britain
Well-Known Member
TL;DR:
So if Disney decides to theme a new Frontierland attraction to a franchise, I won't blame them. I'll live with it. The attraction can still be great. Sleeping Beauty Castle at Disneyland was originally a generic castle, but Walt and his people understood the potential economic value of synergy, and thus Sleeping Beauty was shoehorned in there. If layering in a franchise on top of an already-good idea for an attraction causes the "masses" to take more notice of that attraction (like Harry Potter in Wizarding World rather than a generic Wizardland), then it's win-win for everyone. It's all about execution. Even if I don't care about the particular franchise that Disney chooses, at least I get a new attraction that's fun. The success of that attraction will encourage Disney to spend more money, I'll be happy I get to enjoy a new e-ticket, and the lemmings will be happy that they get to flock to an attraction based on that popular franchise. Because it's those lemmings that drive the theme park money machine, not the World-of-Motion-loving Disney fanatics like you or me. When Disney (or Universal) finds a way to please both the lemmings AND those of us with finer sensibilities, we all win. If franchises are what it takes these days to get $2.8B approvals, then I'll live with that over the alternative.
Excellent points - I agree. I have no problem with using popular IP as long as the end result is still great theming and a great ride. My only concern is when there's a need (like "we've GOT to have another people-eater to take the pressure off of other attractions" or "this area is SO out of date, it needs refreshing!") and that need goes unmet simply because Disney keeps striking out on franchise attempts.