Ask a Disney Parks fan how they feel about movie-based attractions and you are not getting a simple answer. You are getting a full monologue, three examples, one deeply personal EPCOT grievance, and possibly a dramatic sigh. This debate has been simmering for years, but lately it has started to feel a lot less like fan speculation and a lot more like Disney’s actual blueprint.

That is because Disney has not exactly been coy about where things are headed. In 2024, Bob Iger said that “almost all” of Disney’s investment in park lands and attractions would be built around IP. Then, at Disney’s 2025 shareholders meeting, the company highlighted a pipeline packed with IP-driven projects, including Cars and a Villains land at Magic Kingdom, a Monsters, Inc. land at Disney’s Hollywood Studios, and Tropical Americas at Disney’s Animal Kingdom with Encanto and Indiana Jones in the mix. In other words, this is no longer just a fan fear, or a fan dream, depending on which side of the argument you live on. It is very much the plan.

And that is exactly why this conversation keeps getting spicier than a snack booth hot honey drizzle.

Love It

For a lot of people, Disney Parks are supposed to feel like walking straight into the stories they already love. That is the whole magic trick. These fans are not showing up because they want a lecture on thematic purity. They want to pilot the Millennium Falcon, race through the Grid, step into Andy’s backyard, and hear that one song from Frozen that will now live in their head until the end of time. A lot of readers are totally fine with movie-based additions, especially when Disney still leaves room for some original ideas, too.

That feeling makes sense. Familiar stories are emotional shortcuts. They get kids excited. They give families a shared point of reference. They make a land or ride instantly legible in a way that an entirely new concept sometimes does not. That is a huge part of the appeal, especially at a place like EPCOT, where some fans feel characters like Remy or Anna and Elsa can act like a gateway into a pavilion rather than a distraction from it. For the pro-IP crowd, that is not Disney losing the plot. That is Disney speaking the language its guests already love.

Although EPCOT is one of the most controversial spots for Disney movie content, a few readers said that they enjoy the new additions to EPCOT, such as Remy’s Ratatouille Adventure and Frozen Ever Ever. A reader commented that involving Disney movies in EPCOT countries is a great way to engage children in culture: “I love to see movies that theme with EPCOT countries included in those pavilions. It’s a great way to have children understand the cultures on their level [and it’s] something they can identify with.”

And if you’re a Disney fan who loves Disney movies, why wouldn’t you enjoy them in the parks? This reader said, “I am a Disney fan who enjoys theme parks more than a theme park fan who enjoys Disney Parks. So to me, the animated movies in particular are the heart of what I love most.”

The general consensus among these readers was that bringing Disney movies to life in Disney Parks can add to the park experience, especially if they continue to strike a balance with the old and the new. As one reader commented, adding new properties “helps appeal to all ages and styles.”

Go inside Remy’s Ratatouille Adventure with us!

Hate It

When it comes to readers who hate Disney movies in the parks, it seems to amount to a few big factors. Namely, EPCOT. One reader commented, “While I enjoy Disney movies a lot, I’ve always loved the cultural and educational rides the best. It’s really frustrating to me that they’re getting rid of those types of rides and adding more movie-themed ones.”

A few other readers commented that it’s acceptable in certain parks, but not others: “It’s fine in Magic Kingdom [and] Hollywood Studios. But self-promotion doesn’t fit in EPCOT and Animal Kingdom. EPCOT should represent the world around us or the future; Animal Kingdom should represent the animals and their environment.”

And many readers thought that relying on Disney movies for new content is just, well, lazy. One reader commented, “Basing practically everything off existing IP shows an extreme lack of creativity and imagination. So many great park rides and attractions were original ideas, such as Journey into Imagination, Soarin’, PeopleMover, Space Mountain, and the list goes on. We just don’t see that anymore which is disappointing. Clearly some attractions will be based on existing Disney movies and characters but there appears to be no room for original content.”

If you prefer original content in Disney Parks, you might also feel disappointed by the additions of Disney movies, and many DFB readers agree with you!

Stop what you’re doing and flashback to EPCOT in 1985!

On the Fence

The funniest part of this whole debate is that most people are not actually living at either extreme. They are not screaming, “Turn every square inch into Marvel!” and they are not demanding Disney resurrect every extinct pavilion concept from a 1982 brochure. Most fans are in the messy middle, like one reader who said, “I’m torn. I get they want to promote movies [and the] the original Magic Kingdom was a lot of movie-based rides. But I do like original concepts, like the Jungle Cruise, Haunted Mansion, etc. I like it when they hide movie references in rides. It’s just as fun finding them as finding the hidden Mickeys!”

They are fine with IP when it fits. They like it when it feels organic. They do not mind stepping into a beloved story if the result is immersive, thoughtful, and actually right for the park. What they do mind is when the choice feels obvious in the least flattering way, like a boardroom picked it because the merchandise mockups were easy. A lot of readers aren’t anti-IP so much as anti-laziness. They wanted balance. They wanted the classics protected. They wanted new ideas to feel earned.

One reader noted that added properties should be “organic and immersive,” and that Hollywood Studios “is supposed to celebrate movie making yet the Star Wars area is presented as a real place, not a movie set.” Another reader commented that “the parks need find the balance of keeping the classics while finding a way to grow and change with the generations and new movies they bring out.”

As with most of life, not everything can be all one thing, and it’s complicated! Even if you understand WHY Disney has chosen to add certain Disney movies to the parks, it doesn’t mean you have to love it.

Read more about Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge in Hollywood Studios here!

View from Disney Leadership

Here is where things get especially interesting. In May 2024, Iger said that after seeing the returns Disney got from IP-based expansions, the company decided that “almost all” of its investment in lands and attractions would use IP. That is a pretty blunt statement, even by executive-speak standards. Then, in February 2026, he doubled down on the value of Disney’s story library, saying Disney did not need to buy more IP because it would “continue to create our own,” while pointing to the company’s existing franchises and their value across parks, film, and streaming.

So no, Iger did not literally stand on a parade float and shout, “Everything is IP from now on!” But the direction of travel is not exactly subtle. Disney’s official messaging has been built around leveraging stories, expanding franchises, and turning popular films and characters into big physical experiences. The company’s own investment strategy has framed growth around stories first, and by 2025 Disney was openly touting an all-star list of upcoming projects rooted in existing brands.

That does not mean original ideas are dead and buried under a pile of FastPass signage. But it does mean fans hoping for a sudden wave of brand-new, non-IP lands should probably not hold their breath until they turn the color of a Haunted Mansion wallpaper panel.

NEWS: Bob Iger CONFIRMED All Future Disney Parks Projects Will Be IP-Based

So, who’s right?

Honestly, both sides have a point.

The pro-IP crowd is right that Disney movies and characters are part of the company’s DNA, and when Disney does this well, the results can be spectacular. Nobody is going to look you dead in the eye and claim Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge or Cars Land would be stronger without the stories attached. But the anti-IP crowd is also right that Disney’s parks became legendary because Imagineers were once allowed to swing for the fences with original concepts. That kind of ambition built some of the most enduring attractions in theme park history.

So the real question is not whether Disney should use IP. Of course it will. Of course it should, sometimes. The better question is whether Disney can still surprise us. Can it use familiar stories without flattening every park into the same franchise smoothie? Can it make room for new ideas, weird ideas, park-specific ideas, not just the cleanest synergy play on the spreadsheet?

Because that is what fans are really arguing about. Not whether they like movies. Not whether Disney owns a lot of stories. They are arguing about whether the parks still feel imaginative, or whether they are starting to feel a little too pre-packaged.

And judging by what Disney has announced, plus what Bob Iger has said out loud, this argument is not going away anytime soon. The IP wave is still rolling in. Now fans are just waiting to see whether Disney rides it with creativity, or lets it wash out some of the weird, wonderful magic that made the parks special in the first place.

Whether you’re okay with Disney movie content in the parks or not, you can see how the situation is complicated! It doesn’t seem like Disney movie content is going anywhere in Disney Parks, but we’re interested to find out what could happen in the future. Keep reading DFB for more Disney news!

Do you agree with any of our readers? Tell us in the comments!