The funny thing is they built Everest.., in 2006. That's not that long ago. They could easily go back and rethink theme park strategy as an experience found no where else in the world. Not brand marketing or advertising with intellectual property.
I heartily wish they would. The great irony is that, Disney being Disney, they could go back to being original and assume almost none of the perceived risk that a new or independent operator might when weighing IP vs non-IP in a park. Disney parks are so deeply-entrenched in popular culture that people are going to come regardless of the built-in mass appeal that execs love to link to popular IP.
Possibly. I'm expecting interior updating early this year but was unsure if it was third shift.
Best case is a substantially updated act 4.
I'm guessing that any substantial updating would require an all new voice cast. Although with some clever editing they could remove the outdated references.
"Substantial" in Disney's case could mean anything like they update Grandma's VR to Google Cardboard and call it a day.
No worries. We spell things differently up here.I must have it saved in the spell check wrong then.
Totally. The new Beauty and the Beast remake looks exactly the same as the original, but why do it if it's already been done?
No details I'm afraid. Just that this was the hope / aim if all comes to fruition.
I heard you had a very bad spell of weatheur up there lately, eh!
