Indeed. I'm sure there's someone out there who loves the black cauldron which even the filmmakers on the project admitted was terrible. I also know there are people out there who hate things like the Lion King.
Soooo Frozen is bad....and anybody who truly likes it is just under the appeal to popularity mindset?
If you read in context what I said, you would understand that in fact I was agreeing that there are people who would align themselves with your viewpoint.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnecdotalFallacy
Disney parks have historically been a blend of original concept rides and rides driven by intellectual property. Since The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, the shift has been towards intellectual property driven attractions. When Harry Potter first opened, we as a fan community looked at the franchises that could potentially compete with it. The list at the time was short: Star Wars and Cars. Frozen has been added to that list.
Perfect response / statement
Give it up, please. It's getting tiresome.
Once upon a time was crap long before frozen lol
It was not a blend. Any existing properties were chosen based on their story as related to themed entertainment, with a result that these films represented many box office under performers.
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. The last big attraction boom at Disney World was in 2005-2006 when Soarin', Everest and Lights Motors Action opened. Since Potter was announced, the only attraction that was added/changed that didn't involve an Intellectual Property was the Test Track overhaul. More importantly, Iger also said the following.
Eisner and Roy E. both described Disneyland as being about the movies. Disney's California Adventure was all about being an anti-theme park, with a lot of mockery undertones and the designer of esplanade bragging that she never goes to theme parks. The problems and people all started in the 1980s and grew until it was all handed over to Pressler (who changed the business model) and then Rasulo and Staggs (the strategic planning boys who mired the company). That is when it became about box office and toys, not themed entertainment. Constantly saying films deserve to be in the park only reinforces that Disney is right to dismiss the creative power of themed entertainment and use unrelated metrics.
But it's not just those who just seem to instinctively defend Disney, those who I would say are more fans of Disney as a name and brand (with a focus on the studio) than themed entertainment. I know @RSoxNo1 is not someone who just wants whatever Disney does, but he still speaks in the language of inherent inferiority. What other object of affection has such dismissal from its fans? People who are into wine don't go around saying wine should follow beer. Football fans don't want the sport to follow baseball. Movie fans don't say all films should be based on books. But fixed amusements fans love to dismiss their fandom as pointless and stupid. No love. No respect.
Most people think that because they loved the movie, that they are respecting it by demanding an attraction be constructed for it. I chalk that up to selfishness, not passion. Then comes the thought process of, "I like dark rides, so it should be a dark ride and I will like it". The thought never enters their mind that there are actually creative men and woman out there who could come up with something so unique and creative (if allowed) that it would blow the minds of the average guest.., you know, the people who think an attraction must have a character their child will recognize otherwise its boring and pointless.
if there is a dinnin area.. does this means the princess will move from Akershus into the Frozen "castle" ?
