So as I'm still catching up on this thread. I am wondering if pivoting from the future which quickly becomes dated and costs a lot of money to keep relevant, to hot IP of the moment is really an improvement from Disney or shareholders perspective. While it's easier for an animated picture to become beloved and withstand the test of time, the same can not really be said for the live-action movies. Actors age, and you are reminded of how far in the past a film was made when you see them then vs now. Digital technology, music choices, hairstyles, costumes etc. They all can end up making a project feel old vs timeless.
If we had a park of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Davy Crockett, the Mouseketeers, Spin & Marty, Haley Mills characters, Honey, I Shrunk the Audience franchise, and the other most popular live action films, despite it's original success people wouldn't be lining up around the block, because people have moved on. Or take a look at the comments thrown Universal's way about their IP lineup. Shrek was HUGE and now it's dated and worth snickering about. Mummy was successful, but now it feels so 2001. Terminator 2 vs a geriatric Schwarzeneggar. GotG has a shelf life, even if we don't know what it is. Given the fact that Disney feels like they have to wait until something is already a success to put it in a theme park, and given their construction timelines, it seems like this strategy has them chasing their own tail just as much as "the future" did. By the time this project gets built, it's even closer to the point of irrelevancy. Same for just about every IP they could use, people will always be asking themselves, why isn't there X here "hot project of the moment" and laugh at Y "movie that has hot 15 years ago." Yeah, you might sell a lot of toys for the first 3 years, but not nearly as much as it will cost to refresh it with the next hot movie.
per @MansionButler84
