This week on the Disney Q&A we’re talking about originality!
Is Disney more or less original today?
Hello and welcome to the Disney Q&A, the series where you all give me Disney questions, whether
it’s about the movies, the parks, the history, and I try to give you answers to the best of my ability.
This week’s question comes from subscriber Tim Fodor and Tim says:
Interesting question Tim, and what I think makes this question interesting is that the
topic of originality with Disney can be approached from different angles, and depending on that
angle the answer is different.
First let’s look at film.
What you said is entirely true.
Most of the classic animated Walt Disney-driven films were based on fairy tales that existed
long before Walt was around.
While he made alterations to the stories in order to make some of them more family-friendly,
it’d be hard to call these films original.
In fact, it’s often used as an arguing point on the topic of Disney’s strong lobbying
for extended copyright laws in the United States.
They’re a company built on the back of films based on stories that were in the public domain.
Compared to original stories and concepts like Wreck-it-Ralph, it’s a pretty good
argument to say that Disney is more original now than it was back then.
However let’s look at it from another perspective: sequels.
Often times when it comes to the topic of Hollywood and originality, people are talking
about the industry’s tendency to depend too much on reboots and sequels.
From that approach, while we can call a film like Toy Story original, can we really call
Toy Story 2, 3, and 4 original?
See that’s something Walt didn’t do during his time.
Sure those animated features would be based on old fairy tales, but once they were finished
and released, he moved on to something different.
He didn’t care about making sequels to those films.
One of his famous quotes, “You can’t top pigs with pigs” is a reference to The Three
Little Pigs and how he believed that you couldn’t follow-up on a successful project by just
creating a sequel to it.
Now obviously Hollywood and our tastes have changed a lot.
The numbers show that today you actually can top pigs with pigs, but regardless, from the
perspective of sequels I think the answer flips around and we can say that Walt in his
era was more original than Disney is today.
OK so that’s film, but what about the Disney parks?
I think originality takes a whole different definition when we start talking about rides
and I suspect that when fans criticize the lack of originality they’re not talking
about how original the IP the ride is based on is.
Instead they’re talking about whether or not the ride is based on an IP to begin with.
When we think of some of the great Disney classics, like the Haunted Mansion or Pirates
of the Caribbean, we’re talking about rides that were based on nothing but the ideas of
Walt and his imagineers.
Now you point out that you’d rather see IPs get created at films first before transitioning
to rides, and I think your reasoning behind it is solid.
That previous experience we have with the film allows us to form a stronger and quicker
connection than an original ride.
When Guardians of the Galaxy opens in Epcot, I won’t need to find out who those characters
are, I’ll already know from two films.
That said, there still is value in original concepts.
For one, not being tied down to an IP allows Imagineers to be truly creative in what they
come up with, and that means they’d be free to touch upon themes and ideas that might
not otherwise fit neatly within an IP Disney owns.
On top of that, consider the potential original rides have for helping Disney down the line.
Just look at Pirates of the Caribbean.
At the time of this recording, that film franchise has grossed a combined four and a half BILLION
dollars, and it’s all thanks to a ride that was based on nothing but an Imagineer’s ideas
So ultimately while it’s not an exciting one, my stance is that we need a healthy balance
with rides and with film.
Sequels and adaptations have shown that they have artistic value and do well financially,
but so have completely original concepts.
Disney rides based on IPs are wildly popular, yet so are plenty of completely original attractions.
When both industries have a balance of both, it creates this thriving symbiotic relationship
where the film industry helps carry the attractions, and attractions help fuel the film industry.
Unfortunately we don’t have that balance at the moment, and I do believe it’s largely
due to not only the state of Hollywood, but Bob Iger’s leadership style.
Obviously Disney is doing well as it is, so it’s not to say that things are getting bad.
It just highlights that with businesses this diverse and large, there’s more than one
way to run things.
Anyway that’s what I think, but I want to hear what you all think.
Is Disney more or less original than it was under Walt?
Where do you draw the line?
How could they improve?
Let me know in the comments below so we could all get a dialog going.
If you have a question you’d like to ask for the series, feel free to leave that in
the comments below as well.
I want to thank you all for watching and I’ll see you next time!