If Antonio doesn't have to be the star, how would the attraction be about animals, therefore "fitting" in Animal Kingdom? It's like saying, hey, there's a scene in Sleeping Beauty where she's in the forest dancing around with animals, so they should build a Sleeping Beauty ride in Animal Kingdom.
And what's the justification for Indiana Jones or Coco in Animal Kingdom?
Antonio doesn't have to be the star to be an operative part of the narrative. The narrative could revolve around Antonio's animal friends getting lost or hurt, while the family (all acting as stars, maybe with Mirabel in the lead) must band together and use their powers to save them while traveling through the non-Euclidian geometry of the Casita. Indiana Jones could feature a narrative about some ancient deity with a connection to animals and nature. Maybe some archeologists have disturbed a fragile ecosystem with an improper excavation and the gods are angered. They unleash a giant ancient panther or other South American predator (a Carnotaurus perhaps?) and Indy must help us escape it. Coco prominently features the alebrijes, a mythological creature, so they could absolutely feature in a spinner attraction. Mythological animals are baked into Animal Kingdom's DNA.
With all that said, none of these particularly mirror the themes at play in their source material. Animals, nature, and conservation are not thematically relevant to the
films Encanto and Coco which are about human familial relationships. Additionally, Indiana Jones as a franchise is mostly about fighting greed and keeping ancient powers out of the wrong hands; not exactly conservation. But just because these films don't feature these themes does not mean the story in these attractions are incapable of doing so. It's not hard to imagine at all, I was able to come up with these examples in just a few minutes.
For many years now Disney has been trying to stray away from book report rides and retelling the story of films on their attractions. As a sort of compromise to the IP mandate, many Imagineers would rather write a new story for these universes and characters instead of regurgitating what Hollywood has already put out. This is why we got Batuu instead of Tatooine; it's why Pandora, FEA, and Tiana's are all set years after their respective films.
In film or any other media, when writing a sequel to an existing work, a writer typically does not want to re-tread the same thematic beats of the first work in their continuation because there is an expectation that the characters grew and developed with those themes already. In a sequel, you want to tread new thematic ground. Why then, are so many theme park enthusiasts angered by the prospect of a new story in a familiar setting? If we truly want the themed entertainment industry to be recognized as a legitimate form of storytelling media then we should be encouraging continuations of existing films, not retellings of them.
We should also be encouraging original properties entirely separate from film but unfortunately executives seem to work extra hard to kill new IP, the very lifeblood of their industry. But that's a different discussion.
