Search results

When this card was released, Splash Mountain, and everything else on the card, was still open. Not that that really matters either because there’s nothing to read into here.

Aside from the absurdity of the idea that they were forced to sit on this card design since at least early 2020 and that this would say anything about their plans or lack of plans…. one of the new card designs is a full on Tiana card. So yeah, clearly done after the 2020 announcement.

If Walt was so against alcohol in the park, he shouldn’t have started serving it in 1967. You know what did actually make the place literally filthier? Smoking. Which was banned the same month that alcohol started being served to regular guests.

I think the water cycle, something fundamentally rooted in real world physics, is actually a very boring, irrelevant, and generally poor choice to haphazardly tie in with a character that moves water in magical ways. It would be like if Frozen Ever After started educating you on the freezing and...

Ask anyone for some facts to back up your idea that Disney raised the price and terms disproportionately more than the rest of their costs (or even disproportionately more than inflation). Until then, it sounds like you’re just guessing, and I’d guess it was the opposite.

I think that’s a bit of wiggling there… car companies are the last industry that’s decided those kind of theme park sponsorships are still viable. The others don’t exist anymore because they dropped out, not because Disney kicked them out. Aside from the Splash Mountain thing, they haven’t...

???

Mini golf would still work seamlessly and let them save face.

It is the highest-rated movie of all time on Rotten Tomatoes!

I like that we’re brainstorming names. How about Rocket Rodrigos?

Yes, Disney’s most popular attractions were not based on popular IP, and they also weren’t built around an agenda to revitalize IP that’s not nearly as popular as it once was. At that point, why not just create an original attraction? Heck I’d even prefer they utilize the talent of one Olivia...

But why go to such great lengths to make a franchise relevant, especially when they’ve unsuccessfully tried to do that on the studio side over the past ten years or so? What leads you to believe it would be a huge hit?

In that case, I hope they have concluded that, due to failure of almost everything Muppets related over the last 20+ years, they will decide against it. But since the Muppets studio falls under Disney’s parks division for some bizarre reason, they’ll probably do it anyway.

Okay sure, but at least 99% of people do.

Everyone thinks that.

I think it is a very good ride, and obviously it’s not being changed.

I mostly just dislike the placement of it. It doesn’t even fill the space at all… you can so easily go around it. As an avid player of Mario Kart this doesn’t sit right with me. For example, this is much better:

My guess is that they didn’t talk about VR gaming much because people already really closely (or only) associate VR headsets with gaming… and not always in a positive way. I also wonder how many third party games they even had lined up, much less created, and wouldn’t be shocked if it’s 0. I...

I smell what the Tim is cooking. The focus on spacial computing feels a lot more in touch with what people want, whereas Mark’s whole metaverse thing sounds like he enjoys playing The Sims a little more than most people do.

Damn, I saw the picture on the front page and had a brief moment of false hope. Still cool though.