THREAD: Whether it’s Galaxy’s Edge being set in the sequels or a Mary Poppins spinner keying off the sequel, you have to wonder: why position *any* permanent Parks project as a promotional tie-in to a fleeting sub-brand vs. the evergreen umbrella IP it’s under?
I know, #synergy… but seriously – why, in 2019, would you announce you intend to develop a ride that *explicitly* connects to a 2018 movie instead of the still-beloved, original, 1964 classic? Like, what do you have to gain from that?
Even if Mary Poppins Returns had been some blockbuster mega hit – even if it had matched the original’s footprint in pop culture and cinema history – wouldn’t it *still* make more sense to connect a ride to the timeless original film rather than the fleeting sequel?
This obviously relates to the bigger battle in Disney Parks right now (as generators of timeless content of their own vs. Parks-as-brand-loyalty-centers-and-promotional-tools ) but it feels like one with a clear right answer… https://parklore.com/vault/Disney-plus-parks
Imagine saying “We’re building an Aladdin dark ride, but based on the live action remake in production.” That would be dumb and short sighted. But totally inexplicable would be “… the live action remake THAT CAME OUT A YEAR AGO.” That’s essentially the Poppins situation.
So it’s clearly not promo because it’s too late to be? So is it hubris? Is it, “Oh, we aren’t even using this for promo. We just know Mary Poppins Returns will be so timeless and important and evergreen, *it* is worth being immortalized in the Parks over the OG.”
See also, Galaxy’s Edge. Obviously anchoring it in the sequel trilogy was a risk, which is admirable in a way. And it *does* work (and would’ve worked better if IX wasn’t awful). But setting it in the original trilogy would’ve clearly been future-proof and evergreen.
Obviously there’s no right answer. SWGE, Poppins spinner, GOTG Tower, Jurassic World coaster… All projects tied to ended/ending “eras” with varying degrees of longevity…
Parks are permanent. Promotion isn’t. Strengthen the franchise umbrella, not the sub-brand, right?