Once again, your diction is a bit much. Disney is not a hypocrite for using their films as based for attractions in their parks (unless it’s SotS).
They dub the film a flop and then a decade later decide to retheme one of their previously most beloved attractions to it while touting it as the greatest movie they've ever done. That doesn't strike you as hypocritical?
Not sure why you’re bringing Frozen into this. I’ve already proven my point, which is that Disney has been profiting off of PatF, both inside and outside the parks, for years.
I brought up
Frozen because from the way you're describing it, it sounds like you think Disney's treatment of the film before 2020 was on par with their treatment of
Frozen, with countless events and attractions devoted to it. The only "attraction" Tiana got was the riverboat show back in 2009. What have the characters had aside from that? Appearances in parades? Milo and Kida made an appearance in Disneyland Paris' anniversary celebration back in 2017, that doesn't mean Disney doesn't see
Atlantis as a flop. Meet and greets? Again, characters from
Atlantis and
Treasure Planet have done meet and greets in the parks even after those movies bombed. Doesn't mean Disney is going to retheme Space Mountain to either of them anytime soon.
No one said you have to like it.
Then why are you giving me such a hard time over my not liking it?
Oh, and there’s literally only been one or two “pro-rethemers” in this very thread, and they haven’t posted in months.
You can't go on and on about how Disney is justified in retheming Splash Mountain and then claim you're not a pro-rethemer. And those two pro-rethemers - I'm not going to say who - have been posting in this thread multiple times over the past couple days.
If there was just one movie that bombed so bad that it was the cause of the end of hand-drawn feature films (Disney still does hand-drawn TV animation), then that would be really odd. To stop a whole process because of one film. Wouldn't all the hand-drawn film prior to PatF be part of that decision. If all the previous were winners, then stopping the process because of one film wouldn't make financial sense. Just go back to the winners. And if other hand-drawn films were implicated in the fall of hand-drawn animation, then it's not solely PatF's fault.
Here's the thing. Disney had already given up on hand drawn years before
The Princess and the Frog's release. This is because for whatever reason (bad marketing, stiff competition from other movies, what have you), Disney's hand drawn films in the early 2000s - except for
Lilo and Stitch - were flops. This, combined with the success of PIXAR and DreamWorks' CGI-animated films convinced the higher-ups at Disney that people didn't like hand drawn animation anymore. Then when they decided to do it again with
The Princess and the Frog, it was hyped up as their big epic return to hand drawn animation, the film that would usher in a new era of hand drawn animated films... and then it underperformed because it was put up against films like
Avatar and the second
Alvin and the Chipmunks movie. Disney looked at its flopping, decided once again that hand drawn animated films were dangerous, and basically sabotaged
Winnie the Pooh by giving it a lousy release date and barely advertising it, having films like
Frozen and
Wreck-It Ralph be CGI when they were originally planned to be hand drawn, and laid off a good chunk of their 2D animators. The success of the CGI movie
Tangled was likely also a factor.
So, yes,
The Princess and the Frog is not solely responsible for the fall of hand drawn animation, but its flopping is what convinced Disney to give up on hand drawn animation a second time.
It's not like Disney has never done this sort of thing before or since. We haven't gotten a single theatrical Muppet movie since
Muppets Most Wanted flopped.
Cars 2 and 3 lost money... a lot more than PatF did.
First of all, where are you getting the idea that
Cars 2 was a flop? I legitimately have never heard that claim before. From what I've heard, it was pretty successful at the box office even if a lot of critics didn't like it.
Second, Cars Land was already under construction when
Cars 2 was released and opened long before
Cars 3 underperformed. It was built as a response to the success of the first
Cars movie, not the sequels. They couldn't just bulldoze it after
Cars 3 underperformed because A) they were already focused on projects like the Guardians of the Galaxy coaster at EPCOT and PIXAR Pier and B) that would be expensive and post-2013 Disney is incredibly cheap.
Now, I can't explain the decision to add the Lightning McQueen show to Hollywood Studios after
Cars 3 underperformed.
Okay,
Wreck-It Ralph was not a flop. It made $471.2 million and it had a 165 million dollar budget. Maybe the licensing fees for the video game characters were expensive, I don't know, but it did not bomb.
Also, the
Cars and
Wreck-It Ralph sequels were not hyped up as a big, grand return to form for PIXAR or Disney, nor were their underperformances enough for Disney to give up on an entire medium.
Actually, it's kind of weird that we use
Wreck-It Ralph as an example of a film frequently used in the parks. It doesn't have any attractions, just meet and greets and the characters popping up in parades.
Zootopia has a mini-land in Asia.
First of all, has that opened yet? And second of all, I'm pretty sure it didn't take an entire decade for them to announce that.
Yes. That is the point. Don't know what point your making.
Then why the heck are we debating whether or not the film was profitable enough in Disney's eyes to warrant an attraction? Either it's about giving Tiana representation or it isn't.
Do you have any idea how exhausting all of this is? I don't like being treated as though I'm an idiot or a racist over a theme park ride starring talking animals.
