Not at the moment.
Have you forgotten how many posts there have been over the years arguing 'what is Disney' or not and why things like star wars or Pixar were not the same and shouldn't be in the park??? (Before they were aquired)
Just because others have argued that point doesn't mean that I agree with it. I should have put IMO in front of that statement for sure, but I don't subscribe to the "Only thing that should be in a Disney Park is something that Disney created" group. IP
done well is what I'm concerned about. Again, to clarify, IMO.
You mean like they waited to see if American idol was going to last?
...
Maybe we should tell kids wanting to see their favorite new character that they have to wait until they've grown up so Disney can ensure their tastes were up to par
Sure, again you'll note I said I didn't mind the quick hit stuff like the Frozen Summer Fun. Or something small and interchangeable like that Jack Sparrow thing. Or Meet and Greets. Those can be done quickly, cheaply, and go away the same way to get immediate bang for a hot film. What is being discussed are replacing existing attractions, or potentially new attractions. Just like American Idol, what happens in 4 years if they've made a large investment and nobody cares anymore about Frozen? I'm not asking for a decade, or "until they are a grown up", but it's not yet been a year since the film has been released. I don't feel that a little more time is too much to ask for larger projects.
What is your definition of the cooling off people Disney should follow to decide if something is a fad or not?
Ask the people who spent untold thousands of dollars on Beanie Babies.
It is when you try to call an apple an orange because they both came from a tree.
Sure, but I could compare an apple and an orange on basic levels because they both come from trees and both are fruit. I always hated the phrase Apples to Oranges for that fact. I like to throw in something that has nearly no comparable traits. Comparing Apples to Hair Dryers is a much better example of things you are trying to argue are not comparable.
Things don't have to be identical to draw valid comparisons. Frozen is a film that made a lot of money, is a large cultural touchpoint at the time, and one has been given a little time to see if it stayed relevant, Avatar has not. Avatar was the same within the first year. Are there differences? Sure. As you mentioned, different companies created them. But there are enough similarities currently that a valid comparison could be made for them based on those similarities.
Added to all of this, I
hope Frozen is not a fad. I'm sick of it right now, just like I was with some other things that were overplayed, Chumbawumba for example. Now, time has passed and I can still somehow both ironically and unironically enjoy Tubthumper when it comes on the radio.
All Most of us Disney fans would
love a new true classic film, and for that to be something we can enjoy in theme-park form for years to come. What I don't want is for them to spend TONS of money on an attraction that may fade away soon to be left with an unpopular attraction, like American Idol.
