You’re totally right. They knew they were touching a park icon, so they know they have to do it right. We’ve had some really rushed projects in the past, but I feel like with something so sentimental they want to get to right. We don’t have much info, but I feel like the storyline would be rich in detail and sets should be gorgeous to impress rather than disappoint the splash fans.
I really only go by what you share on these boards in terms of rumors and such. Only reason I keyed you in, apologies.
They could—if they coupled it with an announcement that they would showcase Tiana elsewhere. Not saying they will, but there are plenty of venues at DHS that could house a PatF show.
Bob Iger also explicitly said Disney would not invest in a Ratatouille ride. You’re narrative is garbage that completely misses how Disney operates. There is no way in hell that the lawyers at Disney would allow them to use an unsolicited concept developed outside the company.
Yes, Princess and the Frog's theatrical run was absolutely considered a flop. But in the eleven years since it’s release, it’s been a streaming juggernaut on Netflix and Disney+. A lot of people who missed it in theaters have fallen in love with it on streaming. The characters have all grown in popularity, and Tiana has earned her spot as a beloved princess.
You’re kidding, right? If you actually believe that the petitions are what got it done, then you know absolutely nothing about the workings of pretty much every major conglomerate. Due to the size of these companies, projects such as this need to be approved by multiple heads of multiple different parts of the company. Budgets need to be drawn up, many passes of Concept Art need to be made, a story has to be devised, and a team needs to be put together to create the project. And most important of all, the project needs to be pitched and approved by the CEO. That’s the way it’s been at Imagineering since the mid ’80s. Disney has NEVER listened to any section of the outside public, for any reason whatsoever, all their decisions are about making money for their shareholders, and that alone. If they did, Mr. Toad would still be open at WDW, the Yeti would be fixed, and Horizons would still be open.
And to add to this, if it really was because of the petitions, the person who first started the petitions could legally sue Disney for stealing their idea. It’s the same principle of why the cast and crew of any tv show or movie cannot read fanfiction of said tv show or movie.
That’s not the process.
i can admit when i’m wrong.
Indeed. In fact, Splash Mountain itself was conceptualized and had a plan and model built without Michael Eisner (or Frank Wells) knowing about it beforehand. The story about how it came about is quite well known too. Eisner was given a tour of imagineering in the mid 1980s and was being pitched ideas from imagineers. Splash Mountain wasn't even among these ideas. A model of the ride was shoved into a back corner and Eisner's son spotted it and showed interest. This is what caused Eisner to take notice of it and decide to consider it.
Uhh... Are you okay fam?
I feel very, very disrespected that he not only did not read my original posting, but delivered a snarky comment. If ya read my post then deliever disagreeing snark? That’s fine. Totally ignore my post and snark? I don’t like that.
I'm optimistic they can pull a retheme off well in California
And this is all because internally they thought having Princess in the name was the reason.
Your thread was locked which means the poll is closed.I am trying to get a feel for how everyone feels about this makeover without having to read 160+ pages.
Can you please do the little poll that I created here:
Splash Mountain Makeover...... Yeah or Nay
I am just curious what your thoughts are about the Splash Mountain Makeover?forums.wdwmagic.com
Thank yoU!
