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

[Jrb1979]

I could write an entire article about Jurassic World Adventure, but long story short is screenz + using the Scoop vehicle does not at all fit the type of ride JWA is trying to be. As a result, you have scenes with incredible dino AAs preceded and followed by boring scenes where nothing happens while the ride vehicle randomly spins a la Midway Mania. On a technical level, the ride is still incredible, I just don’t think it has the cohesion and pacing that DAK Dinosaur has. It’s not scary like Dinosaur, nor is it as pretty as Dinosaur, nor is it as plot-driven as Dinosaur, it’s just… cool.

I would take Jurassic River Adventure over either one of those. It does one thing many of these rides don't. Is it has thrills to go along with the immersive theming.

 

[earlthesquirrellover23]

I would take Jurassic River Adventure over either one of those. It does one thing many of these rides don't. Is it has thrills to go along with the immersive theming.

Both Dinosaur and Jurassic World Adventure (haven't been on it myself, but basing off similar scoop rides) are definitely thrilling. Jurassic World Adventure takes the thrills to a new level by having dinosaurs actually interact with the ride vehicle (the ride vehicle gets "hit" by the tail of the ankylosaurus and the head of the Indominus Rex in the ride). They've basically taken the moment in Spiderman where he first lands on your vehicle and have done that with physical animatronics.

 

[DarkMetroid567]

Both Dinosaur and Jurassic World Adventure (haven't been on it myself, but basing off similar scoop rides) are definitely thrilling. Jurassic World Adventure takes the thrills to a new level by having dinosaurs actually interact with the ride vehicle (the ride vehicle gets "hit" by the tail of the ankylosaurus and the head of the Indominus Rex in the ride). They've basically taken the moment in Spiderman where he first lands on your vehicle and have done that with physical animatronics.

The I-Rex hit in the beginning of the ride is a huge highlight — comparatively you don’t feel the anklyosaurus as much. JWA’s issue is, unlike Spidey and even Transformers, the motion of the ride is aimless. A lot of the time is spent shaking and spinning around for no real reason. It’s the least disciplined SCOOP ride — and when you eventually do get to the screens, there’s almost no motion at all!

I think Spider-Man is a much better and more thrilling ride. I could be convinced that Transformers is a better ride as well, but those screens are… a lot.

 

[WorldExplorer]

Anyone know whats up with this?

Oh my gosh, thank you so much for posting this, I'm in Dinoland right now and would have had no idea! That's so cool, for any reason! Time to get in line!

 

[Jrb1979]

Both Dinosaur and Jurassic World Adventure (haven't been on it myself, but basing off similar scoop rides) are definitely thrilling. Jurassic World Adventure takes the thrills to a new level by having dinosaurs actually interact with the ride vehicle (the ride vehicle gets "hit" by the tail of the ankylosaurus and the head of the Indominus Rex in the ride). They've basically taken the moment in Spiderman where he first lands on your vehicle and have done that with physical animatronics.

Yes they have some thrill but it's nothing big like River Adventure with its drop. IMO the mix of thrill and theme at WDW is Tower of Terror.

That's the kind of thrill WDW should do more of.

 

[Epcot81Fan]

Thrill and theme?!

Tiana’s has a 50+ foot drop while simultaneously picking up frog musicians for a party where nobody can hear them play!

Or something!

 

[Jrb1979]

Thrill and theme?!

Tiana’s has a 50+ foot drop while simultaneously picking up frog musicians for a party where nobody can hear them play!

Or something!

That IMO is still on the milder side. Why not a 100 foot drop and faster than 50 mph.

 

[Epcot81Fan]

That IMO is still on the milder side. Why not a 100 foot drop and faster than 50 mph.

100 ft drop and invisible insect musicians!

Brilliant!

 

[BlakeW39]

I believe they said it best.

You should have an experience you want to deliver, but if there’s an IP that fits that experience, you should he’s that IP.

That’s how we got Indy in the first place.

No matter how good you make Dinosaur, it would always be a Jurassic Park/World imitator. People can love it, it could be amazing, but it would still hinder the experience.

If Shanghai Pirates was at Universal w/o the IP, it wouldn’t be as good.

The issue is when you have an IP mandate without an attraction idea, that’s how you get uninspired mediocrity.

Dinosaur sought to out Dinosaur Jurassic Park, it was setup for failure. Journey to the Center of the Earth works far better, even though both have similar goals, because it’s not dominated by preconceived media (even though it’s still technically IP).

I'm sorry man but this is just not true. And to be honest I find it a little disheartening that the IP mandate is so extreme at this point that people honestly believe IP just flat-out makes attractions better.

IP does not inherently make attractions better. Shanghai pirates wouldn't be inferior if it were an original attraction. If you need proof, then I'd turn your attention to the original POTC ride, which wasn't elevated once they injected it with needless movie IP.

Likewise, an original dinosaur attraction is not automatically a Jurassic Park imitator, and is not set up for failure. Dinosaurs were popular long before Jurassic Park, and they will be popular long after. They exist well outside and superior to the interest in Jurassic Park as a series. Universal does not own the concept of dinosaurs, like I have seen suggested here countless times, and quite frankly the reception to their franchise isn't anywhere near good enough to put Disney at an insurmountable disadvantage when competing with it. An original attraction based on dinosaurs has plenty of potential to surpass what Universal is doing with dinosaurs down the road, which is exceedingly little might I add.

The IP mandate exists solely for the marketing pop that a successful franchise lends to a new attraction. It does NOT improve the actual quality of an attraction in any way. It is perfectly feasible to design an original attraction based on dinosaurs, or pirates, or Aztec mythology, and have it be just as good as anything that any oversaturated movie IP is capable of.

 

[BlakeW39]

Yes they have some thrill but it's nothing big like River Adventure with its drop. IMO the mix of thrill and theme at WDW is Tower of Terror.

That's the kind of thrill WDW should do more of.

Honestly Disney's thrill rides are made for children below the age of 10 and adults who have either never visited a regional theme park or are just scared of thrill rides.

I honestly think Disney could benefit from having some slightly more thrilling options to compete with Universal for the teen & young adult demographic.

 

[SplashJacket]

I'm sorry man but this is just not true. And to be honest I find it a little disheartening that the IP mandate is so extreme at this point that people honestly believe IP just flat-out makes attractions better.

IP does not inherently make attractions better. Shanghai pirates wouldn't be inferior if it were an original attraction. If you need proof, then I'd turn your attention to the original POTC ride, which wasn't elevated once they injected it with needless movie IP.

Likewise, an original dinosaur attraction is not automatically a Jurassic Park imitator, and is not set up for failure. Dinosaurs were popular long before Jurassic Park, and they will popular long after. They exist well outside and superior to the interest in Jurassic Park as a series. Universal does not own the concept of dinosaurs, like I have seen suggest here countless times, and quite frankly the reception to their franchise isn't anywhere near good enough to put Disney at an insurmountable disadvantage when competing with it. An original attraction based on dinosaurs has plenty of potential to surpass what Universal is doing with dinosaurs down the road, which is exceedingly little might I add.

The IP mandate exists solely for the marketing pop that a successful franchise lends to a new attraction. It does NOT improve the actual quality of an attraction in any way. It is perfectly feasible to design an original attraction based on dinosaurs, or pirates, or Aztec mythology, and have it be just as good anything that any oversaturated movie IP is capable of.

Do we really think Indy would be better if stripped of its IP and made to be generic?

I’ll answer for you, it wouldn’t be.

And I agree, the original POTC wasn’t elevated once they injected IP, but that’s the issue, it was IP shoehorned into an existing concept.

You’re right that IP does not inherently improve the quality of an attraction, and that’s not what I’m talking about.

Two notable rides that started as non-IP but became IP because their concepts greatly overlapped are Indy, and Radiator Springs Racers. I think both are definitively better because of it.

The issue isn’t IP, the issue is shoehorned IP where it doesn’t belong.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I honestly think Disney could benefit from having some slightly more thrilling options to compete with Universal for the teen & young adult demographic.

How so? Financially Disney’s formula wins over the Universal formula.

Do we really think Indy would be better if stripped of its IP and made to be generic?

I’ll answer for you, it wouldn’t be.

Maybe? The IP is not the reason I love that attraction. An Indy rethemed to adventurers club would be better in my opinion! Haha

 

[BlakeW39]

How so? Financially Disney’s formula wins over the Universal formula.

Even so, that doesn't mean Disney's formula can't be improved. Disney currently doesn't offer attractions to satisfy thrill seekers, when its primary competitor does. I think no matter how you frame things, that is an oversight.

While it may not be a #1 priority, I do think it would be advantageous to include some higher level thrills to appeal to coaster fans. Because as it stands, Universal has major thrill rides and Disney really doesn't.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Disney currently doesn't offer attractions to satisfy thrill seekers, when its primary competitor does. I think no matter how you frame things, that is an oversight.

I disagree 100% - I think that is a major part of the Disney formula. The “thrill rides” can be experienced by the majority of guests.

I don’t think Disney is #1 but could be better with thrill rides, I think Disney is #1 because they don’t have them - it is part of the formula.

That’s only my opinion of course - but it does seem to be a winning formula.

 

[KDM31091]

To me Disney has never been about thrill rides, at least not extreme thrills. It just isn't part of their formula/branding/whatever you call it. There are many places to go to just get a straight up thrill ride with a lower cost. With Disney it has always been about a mild to moderate thrill combined with theming. I don't think this needs to really change; it's just part of their identity.

People complain about the proposed Villains land leaving out young children, but extreme rides do the same thing. You can't have it both ways. If you want classic Disney and accessible to the whole family, no extreme thrills.

 

[celluloid]

The funny thing with he IP situation it is just the opposite. Waterworld is good in spite of the film. Jimmy Fallon makes the lame simulator no better because it is poorly designed in a story and set up stance.

 

[UNCgolf]

Even so, that doesn't mean Disney's formula can't be improved. Disney currently doesn't offer attractions to satisfy thrill seekers, when its primary competitor does. I think no matter how you frame things, that is an oversight.

While it may not be a #1 priority, I do think it would be advantageous to include some higher level thrills to appeal to coaster fans. Because as it stands, Universal has major thrill rides and Disney really doesn't.

Universal is almost the opposite, though. It's not like it has a bunch of great family friendly rides that are enjoyable for everyone -- it basically has thrill rides and kid rides with a handful of exceptions.

There's really nothing there comparable to rides like Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Spaceship Earth, etc.

Even Epic isn't really doing much to fix this. It's doing a little, but it doesn't deviate that much from what's on offer at the two existing parks -- and I don't think that's really a problem, just like it's not a problem that Disney doesn't have any huge coasters.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Universal is almost the opposite, though. It's not like it has a bunch of great family friendly rides that are enjoyable for everyone -- it basically has thrill rides and kid rides with a handful of exceptions.

There's really nothing there comparable to rides like Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Spaceship Earth, etc.

It used to… jaws, twister, earthquake, King Kong. :-( Those were the days!

 

[celluloid]

It used to… jaws, twister, earthquake, King Kong. :-( Those were the days!

Exactly. This has been an issue with studios in the last decade. While not family target properties, the park opened and spent a decade plus with very few height requirements at all.
With Fallon, Rockit and Fast on near future blocks, this is being corrected.

 

[DarkMetroid567]

Even Epic isn't really doing much to fix this. It's doing a little, but it doesn't deviate that much from what's on offer at the two existing parks -- and I don't think that's really a problem, just like it's not a problem that Disney doesn't have any huge coasters.

I’m still shocked that they’re allergic to slow-moving dark rides, especially considering how good SLOP was. It seems like just about every experience at the park is going to clock in at under 5 minutes, and realistically, closer to 2-3.