“Marvel and Star Wars don’t belong in the Disney Parks.
They’re not Disney.”
While it’s perhaps not the overwhelming sentiment when it comes to Disney fandom,
it is one that I see often in the parks community, and it’s one that has interested me for a while now.
It got me wondering, what makes something “Disney” and when does it belong in the parks?
Now I want to preface this by pointing out that there obviously is no right or wrong answer here.
If you’re one of those Disney parks fans who feels like Marvel and Star Wars doesn’t
belong, that’s fine.
Everyone is welcome to enjoy the parks in the way they prefer.
And I also want to clarify that I’m obviously not talking about the literal interpretation here.
Both Marvel Studios and Lucasfilm Ltd. are wholly owned subsidiaries of The Walt Disney
Studios, so legally speaking they are unquestionably a part of Disney.
However with the announcement of two Star Wars based lands and three Marvel themed lands
over these last few years, many fans have expressed the opinion that neither property
belongs in a Disney park because it just don’t fit, and while I personally disagree
with that, I found myself questioning why people might feel that way, and if that might change.
What particular aspect of both companies creates that feeling of not fitting in?
I want to get what I suspect is the most unlikely issue out of the way first by asking: is it
a matter of the corporate hierarchy?
While Disney owns both Marvel and Lucasfilm, they both operate as separate subsidiaries.
Most importantly, they’re branded as separate entities.
When you go to the theater to watch new Star Wars or new Marvel films, you don’t see
that Disney logo at the beginning.
Now today I think most people still recognize that they’re owned by Disney, but could
that simple dissociation play a part in pushing them away from people’s minds when it comes
to what Disney is?
I don’t think this is the case, because I can’t imagine that simply slapping a Disney
bumper to the front of the next Avengers is going to convince those fans that it belongs
in the park all of a sudden.
So then, is it because these were properties that weren’t created by Disney, but instead
were acquired by them?
Perhaps, but then how do we explain Pixar?
To make a long story short, Pixar was born when George Lucas’ graphics group was sold
in 1986, and it wouldn’t be until 2006 that Disney would acquire the company for themselves.
So while Disney did act as co-producer, it wouldn’t be accurate to say that Toy Story
or Finding Nemo or Monsters, Inc or The Incredibles are Disney films.
They’re Pixar films and there was a difference for a long time.
Yet I think it’s safe to say that there isn’t much argument to be found today that
none of those properties belong in parks.
Now in all fairness, those are all properties that were originally created when those films
were made.
So culturally speaking, we never had time to think of them without Disney somehow being connected.
Meanwhile The Avengers is a concept that dates back to the 1960s.
There was nearly half a century of history tied to that property before it was owned by Disney.
Star Wars is a franchise that was born in the 1970s and so it was a major independent
cultural icon for thirty-five years before Disney purchased it.
So could that be the secret?
Do these properties feel out of place in the parks for some because they’ve existed for
so long already without Disney being involved?
It made me wonder about how audiences received those first handful of feature animated films
from Disney back in the 1930’s and 1940’s.
Disney was known for this original and wonderful creation called Mickey Mouse, and then he
makes a film about a fairy tale.
Not even an original fairy tale either.
He adapts one that had been around for over 120 years.
A few years later he moves onto his second film and again, it’s an adaptation.
The Adventures of Pinocchio was 57 years old at that time, not too far off from how
old the Avengers were when Disney purchased Marvel.
And then it goes on and on.
Dumbo and Bambi were not only not Disney originals, but they were new enough that Disney had to
acquire the rights to make the films, whereas the fairy tales were just in the public domain.
So here’s Disney, known for these original characters, yet kicking off a feature film
legacy with adaptations and paid acquisitions.
Yet today we don’t think twice when it comes to these properties.
They’re woven into the DNA of Disney as a company, and I personally believe it’s
a product of time.
Odds are that you, the person watching this video right now grew up in a world where Snow
White, Dumbo, Pinocchio and Bambi were all inherently Disney characters.
Likewise, you also probably grew up in a world where Iron Man and Luke Skywalker were not,
but that’s changing.
Disney acquired Marvel in 2009 which means there are ten year olds today who literally
do not know a world in which Marvel and Disney are not one in the same, much in the same
way most of us do not know a world in which Snow White and Disney are not one in the same.
So I ultimately can’t fault Disney for wanting to work brands like Marvel and Star Wars into these parks.
While many accuse the move of being a quick cash grab, I believe it’s the exact opposite.
This is Disney realizing that the fresh acquisitions of today are bound to be part of Disney’s DNA tomorrow.
In 15 years time there will be an entire generation of adult guests who grew up associating Star
Wars and the Avengers with Disney just as much as they do Cinderella or The Little Mermaid.
Another common argument I see, particularly with Marvel, is that the problem with these
properties being added to the parks is that they haven’t aged enough to earn it yet.
They’re not classics.
My problem with this argument is that Disney has a long history that goes back to the days
of Walt when it comes to adding new attractions based on fresh properties.
Peter Pan’s Flight in Disneyland, considered a classic today, opened just two years after
the film premiered.
The Mad Tea Party opened just four years after Alice in Wonderland came out.
Sleeping Beauty castle, the icon of Disneyland itself was built four years before Sleeping
Beauty even came out.
So I don’t think it’s fair to argue that it’s too soon to add these properties to the park.
I’d even go a step further and argue that maybe part of why those films became classics
decades down the line is because they had experiences like the theme park rides to help
keep them culturally relevant.
And that certainly doesn’t mean you suddenly have to like their inclusion into the
parks, but I feel that it’s an important perspective, and one that goes a long way
in understanding why these parks often face changes that we sometimes don’t like.
Time marches onward, and as new generations are born and grow up with new favorite films
and new favorite genres, it’s important for the Disney Parks to continue to evolve.
Otherwise it, well, it just becomes a snapshot of the past.