lukemorenus
O Captain! My Captain!
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2008
"Disney itself" is hard to define. Mary Poppins wasn't Disney... until it was
That's a good point! I feel the "right" balance would be different for everyone. Personally, I feel like there is a good balance in the parks at the moment with new vs. old, trendy IP's vs. classics. Just my opinion of course.They are Disney now.
What would be preferable for them to concentrate on? classic Disney, everything before 1990? does Pixar count? Why just Tinkerbell and princesses? Are the "newer" princesses ok?
I'm waiting for Kuzcotopia too
I totally agree with you. I will never understand why Disney went with Avatar instead of Beastly Kingdom for AK. Beastly Kingdom sounded fantastic and amazing. Also, Disney had to pay money to liscense Avatar. Beastly Kingdom could have used generic creatures they didn't have to liscense (like dragons, unicorns, and other mythical creatures,) or they could have used versions of those characters from thier own movies.I have never understood the Pandora stuff at AK. The hype with Avatar was lost on me, and my husband just didn't have an interest in it. So, if anything feels out of place to me, it's that area. (I've always felt like it belongs more at Universal.) But that being said, I think it's still interesting to walk through, and "Flight of Passage" is my 8 year old's favorite ride, so what do I know?