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
Let me rephrase what I am trying to say.
Do I acknowledge that using pre-existing IP
can be limiting to a creative team? Yes.
With that being said, it doesn't have to. Examples of this on the film side, have their root in Disney animated classics, The Little Mermaid, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty, all of which have their roots in stories that have almost zero semblance to their animated counterparts.
Examples of this on the theme park side, Pandora: The World of Avatar, they basically stripped the IP down to its parts, broke it up, and revisited it through the lens of DAK. They were able to come up with a unique story that grounded Avatar (the IP) into the DNA of the park. We're visiting a moon that has been devastated by the RDA, which is now being rehabilitated by the PCI and ACI. I could go and on about the lore of Pandora, but I feel I have made my point.
In my own post, I acknowledged that there have been some bad examples that can definitely fuel the IP is limiting, like Frozen Ever After, and Voyage of the Little Mermaid: Ariel's Undersea Adventure.
The point that I am trying to get across here is that
IP doesn't have to be limiting, you can develop great "original" attractions, like Rise of the Resistance, Flight of Passage, and Radiator Springs Racers to name a few, based on "IPs".
You must understand that theme park design is an art form... not allowing WDI to create their own IPs for their own attractions is EXACTLY the same.... exactly the same as not letting WDAS create their own IP for their own animated films. Forcing WDI to only create attractions based on established IP is the EXACT SAME as forcing WDAS to only make sequels and spin offs. It's categorically bad for the artistic medium of theme park design, just as it would be for filmmaking. Because both are art forms.... and telling creatives they have to copy someone else's homework is bad for creativity.
Disney has certainly created sequels, no denying that, but WDAS and Pixar have also created several original films while producing sequels. The same can't be said for the parks in that case though. Far fewer original attractions (Non-IP) have been created in the same time of the sequels and new films from WDAS/Pixar.
I am going to assume we are stepping away from the IP=Bad conversation, as I said earlier in this post "Do I acknowledge that using pre-existing IP
can be limiting to a creative team? Yes."
I think that assuming using existing IP to create a theme park attraction is "bad for creativity" is just as limiting, to the conversation at hand.
Regardless of all of this conjecture, we know that Disney is going to continue to predominately create IP-based attractions.
