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

[JohnD]

Links to the filings:

594 DINOLAND DR (DINOLAND GOOFY PLUTO MEET AND GREET) - Whiting-Turner - General Construction [WDI]
601 RESTAURANTOSAURUS (RESTAURANTOSAURUS) - Whiting-Turner - General Construction [WDI]

Makes me wonder whether the actual address of "Dinoland Drive" will be retained or they'll go through the legal process to change its name, probably via the CFTOD. I hope they retain it. It's like "EPCOT Center Drive" is still named that although EPCOT hasn't been EPCOT Center for a long time. Same goes for "Restaurantosaurus Rd."

 

[DCLcruiser]

But Moana isn't about animals, and I highly doubt that any hypothetical Moana attraction would have Moana and Maui talking about animals and the environment.

I hear you. They could do a Moana village as the building area of an Oceania land. Then have Nemo as the main ride. A Moana ride could support it. There’s always Hei-Hei, Pua and the manta ray.

 

[mattpeto]

Site prep takes time.

When do you expect the building to go vertical?

 

[danlb_2000]

When do you expect the building to go vertical?

No idea.

 

[Gusey]

When do you expect the building to go vertical?

I do wonder if the closing of The Boneyard in September (and its ability to provide an easy view over the construction walls) may indicate a timeline for vertical construction?

 

[BlakeW39]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but Moana would have absolutely been a better fit for DAK than Indiana Jones, Encanto, or Zootopia.

However, I keep seeing this idea perpetuated that Animal Kingdom isn't about animals (?) or instead is more broadly about nature and animals are just one element of that. I can see where people are coming from on this but it's not accurate.

From Joe Rohde's Instagram account:









Animal Kingdom IS about animals. Joe Rohde himself has stated so many times. Discovery Island isn't full of hidden protist carvings, or fungus carvings, it's full of hidden animal carvings. The dedication plaque explicitly states the park is ABOUT animals. Animals aren't the theme of the park, because animals are not themselves a theme, but the themes of the park are derived from animals, not just life in general, and animals specifically are the main subject and premise of the park.

EDIT: to be clear.... while you're all right that Animal Kingdom is about a broader philosophy surrounding the intrinsic value of nature. Animals themselves are still a critical focus of the park and essential for any new land to fit in with the overall narrative the park is telling.

 

[Brer Panther]

And isn't the justification of putting Indiana Jones and Encanto in Animal Kingdom that the attractions will apparently be about animals, even though the movies/franchises aren't? But Moana fits because Animal Kingdom isn't actually about animals, but rather about NATURE or whatever?

I mean, by that logic, we could make a justification for Elemental too. Elements are part of nature, right? Ergo, it's a perfect fit for Animal Kingdom, isn't it?

 

[Disstevefan1]

I wonder why Disney moved away from Dinosaurs?

Did they do research/surveys that told them to delete them from the parks?

Is it because Dinosaurs are associated with fossil fuels?

 

[DisneyHead123]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but Moana would have absolutely been a better fit for DAK than Indiana Jones, Encanto, or Zootopia.

However, I keep seeing this idea perpetuated that Animal Kingdom isn't about animals (?) or instead is more broadly about nature and animals are just one element of that. I can see where people are coming from on this but it's not accurate.

From Joe Rohde's Instagram account:









Animal Kingdom IS about animals. Joe Rohde himself has stated so many times. Discovery Island isn't full of hidden protist carvings, or fungus carvings, it's full of hidden animal carvings. The dedication plaque explicitly states the park is ABOUT animals. Animals aren't the theme of the park, because animals are not themselves a theme, but the themes of the park are derived from animals, not just life in general, and animald specifically are the main subject and premise of the park.

Ok but go back and read what you quoted and see if “animated characters are a good fit for Animal Kingdom” finds any justification or support.

To my mind Rohde very carefully and repeatedly lays out that he is exclusively talking about live animals, and that traditional Disney animals are actually in violation of the concepts he’s discussing.

The only thing I will say to the contrary is that Rohdes has repeatedly shown a strong pragmatic side. Which I suppose is in keeping with what you quoted above - those are not the words of a staunch idealist (Fwiw, that’s more my style - at one point, during my spiritual wandering years, in the literal philosophical sense of the word. This is all illusion / a dream and whatnot. Less so as I get older though.) That being the case, he has integrated things like Avatar and helped with Tropical Americas, which features Encanto, instead of stomping off in total purist style. In fact he’s done so with enthusiasm and great goodwill expressed. So I could see him supporting a “least unfitting option”, with the knowledge that current circumstances demand it. What he says above, however, is explicitly in support of live animals.

 

[DavidDL]

...

I mean, by that logic, we could make a justification for Elemental too. Elements are part of nature, right? Ergo, it's a perfect fit for Animal Kingdom, isn't it?

Knowing Disney these days, this is exactly the kind of crap they'll pull at some point. Don't give them any ideas!

 

[Incomudro]

Ok but go back and read what you quoted and see if “animated characters are a good fit for Animal Kingdom” finds any justification or support.

To my mind Rohde very carefully and repeatedly lays out that he is exclusively talking about live animals, and that traditional Disney animals are actually in violation of the concepts he’s discussing.

The only thing I will say to the contrary is that Rohdes has repeatedly shown a strong pragmatic side. Which I suppose is in keeping with what you quoted above - those are not the words of a staunch idealist (Fwiw, that’s more my style - at one point, during my spiritual wandering years, in the literal philosophical sense of the word. This is all illusion / a dream and whatnot. Less so as I get older though.) That being the case, he has integrated things like Avatar and helped with Tropical Americas, which features Encanto, instead of stomping off in total purist style. In fact he’s done so with enthusiasm and great goodwill expressed. So I could see him supporting a “least unfitting option”, with the knowledge that current circumstances demand it. What he says above, however, is explicitly in support of live animals.

I believe that Joe helped with Avatar, and Tropical Americas out of a hope of maintaining some preservation in the park he had such a hand in creating.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I believe that Joe helped with Avatar, and Tropical Americas out of a hope of maintaining some preservation in the park he had such a hand in creating.

Joe was the lead of the Avatar project. The fact that James Cameron was hands on (the same way John was hands on with Cars land) is why Avatar is such an excellent land.

If only George Lucas had demanded hands on involvement for Star Wars projects.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Joe was the lead of the Avatar project. The fact that James Cameron was hands on (the same way John was hands on with Cars land) is why Avatar is such an excellent land.

If only George Lucas had demanded hands on involvement for Star Wars projects.

For things like Aly San San?

 

[MisterPenguin]

I wonder why Disney moved away from Dinosaurs?

Did they do research/surveys that told them to delete them from the parks?

Is it because Dinosaurs are associated with fossil fuels?

Two dinosaur movies failed to catch on. Meanwhile, for Uni, they struck gold.

So, no IP synergy.

 

[BlakeW39]

I wonder why Disney moved away from Dinosaurs?

Did they do research/surveys that told them to delete them from the parks?

Is it because Dinosaurs are associated with fossil fuels?

Disney doesn't own a major dinosaur IP. Everything they do has to have a major IP. Ergo a dinosaur land isn't possible within the strict confines of the IP mandate.

It has nothing to do with Universal.

I believe that Joe helped with Avatar, and Tropical Americas out of a hope of maintaining some preservation in the park he had such a hand in creating.

Absolutely. He has thanked imagineers for keeping the park in tact (I'd have to find the specific words he used so just know I am paraphrasing). That implies he believes there was some motion to break it.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

I wonder why Disney moved away from Dinosaurs?

Did they do research/surveys that told them to delete them from the parks?

Is it because Dinosaurs are associated with fossil fuels?

I think because they don't have a successful dinosaur themed IP and down the street has Jurassic Park/World

 

[DavidDL]

I think because they don't have a successful dinosaur themed IP and down the street has Jurassic Park/World

Could you imagine if Walt had applied this kind of thinking before deciding to build Disneyland?

"Aw.. there's already a popular park down the road.. might as well not even bother, I guess.."

It's actually straight up pathetic that modern WDW is like, "Aw man.. I guess that means it's just not possible to build a better Dinosaur-land than the one we have or the one they've got.."

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

Could you imagine if Walt had applied this kind of thinking before deciding to build Disneyland?

"Aw.. there's already a popular park down the road.. might as well not even bother, I guess.."

It's actually straight up pathetic that modern WDW is like, "Aw man.. I guess that means it's just not possible to build a better Dinosaur-land than the one we have or the one they've got.."

Or more accurate, in this new modern age, people have to compare things and make 2 hr long videos about why Wizarding World vs Star Wars or Pandora or whatever so Disney took the more reasonable route. Like sure they COULD have went through and dug up the excavator coaster to build and it would have been epic. But no matter how good it was, it still wouldn’t beat velocicoaster in most minds

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Could you imagine if Walt had applied this kind of thinking before deciding to build Disneyland?

"Aw.. there's already a popular park down the road.. might as well not even bother, I guess.."

It's actually straight up pathetic that modern WDW is like, "Aw man.. I guess that means it's just not possible to build a better Dinosaur-land than the one we have or the one they've got.."

But they have hundreds of other properties ... I mean, if they come up with a great dinosaur property then sure but why force it?

And part of what Walt did was to do things different - it wasn't do what other did and try to do better, it was a different take, breakthroughs, etc. he also changed things, cut things when they weren't working

 

[James Alucobond]

However, I keep seeing this idea perpetuated that Animal Kingdom isn't about animals (?) or instead is more broadly about nature and animals are just one element of that. I can see where people are coming from on this but it's not accurate.

I don't think I've seen many if any people say that. They've just said that animals alone are not the path to cohesion with the park. It's about animals viewed through a very specific thematic lens. That's why Rohde has been very explicit about anthropomorphized animals generally not fitting, for instance.