News Splash Mountain retheme to Princess and the Frog - attraction discussion only

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
I think what really irks me about this whole proposal is that it's the culmination of so many things I dislike about modern corporate Disney;

- It's another attempt to dismiss or ignore Walt-era content
- It's another overlay instead of a new build to help much needed park capacity
- It's another excuse to make something Princess related, as if MK should just be the "princess park"
- It's another way to homogenize the various Magic Kingdoms by taking an idea that clearly makes more sense in DLR and applying it to the other parks with Splash Mountain
- It's another example of superficial, marketing based diversity that does not empower employees or put them in key decision making roles that could directly benefit them or create new content with minority characters
- It one again shows Disney's arrogance and contempt for their customers that they believe an expedited project that almost no one was asking for is automatically believed to be a guaranteed success no matter what they end up doing

I would feel the same way if the approach was applied to any of WDW's top tier attractions.
 

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
That’s my worry. PatF could make a gorgeous ride. But you’d need a full gut which, for Disney, would cost at least $200 million. And even still, will the drops make any sense? You have a ride system and layout that was designed to work with the existing story. It’s a huge challenge to invent a new story that works with the existing ride system and pacing.

For that kind of money you could (should) be able to build a better ride that improves the whole park instead of taking something away.
 

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
I think what really irks me about this whole proposal is that it's the culmination of so many things I dislike about modern corporate Disney;

- It's another attempt to dismiss or ignore Walt-era content
- It's another overlay instead of a new build to help much needed park capacity
- It's another excuse to make something Princess related, as if MK should just be the "princess park"
- It's another way to homogenize the various Magic Kingdoms by taking an idea that clearly makes more sense in DLR and applying it to the other parks with Splash Mountain
- It's another example of superficial, marketing based diversity that does not empower employees or put them in key decision making roles that could directly benefit them or create new content with minority characters
- It one again shows Disney's arrogance and contempt for their customers that they believe an expedited project that almost no one was asking for is automatically believed to be a guaranteed success no matter what they end up doing

I would feel the same way if the approach was applied to any of WDW's top tier attractions.
I agree. The disingenuousness of the project is what bugs me the most. You could tell over the years that Iger was progressively getting more annoyed at the question of SotS being released.

Call me a cynic, but I’m not going to just fall for the ulterior motives just because it seems like they’re doing the right thing.
 

Disney Maddux

Well-Known Member
So if what people in the know are saying is true, then that means the earliest we're looking at the closure and retheming is 2022 as of now, correct?
 

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
My question remains. Why do we keep discussing the obvious like there’s some other motivator? This is a decision based on optics, legacy, and monetary gain. This has always been an issue they were in 100% control of. Who was the one who continuously referred to the IP as “inappropriate”? Was it not the CEO? I don’t believe anyone put those words in his mouth.

If this was a decision that would lose money, they never would have made it. Potential merchandise, food, a scale down of one of the most expensive rides to maintain.

So let’s stop pretending like we don’t really understand what’s going on here. We’re all smart enough. We’ve seen this story time again.

Stop being misted.

“Nothing personal, just business”
 

EagleScout610

Well-Known Member
FB_IMG_1606759561915.jpg


FB_IMG_1606759564102.jpg

This is apparently from Jim Hill
 

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
The OLC comment doesn’t make much sense to me. “Return to the table because of commonalities with WDW”? No, that’s why TDO wanted it. OLC allegedly disagreed because of the theme of the project. PatF doesn’t sell in Japan. You can’t just force that because it might sell over here. Commonalities with Florida doesn’t help Tokyo at all. So either those rumours were false and OLC was never off the table, or Jim read our discussion and is narrative crafting.
 

Surferboy567

Well-Known Member
The OLC comment doesn’t make much sense to me. “Return to the table because of commonalities with WDW”? No, that’s why TDO wanted it. OLC allegedly disagreed because of the theme of the project. PatF doesn’t sell in Japan.
Doesn’t mean an agreement couldn’t have been reached. Disney I imagine can be persuasive. I think October 2022 sounds a little late though. Given the “fast tracking” comments.
 

Donaldfan1934

Well-Known Member
If this was a decision that would lose money, they never would have made it. Potential merchandise, food, a scale down of one of the most expensive rides to maintain.
I’m not so sure about that part. A lot of the new attraction’s potential revenue is dependent how it’s ultimately received. If the reception is lukewarm, it may not be a guaranteed cash cow.
 

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
Doesn’t mean an agreement couldn’t have been reached. Disney I imagine can be persuasive. I think October 2022 sounds a little late though. Given the “fast tracking” comments.
The agreement conditions hinged on a different theme. So if we’re doing the same theme that still isn’t popular in Japan, what would sway them? A higher budget? Either all insiders were BSing (Hill included), or Hill is making stuff up here.

I don’t think October 2022 is late at all. D’Amaro never gave a timeline with his comment, so expedited could mean 2022 instead of an originally planned 2024, or whatever date this was originally planned for. It’s logical given the delays of the attractions that were supposed open in 2021. It would be asinine to close it before Tron opens.
I’m not so sure about that part. A lot of the new attraction’s potential revenue is dependent how it’s ultimately received. If the reception is lukewarm, it may not be a guaranteed cash cow.
It will be received well regardless. They did what they did to guarantee that. Even if it’s a worse attraction, it should make them a pretty penny.
 

ParkerLoLs

Well-Known Member
My question remains. Why do we keep discussing the obvious like there’s some other motivator? This is a decision based on optics, legacy, and monetary gain. This has always been an issue they were in 100% control of. Who was the one who continuously referred to the IP as “inappropriate”? Was it not the CEO? I don’t believe anyone put those words in his mouth.

If this was a decision that would lose money, they never would have made it. Potential merchandise, food, a scale down of one of the most expensive rides to maintain.

So let’s stop pretending like we don’t really understand what’s going on here. We’re all smart enough. We’ve seen this story time again.

Stop being misted.

“Nothing personal, just business”
I agree but I still say that if they've made an announcement based on optics, legacy, and monetary gain -- why keep the thing running and why keep selling merchandise? They're a big bunch of hypocrites.
 

ParkerLoLs

Well-Known Member
Because money. Expect a limited edition Brer Rabbit shirt 10 years from now if the new ride flops.
The company should be pointed and shamed repeatedly for making an announcement and then continuing to reap the financial rewards on the back of "racism" or whatever. Like, really.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom