With a few rare exceptions (I'm actually struggling to think of one, but I'm deep in vacation mode this week so my brain is fuzzy and I'm sure someone smarter than me can come up with an example), not since Walt have creative attraction ideas been mandated from the top. Sometimes senior park executives like a Richard Nunis would request a specific type of ride; a coaster, a water ride, a dark ride, etc. as part of a park's development process. But that was about as involved as they get in the creative process.
The halls of WDI's Glendale campus are full of ideas; some long abandoned and forgotten, some strung along on life support by sheer will, and some just beginning to percolate into something great. Or maybe something dumb. You never know 'til you try.
That's the entire business model of WDI. They are all constantly looking for an idea to hit big and get picked up by at least one park. That's what keeps them all working week to week and making Tesla payments, waiting for a creative concept to get greenlit and funded by a park property that then guarantees them work for a couple years.
Agreed. It's your #2 that is the most interesting to me. Apparently the log ride isn't as problematic and racist as they claim, or else they would have the backbone to do away with the ride capacity for a few years until it can be remade into Tiana's Bayou Bash N' Splash, Presented by Ziploc.
Granted, the Tiana remake was very early in its design process when it was grabbed off the shelf so Burbank could pacify the Twitter Mobs. But especially at Disneyland where there's over a dozen other E Tickets operating in that park, with an extra half dozen E Tickets operating right next door, the decision to keep this "problematic" ride operating seems... well, problematic.
