News 'Encanto' and 'Indiana Jones'-themed experiences at Animal Kingdom

[MerlinTheGoat]

No one is saying Lion King can't fit, just that, like Encanto, fitting requires that it not simply copy the source material. While true that it is less visually problematic than Zootopia because its characters are not anthropomorphic, the narrative doesn't actually have anything to do with animals and could be told identically with human characters. It would need to lean into one of Animal Kingdom's themes, not just be a book report ride.

Zootopia's issue is not just that the animals are anthro designs, but that they're effectively not even animals at all. The movie is about racial prejudice as it relates to human beings. The animal designs are just used as glorified "costumes", they tell a human story and are intended to directly represent humans. Which is also what Robin Hood did.

The Lion King on the other hand deals with what are supposed to represent actual animals. There are lessons and themes that can also be applied to human nature as well, but the animals are definitely not designed as suface level costumed stand-ins for human beings.

Dinoland is impeccably well themed. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s a poor theme.

I assume we're referring specifically to the Chester & Hester's Dinorama roadside area. The rest of the land is quite well themed and is a great theme. C&H's is the only part of the land that I would advcate be removed and changed to something more high quality and appropriate.

 

[haveyoumetmark]

The post I quoted was referring to the gift shop, Restaurantasarous, etc which no matter how you feel about them, are very themed.

Dinoland is impeccably well themed. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s a poor theme.

I appreciate the parking lot sculpture, but it’s a dated hodgepodge to me done on the cheap. Tropical Americas will allow for much richer theming, we’ll just have to wait and see how well it’s executed but it already seems like it’ll be more up to par with the rest of the park categorically.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I didn't realize what I said would be so upsetting, and still don't to be honest. That certainly wasn't my intent. I genuinely did not know that you disliked the Hatbox Ghost in its final form. What I recall you saying early on is that the placement would end up making sense, and I wasn't aware that your opinion changed when you saw the final product. If you did say that somewhere on here, then i'm sorry but I genuinely didn't know. I admittedly don't read every single post on here, but I also didn't get the impression from what I did read that you didn't like it.

The concept art that Disney released was the only preview material I ever saw of WDW's Hattie. This specifically-

View attachment 777745

And I don't like this concept. The lighting is definitely more striking here. And I'd be curious to know what sort of different and more elaborate plans there were originally. But again, I don't think any variant of this figure's placement at that spot would have turned out acceptable. Regardless of how much better it may have been in the planning phase.

It does go to show however that we should always take word of mouth from imagineers with a huge grain of salt. Even from very talented people such as Joe Rohde. I've been told some great things about Tiana, but a lot of this is just hearsay that even I maintain a skeptical mind for. And I definitely don't expect everyone here to believe it either. So it doesn't offend me when there's doubt expressed.


I disagree about Chester and Hester fitting. I acknowledge that people attempt to explain why it does and appreciate the effort, but I can't get behind it myself. It doesn't help that the area is just awful. I don't hate or blame Rohde for its inclusion, because he clearly had the rug pulled out from under him with the massive budget cuts and had much grander plans before that. With C&H being a last second addition done with a likely far less than shoestring budget. But I also don't think he's being honest when he promotes the land's merits. I doubt anyone involved with it would defend its quality or fit if you truly got them to speak off the record.

Doesn't mean I think what they're replacing it with will fit either though. Dinosaur and the Boneyard DID fit very well with the park, particularly the original CTE ride. It's a stupid decision to replace these rides instead of expanding the park around them. Dinosaurs are a pretty evergreen concept regarding popularity. If anything, it would have been neat to see them expand the concept of the land to include other prehistoric and extinct species as well. And I think there would be a ton of demand to see them do this.

Pandora also doesn't really "fit" with AK to me. It fits slightly better than C&H, but that's mostly because it at least attempts to create a lush jungle-like environment that blends in with the surrounding park to some degree. There are admittedly even worse things that could be build at AK. But as far as keeping to the original "philosophies" behind AK, I think it mostly doesn't really fit at all aside from some subtle ecology aspects. And even that is less about the impact on animals, moreso its impact on plants and especially the humanoid cat aliens. And I say this as someone who actually thinks the land is really cool when judged in a vacuum.

You didn't realize that mischaracterizing someone's opinion in an attempt to undercut people's perception of their taste would be upsetting? Interesting.

I'll tell you what, it'd be a lot less bothersome if the response was more like "I'm so sorry, I made a mistake, I won't do that again" and less like "I didn't realize you'd changed your mind (I hadn't, you just made up an opinion for me), *I* never thought it was a good idea in the first place, but no need to be aggressive. Now here's a diatribe in my own defense:".



To your newer point, I did take word about The Hatbox Ghost situation with a grain of salt, which is why I waited until it was done to form my opinion - which you are continuing to suggest was not the case. It was instead many others, including you, by your own admission, who decided preemptively that there couldn't possibly be any logic to it. So instead of you lecturing others about hearsay, maybe I could teach you a thing or two.

The issue isn't you expressing doubt about my opinion. That's called healthy skepticism, and I have a long history of encouraging that. The issue is you putting words in my mouth to make others discredit my opinion unwarrantedly, and then doubling down and pretending I'm offended when you're called out for it instead of properly backing all the way off. You would be just as annoyed if I did that to you.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

I personally don’t see how Chester & Hesters fits into the three themes of DAK to begin with, but the theme is well executed, it’s just a poor theme. Personally I feel that goes for all of Dinoland since Chester & Hester makes it not mesh well at all.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

The Lion King on the other hand deals with what are supposed to represent actual animals. There are lessons and themes that can also be applied to human nature as well, but the animals are definitely not designed as suface level costumed stand-ins for human beings.

I don't know that I agree with that. For example, I don't think Timon and Pumbaa's character arc examines issues faced by meerkats and warthogs in the wild that can also help us reflect on human society. Simba running away from home and hanging out with them also wasn't supposed to be a lesson in what happens when lions shirk their responsibility in the wild, etc.

 

[haveyoumetmark]

The Lion King on the other hand deals with what are supposed to represent actual animals. There are lessons and themes that can also be applied to human nature as well, but the animals are definitely not designed as suface level costumed stand-ins for human beings.

It’s literally Hamlet which is a story about human beings.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

View attachment 777751

I personally don’t see how Chester & Hesters fits into the three themes of DAK to begin with, but the theme is well executed, it’s just a poor theme. Personally I feel that goes for all of Dinoland since Chester & Hester makes it not mesh well at all.

Intrinsic Value of Nature: “Man, weren’t Dinosaurs amazing? It’s so sad that they’re extinct, and that our contemporary experience of these magnificent creatures amounts to THIS”

Psychological Transformation through Adventure: “Now that I see this, wouldn’t it be better if these awesome beasts had an incredible natural environment to inhabit the way other animals around the world do? Maybe if they weren’t extinct we could all share in that wonder”

Personal Call to Action: “We should probably do a better job taking care of the world’s creatures, since there are many more that are threatened by extinction, and by the willing hand of man!”


As I’ve said, it’s imperfect because guests tend to shut off their critical thinking once their dissatisfied by an experience, so Dino-Rama registering as a cheap carnival stops the thought process dead in its tracks and most people don’t consider the intentional reasons why that land stands in stark contrast to the other natural environments in the park. But it does address the core themes of the park, mostly by acting as a morality play that throws the other lands into relief. If it’s not as cool as the other lands . . . yeah, that’s the point. But if guests miss the point and it just lands with a thud, it makes sense that they might want to try making a different point.

 

[celluloid]

Indiana Jones is being characterized as the antithesis of the park and it’s simply not true. He’s an archaeologist not an oil tycoon. He can fit right in without much contortion. I’ll let the story experts worry about why he’s there and what he does when he gets in.

Yes. Sounds like an organic fit!

 

[Brer Panther]

The Lion King isn't really about animals, though. It uses animals to tell a human story.

Encanto and Coco aren't about animals, either. They use humans to tell a human story.

We have to see what they come up with, but it seems to me that Coco and Encanto as themes provide ways to deal with how humans relate to animals and the natural world more in keeping with those attractions than would a ride featuring talking cartoon animals who stand in for humans.

So Encanto and Coco can be used to "deal with how humans relate to animals and the natural world" (despite the fact that neither film is actually about animals or the natural world - Encanto at least has Antonio, but Coco has nothing to do with animals outside of the presence of a dog as a minor character), but The Lion King can't?

Legend of the Lion King gets around this by focusing on storytelling, but I think that would be a little too meta for a ride and almost certainly wouldn't be what they want in Paris for their Studio (or whatever it will soon be called) park.

Well, I sincerely doubt an attraction where Mirabel and Antonio teach us about protecting the environment is what Disney would want to build for their ride based on the ever-so-popular Encanto.

 

[James Alucobond]

Encanto and Coco aren't about animals, either. They use humans to tell a human story.

No one is arguing that Encanto, Coco, and IJ fit in seamlessly if unceremoniously plopped in without carefully mining the source material for an acceptable approach. However, several people are arguing that Lion King fits right in even if left alone, which is absolutely untrue and suggests that the posters in question either don't actually care about AK's themes or just aren't thinking very critically.

So Encanto and Coco can be used to "deal with how humans relate to animals and the natural world" (despite the fact that neither film is actually about animals or the natural world - Encanto at least has Antonio, but Coco has nothing to do with animals outside of the presence of a dog as a minor character), but The Lion King can't?

Coco, if in at all, seems to be focusing on mythical creatures like alebrije rather than any of the narrative in the film itself. The way man relates to nature and animals through myth, legend, and cryptozoology are definitely within the purview of the park.

Well, I sincerely doubt an attraction where Mirabel and Antonio teach us about protecting the environment is what Disney would want to build for their ride based on the ever-so-popular Encanto.

Cool. We probably share all your doubts, and it's easy to believe that they might whiff on the execution. The point is that acting like it's an insurmountable task is silly, and suggesting Lion King slots in perfectly without any consideration given to framing it appropriately for the park is wrong.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

You didn't realize that mischaracterizing someone's opinion in an attempt to undercut people's perception of their taste would be upsetting? Interesting.

I'll tell you what, it'd be a lot less bothersome if the response was more like "I'm so sorry, I made a mistake, I won't do that again" and less like "I didn't realize you'd changed your mind (I hadn't, you just made up an opinion for me).

I again genuinely did not know that you were against the way Hattie turned out at WDW, nor that you were skeptical of the implementation from the start. I did apologize twice already and did mean it the way you requested here. To reiterate, I genuinely did not know that I was misrepresenting your comments, I did not mean to do so. I can assure you that it was definitely not intentional. Nor was my initial comment intended as an insult to you regardless. For what it's worth, it had a very different meaning intended behind it.

To your newer point, I did take word about The Hatbox Ghost situation with a grain of salt, which is why I waited until it was done to form my opinion - which you are continuing to suggest was not the case. It was instead many others, including you, by your own admission, who decided preemptively that there couldn't possibly be any logic to it. So instead of you lecturing others about hearsay, maybe I could teach you a thing or two.

I'm actually not sure how I missed these comments because I have read a lot of your posts. But i'll take you at your word that I did miss them. And again, I do apologize.

You are indeed correct that I do not believe there was ever any hope of putting Hatty in that location. On any conceptual level. I also believe that replacing Dinosaur with Indy is a huge mistake, regardless of what they do to try to make it fit. And I firmly expect my opinion to be unswayed by the final product. I don't really give Disney the benefit of the doubt anymore, regardless of whether there's good talent involved. I also fear that I may have given them too much of that benefit regarding Tiana for instance.

The issue isn't you expressing doubt about my opinion. That's called healthy skepticism, and I have a long history of encouraging that. The issue is you putting words in my mouth to make others discredit my opinion unwarrantedly, and then doubling down and pretending I'm offended when you're called out for it instead of properly backing all the way off. You would be just as annoyed if I did that to you.

I will only add that all of this was definitely not intended. And I hope my above comments help explain this. I'm not blaming you for being upset, I genuinely misinterpreted your opinions and so also didn't realize I was saying anything that upset you. I also wasn't trying to double down either, I apologized in a prior post and meant it. It was again definitely not intentional.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Cool. We probably share all your doubts, and it's easy to believe that they might whiff on the execution. The point is that acting like it's an insurmountable task is silly, and suggesting Lion King slots in perfectly without any consideration given to framing it appropriately for the park is wrong.

Precisely. The point is that Encanto and Coco are not necessarily worse and in some ways could be better fits for DAK than Lion King when considering the overarching theme of humans' relations with animals. That depends on the execution, however, which could indeed be inappropriate. By the same token, it would be possible to create an attraction featuring the characters from The Lion King that would fit DAK. Just because the characters from The Lion King are animals who don't wear clothes, however, doesn't automatically make the IP a good or better fit.

 

[BasiltheBatLord]

Disney doesn't care anymore whether an IP fits a park theme or not. They have a mandate to include IP in all new builds. I don't think it's anymore complicated than that.

 

[PizzaPlanet]

Do we know if the Lion King ride is rumored to be based on the animated classic or the “live-action” remake?

 

[celluloid]

Indiana Jones is being characterized as the antithesis of the park and it’s simply not true.

He is literally a raider.

 

[PREMiERdrum]

Do we know if the Lion King ride is rumored to be based on the animated classic or the “live-action” remake?

Animated classic.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Maybe we'll get a Shia LaBeouf AA swinging with monkeys...

 

[cjkeating]

I'll say this - I've spent years arguing that Indy isn't a good fit for Animal Kingdom. Then a few weeks ago I saw some *stuff*, and now I'm excited for it to happen.

I still think the property overall is a better fit for Studios, and would prefer Dinosaur! be updated rather than removed, but what they're planning for Indy is better than people are expecting. In multiple ways.

Not sure if I've missed this amongst the many chats going on in this thread but Indy sounds like it's DAK intergration could be better than most were expecting, do you know if this will also apply to the Encanto attraction?

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Not sure if I've missed this amongst the many chats going on in this thread but Indy sounds like it's DAK intergration could be better than most were expecting, do you know if this will also apply to the Encanto attraction?

At the moment I’m not sure.

The treatment they’re giving Indiana Jones makes me think they’ve got to be doing *something* to make more sense of Encanto in the park, if only because it’d be odd to make the effort for one attraction and not the other. So if I had to guess, probably? But that is just a guess.

 

[haveyoumetmark]

He is literally a raider.

I don’t want to be pedantic but he is literally an archaeologist. It’s a little more complicated than “he is a literally a raider.” He is a hero not a villain. Is Seeker a raider too because he wants to steal an iguanadon? We are splitting hairs here. Sorry you don’t see how it fits.