beast�?, which was well received by critics and movie-going public, to not have some permanent representation at the Disney parks. With Maurice being an inventor and the castle being enchanted, there are some great possibilities. A dark-ride, a restaurant, a shop - even a high-end resort hotel themed to the Beast’s estate would seem like natural possibilities.

“Aladdin�? is chock full of settings and sequences worthy of full-blown show-rides.

If “Monster’s, Inc.�? doesn’t cry out for a dark ride, nothing does, and it is unbelievable that the Disney-owned parks have gone without a ride-through based on “The Little Mermaid�?.

Really, all of the Feature Animation productions provide material that could be adapted to permanent shows, ride-throughs, restaurants, and shops- even the films that didn’t perform up to Disney’s hopes at the box office. These days, with just about any animated film acting as a babysitter once it hits the home market, enough kids will become familiar with them. Besides, a movie doesn’t have to be a smash hit to inspire a great theme park attraction.

Any armchair Imagineer worth his or her salt has come up with plenty of engaging projects based on Disney’s missed opportunities. Actual Imagineers have come up with similar projects that never got past early planning stages, to be sure. Disney’s missed opportunities aren’t the result of a lack of ideas.

What’s the Solution?
In some respects, the Walt Disney Company, a large international corporation, needs to act like a small company.

For instance, imagine for a moment that Pixar had no distribution deal with Disney (Disney execs- please don’t die at the thought - it’s just an exercise). Pixar comes up with a great movie. The execs would make the best deal they could with a marketing/distribution “studio�? like Disney, Fox, or Viacom. Then, they would also make the best deals they could to license the characters for merchandise, television shows, interactive games, and theme parks. If Pixar had been independent of a contract with Disney, you could bet that ride based on “Finding Nemo�? would be announced already.

Disney, however, has so much on its plate. It isn’t as desperate to make the most of everything it has, because it has so much to work with.

This is why Disney should treat each film like it was created by an upstart, small firm that needs to make the most out of what they have. Assign someone to act like a talent agent and publicist on behalf of that film, making their case to other parts of the corporation, especially the theme parks. An agent for “Monsters, Inc�?, for instance, would go to people at Imagineering and the Disneyland Resort and declare that “Monsters, Inc.�? is such a big star and had such talent that it deserves a top-of-the-line attraction, and would “negotiate�? the best use of the film’s “talents�?. An agent for Nemo would never let him be underused like he is now.

There is nothing wrong with adapting the new releases to temporary live productions, large or small. Ride-through attractions are very expensive and take much planning, time, and other resources, and it is best to have the temporary live entertainment in conjunction with the release of the film, to get a feel for how well received the film is and what the best elements are before going ahead with a more permanent attraction.

But Disney should go ahead with some permanent ride-through attractions and not simply let the film's characters be shuffled off to the side to make way for the next set of characters. Temporary shows do not grow a theme park for the future. Treat the films like the theme park gold mines they can be. What child or youthful adult wouldn't love visiting Aladdin and Jasmine's palace, or riding around the river bend with Pocahontas? Who could resist taking a madcap ride through a power plant inhabited by monsters and doorways that would take them to various parts of the world? I know I wouldn't mind being able to visit Atlantis, or soar through the stars in a search for Treasure Planet.

The "agent" would know what uses for the content would be appropriate, and where it would be out of place. They'd even get their stars on the talk and entertainment shows, even if they are toons. More importantly to theme park fans; they'd work to build exciting new attractions featuring their talent.

Yes, it is less of a hassle to simply license the characters to appear on everything from cereal boxes to hairbrushes, and to produce “less expensive�?, mostly direct-to-video sequels and television cartoon series. However, for the sake of the theme parks as well as the intellectual property itself, make the investment in bringing these film elements to their full potential in the theme parks. One thing "Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl" has proven is that a great theme park attraction can strengthen the company's other efforts.

Anyone can feature X games. Only Disney can produce a “D�? or “E�? Ticket ride-through with Disney characters. Get that magic carpet off the turntable and into the Cave of Wonders.

Discuss It

• Discuss this article on the LaughingPlace.com Discussion Boards

• List of all Kenversations