You can feel however you want about IP going everywhere. I'm just saying that his presence in every version of this ride is basically to say a sentence at the start, disappear for the vast duration of the ride, dodge a trap, and then note, "Whew! That was a close one," at the end. The general substance of his character and his history is largely irrelevant to this attraction, assuming it is similarly formatted. There is no reason to assume they have to "change" his character to fit as you suggested when we've seen that he'll probably be largely inactive and minimally present.
They don't have to change the character, it means they just plop the same formula and the IP it is based on is not a fit for the park.
So if the character does not feature details in the ride that alter him to fit the theme, and the IP does not fit the theme...
That means the park was bent to get IP in.
The character is the title and main character, and arguably THE IP of the film. He is a serial adventure story character.
If your best argument is his presence is largely irrelevant, then the park took the hit.
IP can be chosen to put in very well be it reference or main concept of a major attraction. It is not mutually exclusive.
"The IP is only there minimally" is not really a strong argument to say it is done well in fitting.
That just proves the point.