Dranth
Well-Known Member
I get it, but we don't know how they are going to handle AK yet so I'll wait and see. I thought Avatar was going to be a terrible addition and they proved me wrong there so hopefully they do that again.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News 'Encanto' and 'Indiana Jones'-themed experiences at Animal Kingdom
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Marc Davis Fan
Well-Known Member
I hope they really are considering moving some of the Dinoland materials* into the Wonders of Life building.
It seems like such an obvious thing to do, it's hard to imagine they haven't at least considered it. A paleontology pavilion would fit World Discovery, make "legacy fans" happy by being non-IP, be inexpensive to create because they already have both the materials and the unused space, keep dinosaurs represented in WDW, be a nice area for people to relax indoors (especially between doing World Discovery's thrill rides), etc.
*e.g., "Dino Sue," fossil replicas from the CTX queue and gift shop, some things from The Boneyard...
It seems like such an obvious thing to do, it's hard to imagine they haven't at least considered it. A paleontology pavilion would fit World Discovery, make "legacy fans" happy by being non-IP, be inexpensive to create because they already have both the materials and the unused space, keep dinosaurs represented in WDW, be a nice area for people to relax indoors (especially between doing World Discovery's thrill rides), etc.
*e.g., "Dino Sue," fossil replicas from the CTX queue and gift shop, some things from The Boneyard...
el_super
Well-Known Member
Wait.. you do realize that time travel isn't real right?
el_super
Well-Known Member
Yeah .. because not all capacity is the same. No matter how many billions they pour into their other parks, MK will always be on top, and MK will always have the highest demand. Why fault them for trying to make the other parks more like MK when they would just otherwise be failures?
The Leader of the Club
Well-Known Member
If you don’t like mish mashing IP then I don’t get why you’re praising the Universal Parks. Or does ”originality” not matter when it’s not Disney?
GhostHost1000
Premium Member
Oh I’m very aware. I’ve been waiting on Disney to travel back in time on a few things for years
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
Universal was never built the same as Disney parks. Islands of Adventure still has kept to it's theme of different islands. Epic Universe is doing something similar.
You're missing my point. When Epcot, AK, and Hollywood Studios started they all were different and unique. That's what made Disney better.
KDM31091
Well-Known Member
Totally agree. The parks are blending more and more together and I think that is not a good thing.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
What makes something fit in one of Universal’s parks but not the other? None of the properties in Epic Universe are unique to that park concept. Even ideas for new additions can and do get kicked around the three Orlando parks for consideration.
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
That was my point. Universals parks don't have a theme like the Disney parks once did. Its why I hate a lot of what they are doing now. Instead of staying with the theme of each park, they are just an extension of MK
Brer Panther
Well-Known Member
Well, let's think about it for a second... first of all, getting live animals would be expensive. And Iger hates additions to the parks that could be expensive. I'd be shocked if there were any live animals as part of this land, which is being built to push IPs and not educate parkgoers on Tropical American wildlife. Second, even if there will be some live animals, they won't be the focus of the land. There isn't going to be another Kilimanjaro Safaris, I'd be shocked if there was even a trail like Maharaja Jungle Trek. The focus will be on the IP-based rides - which, again, are based on IPs that star HUMANS and have no major animal characters in them.
An actual Amazon Rainforest land, focused on actual South American animals, with IPs that would actually FIT THE PARK (Up and Rio for example), would work great for Animal Kingdom. A recreation of the town from Encanto with an Indiana Jones ride in the back and a Coco flat ride would not.
It's like if, when they were building the park, they just had the Asia section be some sort of Mulan Land because, hey, Mulan takes place in Asia even though it's not about animals.
Yes. This.
Even ignoring the fact that Antonio is a minor character, the idea that the hypothetical Encanto attraction will focus on him and Dolores teaching us about nature is very unlikely. People were claiming that Frozen Ever After might teach us about Norway, and it didn't. Then there were theories that the Guardians of the Galaxy ride would teach us about energy, and look how THAT turned out. Heck, The Seas With Nemo and Friends could've used the IP to teach riders about sea creatures, and instead we got a rehash of the movie.
I guarantee you it'll focus on the popular merchandise-selling characters - Mirabel, Bruno, maybe Luisa too. And they'll all sing songs from the movie as the vehicle goes by. Nothing to do with animals whatsoever.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
In the film, the only three rooms we see are Antonio's, Isabela's, and Bruno's, and Bruno's is ruined. Antonio himself might be a minor character, but the rooms he and Isabela occupy, which are coincidentally the two most appropriate for this park, comprise two-thirds of the pocket dimensions beyond Casita's magical doors that we actually know about. If the ride explores the house, I feel more confident that we'll see significant content from their rooms than I do that they'll invent rooms for the other six characters that presumably have them.
And again, my point is not that they will use the film's content correctly, just that acting as if there's not a tremendously obvious way that Encanto can work in the park isn't grounded in reality.
Every land in the park is preceded by a "village" or "market". The one proposed in the artwork is not a recreation of Encanto's town but a tropical Americas village based on Barichara and places like it.
Brer Panther
Well-Known Member
Still, I doubt that the Encanto ride will focus on Antonio and/or Dolores over the more popular Mirabel.
SplashJacket
Well-Known Member
Best case scenario it visits La Casita with Mirabel as a host (like Henry Mystic) and Antonio/other small humans as mischievous side kicks (like Albert).
Then everything turns to chaos in the mid-sections while visiting the rooms of the house (Bruno, Antonio, Dolores) with Mirabel acting as the preshow and ride bookends.
I’ve long wanted an adapted Mystic Manor for Animal Kingdom (previously wanted a Mystic Safari concept, perhaps at the base of Everest), but this is actually likely to happen.
They’ve been given a layup for this, hopefully They knock it out of the park.
Overall, Encanto (and also Coco) lend themselves far better to expansive impressive attractions than Frozen or even Tangled, IMHO.
So I’m very excited what they’ll do.
Disney's MGM Studios was literally Michael Eisner's attempt to beat Universal to the Orlando market by copying their "ride the movies" mixed with a working studio. There's simply no argument that Hollywood studios is different or unique or somehow makes Disney better: that's a fundamental mischaracterization of how theme parks were developed in the Orlando market.
At this point it's all speculation but I see no reason why Antonio's room can't be the primary setting for the ride but features characters like Mirabel more prominently in the action, they don't have to exclusively stay in their own rooms...
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
I know how it was created. I'm not comparing Disney and Universal. Everyone is completely missing my point.
When you go back to the 90s after Animal Kingdom opened, each park felt different. They all had a different theme and all had a different vibe. It really was what seperated Disney from everyone else. Since then the parks are slowly becoming an extension of Magic Kingdom.
TheIceBaron
Well-Known Member
It’s the only park though that doesn’t have at least one other non-bus option. I don’t know about you but whenever I travel with my family there is fierce opposition to traveling by bus which usually means animal kingdom gets visited the least. Honestly whenever we stay at a particular resort we end up visiting the park that’s closest to our hotel the most. Really only one hotel fits that bill for animal kingdom.
That’s my entire point though is AK sometimes misses the convenience guest, the guest that is there because it’s convenient. It is convenient for pretty much no one and isn’t open late either.
the_rich
Well-Known Member
Imo this doesn't make sense, the magic kingdom has a bus only option except for 3 resorts. And the skyliner only services 4 for hs and Epcot. That isn't much of a difference. I always travel by bus unless I'm staying in a monorail resort which isnt the norm.
TheIceBaron
Well-Known Member
It doesn’t make sense to you because you experience Disney parks differently than maybe other people do?
Many people I know specifically do not stay at a resort if it only has bus available options (like the cheapest deluxe AK lodge). If you are staying at a deluxe resort with robust transportation options, time is at a premium. So waiting a half hour for bus to even arrive let alone finally get to its final destination is costly with the limited time on your hands.
Since AK doesn’t have any guests that can arrive quickly, it will hold back the attendance at the park, particularly later in the day.
the_rich
Well-Known Member
Almost all the deluxe resorts only have one way to get to mk..three have the monorail and three(2 of which have the monorail) use boats. So most people use the buses to get there. I guess if you stay at one of the Epcot deluxe resorts you don't go to magic kingdom so you don't have to get on a bus.