Ok, that article didn’t make a whole heck of a lot of sense to me. First he starts off suggesting how the Eisner era moves haven’t been adapted and then he goes into a long list of how many of them have… Then he says that some could have been better (I think we can probably say that about every attraction ever conceived for Disney or anyone else)… The writer of this article seems to think that there should maybe be a permanent Finding Nemo attraction in play at the parks now… The movie is still in theaters. It wasn’t even handed over to Disney till a few months ago. A Monsters Inc. attraction is a great idea but a place has to be found for it where it will fit and then there is the need to design something that will fit in that space and then the need to construct it…
It seems that this person feels that every Disney movie should have an E-ticket attraction based on it regardless of how below expectations the film preformed. At that rate, Disneyland would have run out of space years ago and there would be construction walls all over WDW… Aside from the fact that this isn’t reasonable, it also isn’t smart. They pace expansion for the parks in a manner that gives guests enough time to go home and then consider coming back. Building a whole bunch of stuff and opening it all at once is a very wasteful use of resources.
I guess that I just don’t get the point of the article. It doesn’t seem very well thought out. Looks more like one of my ridiculously long posts than a ‘featured’ article to me. My apologies to the author but I think Jim Hills stuff is even better than this.
