It's always funny to see people insisting "the most qualified" person be given a creative job - as if that's really quantifiable in any objective way.
This comes up frequently re: Hollywood, Broadway . . . basically any creative endeavor, clearly including theme parks. The idea completely misunderstands how these spaces actually work. These are creative enterprises run by individuals who are making creative decisions, with more or less vision in their head but usually and somewhat necessarily without the whole picture in focus. Who's in charge of the project? It is ultimately their decision who is "the most qualified" for the given role, based on potentially a million different points of interest, most of which are not known to the public and often have to be guessed at by the leaders themselves.
Is the "most qualified" actor for a part the one who gives the best audition? The one who sings the best? The one with the large body of work? The one with the awards? The one whose salary requirements meet the budget? The one whose schedule matches that of filming? The one who has the best odds of selling tickets and justifying the risk of funding the project? The fresh face that audiences will watch without preconcieved notions? The one who's worked with the director and is known to be delightful while you're in the trenches of shooting? The one who "just feels right"? The one who's fourth in line after the first 3 actors say no? The one without any social media scandal? The one with? The one who's had plenty of opportunity to hone their craft? The one who's been wrongfully denied it? Ultimately it's for a small brain trust to decide who best seems to suit their project across the different criteria from the not-actually-unlimited pool of people available, interested, and known to the group of creatives, who are fallible. As are the people being hired. This goes for about any creative role.
I can absolutely agree that it often results in a better product to hire someone who has legitimate talent and not simply name recognition. But even talent is subjective, and every choice comes with a level of risk. Your project could be the one where the old stalwarts stumble. It could be the one where the new talent finds their footing. It could be one where an act of god prevents it all coming together despite everyone delivering on their best intentions. Or, rarely but possibly, it could be one where everyone phones it in for the paycheck. Any of those things could be possible, even when hiring the person who seems to those in charge to be "the most qualified".
The concept seems to imply some divine truth that for any given assignment there is secretly one person who holds the key to ultimate success of a project's component, and anyone outside of them can only fall short of the peak resolution. But there's no higher power who holds the truth that, actually, this other person was more qualified, but got skipped over for reasons that could only be considered unsavory. It's just people, choosing other people based on what they think seems like a good fit for their vision, knowing what they know, which can never be everything, and hoping it all tickles the audience just the way they want to be.
