Come back in six years. That's all I'll say.
I don't post here that often, but I check in regularly and believe you might be the most knowledgeable poster on this forum.
I was fortunate to see Epcot in its hey-day in the 1980s and early-1990s with fond nostalgic memories of Horizons, the original Journey into Imagination, the Wonders of Life Pavilion, etc. It wasn't like any other place in the world and completely unique, so I completely understand the consternation of the recent and planned changes to the park.
That being said, it does flummox me a bit when I see a lot of instant negative reactions about IP being integrated into attractions at Epcot (and even the other parks). To me, telling Disney to not use their IP is like telling DeBeers to not use diamonds or Coca-Cola to not sell soda. Disney's value as a company IS their intellectual property holdings. Once again, I understand that the Disney leaders and Imagineers originally designed Epcot without the use of then-existing Disney IP, but that neglects today's reality of (a) the corporate sponsor money that enabled those attractions to be created without IP doesn't exist anymore and (b) the amount of valuable IP that Disney has created and/or acquired since 1982 alone would make it the most valuable IP-holder in the entertainment industry by a massive margin, so it's hard to see why any company in Disney's position would willingly tie one hand behind its back to create attractions *without* leveraging its IP. In essence, that IP is what's funding new attractions today as opposed to corporate sponsor dollars. Disney was never in the position where it was creating attractions at Epcot without either a corporate funding base or leveraging its IP.
And to be honest, if my job was actually on the line at Disney where I had to deliver a successful attraction at WDW, is there any way that I could reasonably pitch it without leveraging any of Disney's IP? If anything, there's a ton of IP that *isn't* being utilized much at all that could fit well into Epcot: Big Hero 6, Inside Out, Wall-E, Up, Zootopia, etc. Many people here might not like it, but it's quite reasonable that the powers that be at Disney that hold the greatest collection of IP in the world would question why an attraction in today's marketplace (which is different than 1982) would actively *not* use any of that IP. This is almost like a theme park version of hipster music fans that recoil whenever a band finds mainstream success - the more successful the IP might be, there's a subset a theme park fans that seem to *reject* that IP being used in an attraction even more.
Regardless, I believe that it's a fair critique if an IP doesn't fit the theme or atmosphere of an area (such as Frozen in the World Showcase). However, I believe the reality is that the choice is either (a) no investment or (b) investment as long as IP is involved. Choice (c) of investment without IP involved is simply not on the table anymore and it won't ever be again. Disney has so much IP that can fit into so many different scenarios that I understand where the powers that be are coming from (even if I don't personally agree with them all of the time).
