I'm not, because "profitable" simply doesn't cut it for Disney any more. It has to be market researched and shown to be either very profitable or very cheap (ideally both, of course). The theme parks buoy corporate profits, but they don't get love proportionally to the profits they rake in. There's no way RC wouldn't be profitable if they simply spiffed it up, charged a smallish fee for non-resort guests to get in, and sold the usual slightly overpriced food, drinks, sunblock, knickknacks, etc. But would it be profitable enough? Does it fit into any ad campaign ("Come visit our quaint and fun, but not terribly impressive park!")?DIAC1987 wrote:I am positive that if there was a way to make River Country profitable again, Disney would jump at the opportunity.
It wasn't good enough that Epcot was incredibly profitable and the third most popular theme park in the world for decades (behind only the MK and Disneyland proper), they had to muck with it to try to maximize profits. Sponsored attractions are closed if the sponsors leave, rather than simply maintaining them (which could be done and easily maintain huge profits) or, even better, upgrading them and making them so cool that a sponsor would jump at the chance to associate themselves with the project.
Again, though, I don't have an answer for this either. Corporations are supposed to maximize profits and complaining that they aren't doing enough to create warm fuzzies or make the world a better place is a good way to get labeled as a crank, a rabid fanboy, or any of the other hateful terms the Disney suits have for people like us.
Change has got to come from above, which is why I believe the benevolent lunatic is necessary. And why I'm hopeful, but not optimistic.
Additionally, even if we could get every Internet loon to boycott Disney, they'd never notice it. How long did the Southern Baptists "boycott" before they quietly gave up and stopped depriving their children of Cinderella Castle?