lol - developing new animation & technology/techniques is easy.
‘Were’.. let’s see how long that continues to last after much of the new content and policies/“guest incentives” have been panned and competing companies have made more and gotten better reception in comparison.
Except you did. You argued why original IP isn’t valid/worth investing in and how only familiarity/pre-existing IP is worth investing in. So what you’re also saying is you’d prefer and be perfectly fine with just getting sequels and remakes by the film & tv studios going forward rather than anything new in the future? Truth be told, That’s the argument you’re making for theme parks. Variety (‘both’ original new concepts & familiar film/tv IP is the best solution), not only one direction (that being ‘only’ familiar tv/film IP tie in attractions in this case.)
Look at Toyko ... They buy what they WANT to buy, not what the CFO 'mandates'. What are they adding? Franchises.
Then they’re making the very same mistake and I’m not giving them any passes for it. The one thing Tokyo has going for them though is that maintenance standards are upheld and they have a good work/CM culture there that holds true to the standards Disney here in the states once had.Look at Toyko ... They buy what they WANT to buy, not what the CFO 'mandates'. What are they adding? Franchises.
They are also an example of how WDI wasn't 'banned' from coming up with original concepts (TDS TOT).
As for hype.. you can't please everyone. For every time someone says its just 'whatever is popular' people compare and complain about how long it took before XYZ film got an attraction
Doesn't change who makes the decision on what they buy. WDI is the design team, but OLC is the customer who decides what they want or will buy.
Who’s making the pitches though, what’s the culture cultivated at WDI like?? That’s a bigger part of the problem than you may realize.
I really like this Tokyo example, I never would’ve thought to compare this.Look at Toyko ... They buy what they WANT to buy, not what the CFO 'mandates'. What are they adding? Franchises.
They are also an example of how WDI wasn't 'banned' from coming up with original concepts (TDS TOT).
As for hype.. you can't please everyone. For every time someone says its just 'whatever is popular' people compare and complain about how long it took before XYZ film got an attraction
Then OLC’s got the same problem at Disney here in the US in regards to the Imagineering part of it in having a balance of original & familiar content, and I’m giving them no passes for it. Real bummer too as that hampers WDI’s creative potential & abilities for the parks there aswell.
That’s your belief. From what it sounds like, the new attractions there will be very unique, and I don’t see the problem there.
So if say, a film distributor in Tokyo only ordered for Disney to make sequels and remakes for characters, stories, properties they’ve already made, that doesn’t hamper their creative abilities to ways to innovate in any way, shape or form?
If you’re saying that’s what I said, it’s not. It’s just logical for Disney to make sure bets when spending 100s of millions on theme park expansions. For example, they could’ve came up with a new story for the new Splash Mountain, but they know people will flock to it because “Tiana”, amongst other reasons is why they chose that.
A film? Yeah. A theme park attraction? No. Thee possibilities for a theme park attraction are endless, I think we will see in the future (when Fantasy Springs opens) that it’ll probably be one of the best examples of IPs in the parks. Disney has built truly amazing lands based on IP, Cars Land & Pandora come to mind.
That makes absolutely no sense. Film also utilizes different techniques and technology to accomplish things. It’s simply a different entertainment medium, nothing more, nothing less
