WorldExplorer
Well-Known Member
Disney knows what modern parkgoers want in an Encanto ride. It's Mirabel and Luisa and "WE DON'T TALK ABOUT BRUNO NO NO NO", not Antonio talking to us about jaguars and toucans. It takes place DURING the first act of the movie, and very little of that first act has to do with animals.
These discussions always end up being a ping pong game between two contradictory concepts:
- People do not want *thing the park is actually about*, they only care about IP.
- Disney will definitely bait and switch people by taking attention away from the thing people want to see in favor of stuff people do not care about.
- Why can't they just focus on the thing actually relevant to the park if they're going to just use the characters as a brief segue and focus on what's supposed to be there anyway? Because people do not want "thing the park is actually about*, they only care about IP.
People defending the use of poorly fitting IPs will go back and forth between the two even though they logically don't fit together. Best case scenario this claim is just blatantly encouraging Disney being deceptive, but it's okay because we all know minimizing the IP to focus on stuff that fits won't happen. It never does. It won't this time. It won't happen next time.
It's especially stupid for Encanto, where the kid talking to animals is supposed to be a very impressive, cool power to rub in Mirabel's face her not getting anything. Animals are cool enough to be a recognizable cool super power in a film, and cool enough to supposedly carry the ride after some token Encanto stuff that definitely will not be the focus, but we must include the Encanto stuff because otherwise no one will care. What sense does that make?
The same concept applies to the Indiana Jones ride, which is going to be a ride about Indiana Jones, not a ride about a mythical being. You can tell, because if it wasn't about him, we wouldn't need him here. That exact same "RUN! NATURE IS BEHIND YOU AND TICKED" concept is over in Asia raking in the merchandise dough and still being featured in commercials. No one complains about it. Legitimately perfect fit, and they felt it was fine building it with Dinosaur already there and doing the same thing so you can't even argue that it would be redundant to have two rides like that because that was what they already did and ran for decades with. It would be a good fit here, too. Heck, go ahead, they can still make it more of an adventure than a horror like they're doing already, totally doable with lighting and music alone. But they're not doing that, because the ride isn't going to be about the mythical being. It's going to be about Indiana Jones.
"Well, no one likes Dinosaur so they can't do that concept again." Okay. Then that's just an admission that the ride is going to be about Indiana Jones and not the mythical being because otherwise I don't see much of a distinction between what's being offered. Remove him and it's a ride about a big, scary thing you encounter in the jungle. You know...like Dinosaur. Maybe you can argue making it less scary (weenification) is going to be a big help in drawing people, but again, don't need Indy to do that.
Funny no one thought to just port the ride over when they built the park if Indy's clearly such a perfect fit. Actually, funny how none of the rides in Animal Kingdom had any human animatronics until now even though they had the technology for it back then. Hm...
Last edited: