Quote:
Originally Posted by Legacy
Disney has to use what is popular. Pixar is more popular than Disney films right now. Hopefully that will change with (The Frog Princess). But until then... Pixar is the animated money maker.
This is getting into a different argument, but a clownfish is about the only way education can be entertaining to children nowadays.
|
I think that's a little too fatalistic an outlook to have. Children can be easily entertained by simply coming up with a clever way to both educate and entertain. The Nemo trademarks are not required, but they are
easier to use than going through the creative process for an entertaining story just for one attraction. I mean, who would go through all that trouble? Oh yeah, Disney would, or at least did some years ago.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Legacy
I disagree that the fish is against the spirit of Epcot. Epcot is meant to inspire, and The Seas with Nemo and Friends do that much better than "The Deluge" film, an aquarium, and a shaking floor. It's a different generation of audience now. The shift simply reflects that.
|
The shift does reflect that The Living Seas needed a boost. I don't think anyone would have argued that. However, was Nemo required? Was Nemo the ONLY way to do that? No. Nemo was simply the easiest way to do that. And then when they hear they could use the
same new Nemo animation made for the new attraction for another new attraction at Disneyland across the USA, well you've got the perfect low-cost high-return cheap way to boost a fledgling attraction.
Nemo works...for now. But will Nemo be so attractive even 5 years from now? Hardly. That's always the problem with using dated movie trademarks. They have no lasting power. Once that time is over, The Seas w/ Nemo will be in the same place The Living Seas was. Well, except for the 'Living' part...
-- PMM
