The styles don't match though.
The CGI animated movies are super detailed and realistic, while philharmagic has a clean cartoony look to match the flat colors of the 2D animations
Interesting question here, do you think they need to match? Here's why I ask: you are being transported into those worlds. Although I think they need to be done in a manner where they flow well together, Donald is in that place. The cartoony look works because it simulates the look of that world.
They would have to reanimate the sequences anyway, to work Donald in there and have interaction. What I'm saying is they wouldn't have the challenges of say, converting Lumiere from 2D to CGI, because the characters and their environments are already three dimensional. That saves a great deal of time (and probably money) as the 2D to CGI process is probably very difficult to master.
So, taking reanimation into account, they could probably tweak the style to match a bit more, but wouldn't need to spend as much time on actual development, if that makes sense because the worlds already exist in a CGI format. They could actually make them flow well into the existing show and I doubt most people would take notice to any differences. I mean there's some very big differences in the show already, from the animated counterparts, so it probably wouldn't be a big deal for most fans of whatever film they were to add.
Agreed, but I think a movie is slightly less repeatable than a physical experience like a traditional ride.
This. Go back to the 90's and early 2000's, the 3D attractions were very popular, even older ones. What happened is 3D had a resurgence at the box office and it also made its way into many living rooms.
The physical experience sets things apart and makes them more repeatable to the average guest. That's why even film based attractions like Soarin are still popular. If it was the same film in a regular theater, it'd probably draw numbers lower than Circle of Life.
To note, these attractions do pull in plenty of guests, they just have a very solid capacity. Most people always say great things about Philarmagic and Muppet Vision. If they haven't seen them in a while, their reason is something similar to "I've just seen it too many times", but they still love the show. I've met people who won't ride Pirates for that reason too, "been there, done that", but it's just not as common.
--
My overall point is, these attractions are still popular with most guests and very well loved. Rather than a replacement, I hope they are given a very solid update when the time comes to put money into these spaces. I'd love for the attraction to have randomized sequences, but if they decide it's too costly or don't even entertain the idea, a new film would still get me back into the space at least temporarily. I just hope if they tweak the show, it still has heart.
.... The brief sections I remember from The Little Mermaid ride were 2D animation that was representing a silhouette. You're comparing two separate styles and formats. As for the money discussion. Everything has a number and a budget. While PhilharMagic was under Eisner, who didn't have a problem spending money at times, it was also during a travel downturn. The largest thing that Disney did in the early 2000s was Mission Space at $150 million. POP century never got finished and was abandoned, other projects were put on hold.
