Why would you think movie connections are bad? Yes, it's tomorrowland, the world of tomorrow, but besides that, how is it bad? So they seem to abandon the notion of Tomorrow. But think about this, if it weren't called Tomorrowland, would it be worse or better? That is a very contradictory statement because if we go over to Fantasyland, nearly all of the rides and attractions there are based off of movies. So, let's move the label of Fantasyland off and Tomorrowland off - how are these two lands different?
I am not trying to discuss theme but change of quality. So, is BLAB a BAD ride? Is Star Tours a BAD experience? Is Nemo a bad update (can't say, haven't ridden) - but your notion of saying they are not staying the world of tomorrow brings down the quality of the attractions that are there.
OK - synergy. So you're telling me that every change that was made was not the result of synergy? Space Mountain - it was envisioned as an adventure through space, but as I recall, when Walt envisioned it, SPACE-themed ideas were a huge syngery property. It was popular, so Disney wanted to capitalized. Would you say that is a fair statement?
All of Frontierland, to me, seemed like synergy. The popularity of the old west - but I guess that is not fair, as like I said, times were very different than that are now. The popularity of Frontierland now is all Big Thunder Mountain, which again I can refer to synergy of roller coasters.
Nightmare Before Christmas - a GREAT property - put GREAT new "life" into that attraction - and that is a bad thing? Oh, that is like saying get ride of the overlay of small world because Christmas is a hugely popular enterprise opportunity. Please explain more. But I really do like this discussion. Good insights.
Also, I like to note how funny it is for people to rate this