The Hall of Presidents is an original Disney creation, and it's outstanding. Pity you're unable to appreciate it. And even more pitiful that you need hand puppets to instruct you on Presidential history. Tsk.
And maybe YOU ought to examine your feelings about why you're so attached to hoary old hand puppets. Muppet cultists are damn weird. Say a word against their puppet gods and you're a soulless infidel. And the thing is, the puppets have made like 8 movies or something, each one a lesser effort, but that's just not enough for you. You gotta have more! I feel sorry for you dudes. And frankly a bit sorry for the objects of your obsession. Jim Henson is dead. Frank Oz is retired. The Muppet fad is long over. And yet you pester Disney to keep trying to resurrect those old corpses. Today's kids don't care about them. Maybe it's time you kinda, you know, let it go?
As for TRON and Dinosaur (and I can't believe I keep having to point this out) they are original Disney creations and by that pedigree alone they belong in the parks, merch sales or no merch sales. Get it now?
A great number of people have contributed to my knowledge of presidential history, and hand puppets were never involved. You continue to bark up the wrong tree there.
But let’s talk about your very odd dedication to “original Disney creations.” What sense can we extract from your use of that statement? Well, first, you seem to use Disney to refer to the corporation, not the man, since ol’ Walt had no hand in TRON or Dinosaur. Now, on its face that’s odd - lots of folks have “brand loyalty” to Disney products, but they usually don’t insist on some kind of purist pedigree that dismisses corporate acquisitions.
Now, more then most corporations, Disney’s brand is generally thought to denote certain traits - a family friendliness. So do you consider the stripper-centered film Blaze Disney and thus more fitting for a Disney park then the Muppets? How about Pretty Woman, Cabin Boy, and Con Air? Those are all Touchstone, which Disney created, not acquired. And if those are out, so is Roger Rabbit.
Actually, does only the production company matter? Because as I’m sure you know, the early Disney classics were released through UA and RKO. Does that render them less pure then later films that were both produced and released by Disney? Is Altman’s Popeye, a co-production, “Disney” according to your guidelines?
And wait - as you say, Disney has produced several Muppet films - aren’t those Disney, even if the earlier ones aren’t? And if your rule is that something isn’t “Disney” if it was a preexisting property that Disney adapted, I have real bad news about Snow White, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Pooh, and a whole lot of other characters.
I mean, we need to establish some ground rules to be sure we know what is and isn’t original Disney content. Otherwise it might look like the concept is hopelessly arbitrary and meaningless.
P.S. You must really hate the Tower of Terror.
