Disney has some of the most talented CGI artists in the industry working for them between ILM, Pixar and WDAS.
I don't know why their theme park CGI can't look as good (especially for what they spend).
I've always thought that Theme Park CGI
should look *better* than Film CGI - when you're watching a movie there's a remove, you're not necessarily meant to believe what's happening in front of you is fully real. But in a theme park setting, often the CGI is literally meant to
substitute for reality - you're supposed to believe it IS real, AND happening right in front of you. Especially given how many attractions use CGI as a substitute for a practical effect . . . that CGI had better be REAL convincing.
We expect a practical trick to sell us on the reality of the intended effect, and yet there seems to be this understanding that CGI is not expected to live up to that in most theme park applications. It goes back to something I talk about a lot with "Illustration vs. Illusion" - where illustration is meant only to show you "this is the part where
this happens", and illusion is meant to make you say "something unbelievable just happened, and yet I witnessed it with my own eyes". It's the difference between reading about a magician pulling a rabbit out of his hat in a picture book and actually seeing a skilled magician do it in person. One is purely about telling the story, and the other a visceral experience.
This to say, given how intelligent audiences are today about the use of CGI and how easy it is for them to detect it, any use of it in a theme park setting should be held to the highest possible standard to give the best chance that the guest buys into it as reality. That we're so palpably far from that is a big part of why so many guests lament the use of "screenz".