It also to me already feels like it was always there. It *looks* of a piece with the rest of AK.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News 'Encanto' and 'Indiana Jones'-themed experiences at Animal Kingdom
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
It also to me already feels like it was always there. It *looks* of a piece with the rest of AK.
SilentWindODoom
Well-Known Member
In all seriousness, the reasons would be Toy Story already having a presence elsewhere, no very notable animals beyond dogs, and the suburban setting.
Snow White takes place in the wilderness, in their world rather than ours. It practically invented the animal friends trope. Of course the cabin already exists in Fantasyland, and if we were to include such animals, the better link would be Bambi, but I don't know if that's nearly as hot a property and I don't know how much anyone wants people to think of the mature aspects.
osian
Well-Known Member
"Toy Story already having a presence elsewhere"
That hasn't stopped Beauty and the Beast having appearances across three parks so far. And Beast is a sort-of animal so is a perfect fit for Animal Kingdom, to complete the full set.
But everyone is still scratching around trying to justify the inclusion of this-or-that IP, why it would or would not fit into a particular park, but it's all rubbish isn't it. As I've mentioned, it's all retro-fitting excuses. That's the problem with the IP mandate, trying to retro-fit an IP somewhere where it was not envisaged for. Fitting a square peg into a round hole. If the peg doesn't fit, hack the hole around. There, that's better, fits now. Don't know whether it's easier than actually inventing a an attraction that's custom built for a particular place with a story that hasn't been told before, you know, put back the imagination into Imagineering.
That hasn't stopped Beauty and the Beast having appearances across three parks so far. And Beast is a sort-of animal so is a perfect fit for Animal Kingdom, to complete the full set.
But everyone is still scratching around trying to justify the inclusion of this-or-that IP, why it would or would not fit into a particular park, but it's all rubbish isn't it. As I've mentioned, it's all retro-fitting excuses. That's the problem with the IP mandate, trying to retro-fit an IP somewhere where it was not envisaged for. Fitting a square peg into a round hole. If the peg doesn't fit, hack the hole around. There, that's better, fits now. Don't know whether it's easier than actually inventing a an attraction that's custom built for a particular place with a story that hasn't been told before, you know, put back the imagination into Imagineering.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
There is a difference between justifying it and imagining how it might fit with the knowledge that it's under consideration. We're not the ones making the decisions, so we're not trying to rationalize them; we're just having a discussion about how they could best integrate the IP they've proposed without dwelling endlessly on the state of Imagineering.
Cmdr_Crimson
Well-Known Member
Lion King was in 3 parks at one point before they went to just AK...
Legend of The Lion King - MK
Circle of Life an Environmental Fable - Epcot
Timon & Pumbaa's Saftey Smart show - Innoventions Epcot
Rafiki's Planet Watch At Conservation Station - AK
Festival of The Lion King - AK
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
Easily movable. And you can fit a Dinosaur-sized building without removing them to begin with.
Cmdr_Crimson
Well-Known Member
Your not asking my question
....What are they used for in the backstage? entertainment breakrooms? Management? Cryogenic Chamber? What?
spectromagic04
Well-Known Member
Mostly entertainment and regular break room. Maybe other stuff like managementYour not asking my question
At this point, Disney has learned they can jam a square peg into a round hole and the Disney brand defenders will not only justify it in any way imaginable but also defend it and attack any person who dare questions it.
Spoken like someone who doesn't see all those same "defenders" be critical of all the other things that Disney has done but only remembers them not disliking the same things they dislike.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Generally, I’m against shoehorning IP. But you’ve got to admit it would seem like a big mistake for Disney NOT to include film IP in the parks. In fact, Disney often refers to the fact that in the darkest days of Epcot, it routinely received low guest satisfaction ratings due to it not feeling sufficiently “Disney.”
Many of us would have preferred that they’d done a better job explaining what Epcot was rather than cramming in all the IP. But that’s much easier said than done when Disney’s sitting on billions of dollars worth of stories that, with just a little retrofitting, would “disnefy” the place AND promote the films, don’t you think?
osian
Well-Known Member
No, I don't think it would be a big mistake not to shoehorn film IP everywhere. In many ways, I think the relentless pursuit of franchises is actually causing some harm and some of the symptoms of problems we are seeing now (aggressive nickel-and-diming, declining standards, thematic ambuguity and dilution, failed/very expensive ventures, etc). The parks are also suffering from being the cash-cow for the rest of the business that is not doing well.
I think "low guest satisfaction ratings due to not feeling sufficiently Disney" is probably a myth and at best the result of skewed surveys by Disney to re-affirm what they want to do. I don't believe EPCOT has ever hard "dark days" and been in trouble. Apart from the misguided 90s. It's not a failure to be in the Top 10 all the time.
IP is not the saviour, Animal Kingdom has IP but it's reverting to being considered a half-day park. Hollywood Studio has got IP coming out of its ears, but it's also got surprisingly little to do. It's not of lack of IP that is doing this. In fact, it's probably too much IP. Whole Toy Story land, whole Star Wars land, if you're not interested in those franchises than there's not a great deal left.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
In your opinion, does any inclusion of IP whatsoever count as “shoehorning?”
Not sure I see how IP in the parks is necessarily related to the nickel-and-diming (which I really resent), but if you take it from Disney’s perspective, it’s ALL IP, isn’t it? Whether park attractions, films, series, or even marketing efforts, the process is pretty much the same.
That’s some conspiracy theory that Disney would completely change the concept of Epcot against guest feedback. But the “misguided 90s” are exactly what I was referring to as “dark days.” NO updates to a park that was based on the World’s Fair made for a stale experience for many. As much as it pains me, I believe the claims that guests weren’t super-pleased with the edutainment approach and long form rides like Horizons, World of Motion, etc.
The fact that Epcot was consistently in the top 10 visited parks was likely in spite of what they let it become. Personally, I think the original left such an impression on an entire generation of fans that they routinely returned just trying to recapture that feeling. And, of course, the millions of once-in-a-lifetime visitors who had nothing to compare it to.
I think we agree here. I don’t think IP makes or breaks a park. I prefer park-original IP to film IP in the parks, but we all have our preferences, don’t we?
Bocabear
Well-Known Member
It is interesting that the most compelling and most beloved attractions were non-ip based.... Space Mountain, Alien Encounter, Carousel Of Progress, Timekeeper, Small World, Haunted Mansion, Hall Of Presidents, Country Bear Jamboree, Big Thunder Mountain, Pirates Of The Caribbean, Jungle Cruise, Enchanted Tiki Room, The Original Living Seas, Soarin' The Original Imagination attraction, Spaceship Earth, Horizons, The Original World Of Motion, Maelstrom, Expedition Everest, Kilimanjaro Safaris, and Dinosaur ( not really a recognizable IP)...
I don't mind IP when it fits... like Rat in France...but I really dislike the trend of only building attractions based on a franchise... I think we all loved Disney for their ability to create amazing experiences and attractions that were usually completely original experiences and characters....
I don't mind IP when it fits... like Rat in France...but I really dislike the trend of only building attractions based on a franchise... I think we all loved Disney for their ability to create amazing experiences and attractions that were usually completely original experiences and characters....
Brer Panther
Well-Known Member
And on the other hand, as @Chris82 previously pointed out, a lot of the parks' biggest failures were IP-based... Stitch's Great Escape (and Stitch's Supersonic Celebration now that I think of it), Under New Management Tiki Room, and more recently Galactic Starcruiser. I'm sure there's more that I just can't think of right now.
Theory: a common complaint about Disney's California Adventure when it first opened was that there weren't enough Disney characters in the park, right? I know it opened before Iger took charge, but what if the park's initial failure is what convinced Iger/the higher-ups that everything has to be based on a popular IP?
Andrew25
Well-Known Member
People like good rides no matter the content - Flight of Passage, Everest, Space Mountain, etc.
People dislike bad rides no matter the content - Fast & Furious, Figment (sorry)
It's just "safer" for a park executive to promote IP-based rides to get some synergy brownie points versus a random non-descript mountain or whatever.
People dislike bad rides no matter the content - Fast & Furious, Figment (sorry)
It's just "safer" for a park executive to promote IP-based rides to get some synergy brownie points versus a random non-descript mountain or whatever.
TheMaxRebo
Well-Known Member
I think just a certain % of attractions will fail, be they IP or not ... Could point to Superstar Limi and Rocket Rods as two failures that weren't IP
People want good experience and transport them - be they IP or not. Just Disney has all their IP to create things unique that others can't. Be nice to see some openness to attractions that are thought up from the ground up without IP, but having or not having IP doesn't make a ride good or bad
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
Yes, I agree: IP neither makes for a good nor a bad attraction. I also don't think there's any great mystery as to why current management prefers IP-based attractions and particularly those tied to "franchises". They see the parks as part of a big synergy machine in which successful movies drive park attendance which drives interest in successful movies. I think that mentality ignores what set Disney parks apart in the first place not necessarily because this idea is entirely new but because there is no longer any space for original ideas. But, it is what it is.
SilentWindODoom
Well-Known Member
True. I suppose it feels different with a land where you can get your fill vs. bits spread about. Feels more like a home.
No one wants only IP, but if IP is the only way to get new things, then let us figure out a way to get new things that would be worthwhile and find an IP that fits.
(Also Jungle Cruise is based on IP.)
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
Jungle Cruise isn’t based on an IP. It is now an IP tho