And you want to know why that is? Because the new executives believe that themselves. Eisner had misfires, but he was able to identify why the Parks were special. Bob Iger just seems them as a revenue vehicle for other cynical ventures for the company (Which are also declining artistically).
It especially upsets me when I see blockbusters compared to theme park rides, knowing how much artistry and care can go into an actual theme park ride over a $200 million dollar superhero movie. People have forgotten what that looks like, Disney has allowed them to forget. They used to be able to impress even the most skeptic with their offerings. Now they just want to be like Universal.
“The tat and kitschy quality that comes across in flat pictures dissolves when you go through those turnstiles. The lath and plaster is solid, the cardboard is so tough you never see it wobble. The paint is fresh, the flags flutter, the bands play, the people laugh and cry out for more, more security, more nostalgia, more happiness, more memories of a world better than our own. […] Is this bad? Is this, as critics say, like a drug, an escapist immature fantasy generated by an immature showman for cash? Or is it a work of art, as The Wizard of Oz or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Singin’ in the Rain are works of art, commercially manufactured products that transcend their age and have a meaning to themselves as all great works of art should have?”
pg. 321, Robin Allan, Walt Disney and Europe. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 1999.
The "kitschy quality" will win out, it seems.
