WondersOfLife
Blink, blink. Breathe, breathe. Day in, day out.
So why not keep Dinosaurs?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Dinoland Replacement Poll
- Thread starter The Grand Inquisitor
- Start date
Personally an Ice Age area wouldn't have to revolve around the IP entirely it can still be educational about the time period and the different animals. Plus the 3rd movie had Dinosaurs. Who's to say we would lose dinosaurs at the park 
networkpro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
I already have that in the pasture. Dont need any more hay burners to feed.
Prototype82
Well-Known Member
Build Australia. Please Build Australia....Like Anandapur and Harambe, it would be it's own original land complete with a town, delicious food, a wildlife sanctuary, live music and aboriginal artwork... In other words, a land that would never happen.
Last edited:
I like Dinoland some what I think if they took the carnival area and made a good boat ride/dark ride with dinos on it would be better than what they have tho. I prefer them to stay away from IP when working on a whole land. Definitely at the Animal kingdom . Having Pandora has a alien planet type thing sort of works but I would for sure stop at that.
The problem with "Dinosaurs" as a land will always be in it's comparison to Uni's Jurassic Park whether it's a fair comparison or not. Expanding Dinoland isn't a bad idea it's just that the concept has to be that much better or unique in it's execution. They already tried that with Dinorama's carnival aesthetic and "failed" for lack of a better term. They can of course add an Excavator coaster and theme the area around a new storyline (or rework the old one) but one has to wonder if that would work or if it would be better to just develop a completely different concept for the land; possibly not around dinosaurs.
Not saying it's a good idea just that it's likely been considered and discussed ad nauseam.
Not saying it's a good idea just that it's likely been considered and discussed ad nauseam.
FigmentJedi
Well-Known Member
Universal does not hold exclusive rights over the concept of Dinosaurs and Jurassic Park needs to stop being the only major and current dinosaur franchise in mass media.
Brer Panther
Well-Known Member
I vote for the "a dinosaurs/prehistoric animals-themed land that's actually good" option.
Of the choices in the poll, I'd be okay with some Ice Age stuff.
Of the choices in the poll, I'd be okay with some Ice Age stuff.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
One of my major disappointments with animal kingdom, was that they didn’t put pride rock into the lion exhibit on the safari. Total missed opportunity.
pastrypossum
Member
Improve it. Bring the area up to par with the rest of the park. I’d kill - KILL! - to see the area become an intensely immersive & intimate experience Imbued with the 21st century’s understanding of dinosaurs in the Cretaceous period.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
As a dinosaur fan since before I can remember, I would love this. Unfortunately as I've said before, I don't see them doing that because of Universal and jurassic world. Unfortunately if we're lucky we get a good dinosaur overlay at best.
What they should do, is since epcot is dead as a concept. Remove the seas and create a great barrier reef area in the dinoland area. you can still have dinosaur and a small section for dinoland. just convert the blacktop half over to Australia. It would then give placement to the nemo show.
SyracuseDisneyFan
Well-Known Member
Zootopia
Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
Looking on Google Earth, I can see why Dinoland is probably here to stay, or even if it is replaced, we won't get something a whole lot better. The footprint simply isn't very large, and it's hemmed in pretty tightly by water, the Nemo theater and logistical support structures. There just isn't room for anything more elaborate.
That being said, Animal Kingdom has a fairly large piece of what appears to undeveloped land, immediately to the north of the Asia section. This might be a more likely area for expansion than replacing Dinoland.
That being said, Animal Kingdom has a fairly large piece of what appears to undeveloped land, immediately to the north of the Asia section. This might be a more likely area for expansion than replacing Dinoland.
JIMINYCR
Well-Known Member
I'm OK with keeping the Dinosaur attraction which should stay, because its thrilling and popular. Over time it hasnt lost its draw. But AK should be about the care of animals, conservation/ ecosystem themed and if you are removing Dinoland you should continue the realm of conservation and animal care. Having Dinosaurs would fall outside of the idea of live animal conservation and care. Unless Disney can come up with a live Dinosaur to exhibit.
Model3 McQueen
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Where's the "non" option? Keep the dino theme. It just needs a renovation.
Simba’s Mom
Active Member
I love Dinoland. It reminds me of the kind of place Clark Griswold would take his family to on the way to "Wally World". I keep waiting to see the Family Truckster around the next corner (yes, I've watched "National Lampoon's Vacation" a few hundred times).
FettFan
Well-Known Member
It won’t be replaced. Dinosaurs are getting a resurgence of popularity thanks to Colin Trevorrow’s Jurassic World movies.
And since Disney doesn’t own Universal or the JP franchise (yet), they’re going to want to keep Dinoland USA where it is.
Also, points off for not including Pixar’s “Good Dinosaur” as an option. While it wasn’t a great movie, it was still pretty good.
It’s like Pixar’s Pizza. Even if it’s bad, it’s still pizza.