20 years ago >blockbusters were films on new ideas >sequels

It was always about making money, but something happened, probably too much greed so that now instead of taking chances on people with great ideas who care about what they're making like they did back in the day now it's all about churning out garbage and taking as little risk as possible.

>>81219250
It's just safer for investors to bet on established franchises then to invest in some new concept that might fail horribly

>>81219250
>>Tower of Terror binned for Marvelshit

The license ran out, Disney doesn't own Twilight Zone. Back when California Adventure started up, the entire park had a different focus. Outside of an opening surge, the turnout for California Adventure declined heavily and they revamped the park to focus more on Disney shit. It makes sense when the license ran up instead of paying a large license again to replace it with something they do own.

>>81219794
are you saying the ones at Florida and France are also up for a rebrand?

>>81219745
>but something happened
finance crisis in 2008 that the world isn't completely over yet, economy goes down, people take less risks, simple concept

>20 years ago
>blockbusters were films on new ideas

Ah yes, 1997, the year of Jurassic Park the Lost World, Batman & Robin, Spawn (capeshit)...

if only we could change things by somehow voting with our pockets

>>81219250
>but something happened
Yeah it's called Titanic. If Jaws created the summer blockbuster, Titanic created the 1 billion dollar blockbuster as a standard. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean, Pixar with the exception of Toy Story, superheroes etc. are all post-Titanic. It's a development that's been going on for twenty years now.

>>81219745
>>81219250
The major change was the amount of movies studios could make a year. 20 years ago, it was an actual decision that needed to be made to make a sequel to something or make something new. The additional revenue would be gained from home video releases, toys, video game licensing, cartoons and even cheaper and easier to make DTV or Straight-to-VHS sequels etc.

There was a focus on making something big and iconic to branch out and create a market. Sequels only came out if theatrically if there was a magnitude of success that they needed to capitalize on, or were spaced out to give a franchise a shot in the arm. But that sequel had to come at a cost of a new film. This is also why R rated movies had toys and animated cartoons for kids.

Now it's so much easier to make movies, studios just shit everything out. They no longer have to fight between making a sequel or something new, they could make it all. And not just for the theater, but they can shit stuff out on RedBox and Netflix as well. The problem is when so many fucking movies are coming out, it makes it harder to grab the attention of people with something unique and new. Maybe it'll work, but it's a safer bet that more people will see something they're familiar with.

The ability for the studios to no longer be capped to 6 movies a year has created an over saturated market requiring (they feel) recognizable franchises and iconography to stand out.

Harry Potter's theme area isn't in the same park as the Jaws one.

File: Pepe_Fraser_Just.png (183KB, 370x359px)

183KB, 370x359px

>>81219887
>1997 was 20 years ago

>>81219887
He means old person "20 years ago" which is more like 40 years ago

>>81219794
I haven't been there since I was a child maybe 16 years ago. What did they turn the tower of terror into? Is it still a horror ride but just marvel-ized? What marvel movie did they base it on?

>>81219832
Yes, although Frances is going to last a bit longer. It goes from when the ride opens.

>>81219939
It's based on the prison from Guardians of the Galaxy movie

>>81219957
Wow that seems an obscure thing to base a ride on.

>>81219957
why not just keep the ride, change the name, and just say ghosts inhabit a hotel?

>>81220049
Because people will go to Disneyland just for that new Marvel ride.

If you didn't notice Guardians of the Galaxy was pretty big.

I'm really surprised that's getting a ride before Iron Man though.

>>81220177
>I'm really surprised that's getting a ride before Iron Man though.

Well there's actual ships in GoTG plus you can get creative with the scenery like flying through stuff like the giant Celestial head.

That said something like Top Gun with Iron Man fighting drones would be neat then throw in Fin Fang Foom.

>>81219250
20 years ago blockbusters were almost 20 years old, shithead.

>>81220177
Im not bothered about a new ride, more that Disney are happy to bin one of the rides which makes the parks iconic

>>81220248
>one of the rides which makes the parks iconic
Anon the disney theme parks aren't permanent, I mean when I went there as a kid this ride didn't exist yet.