News 'Encanto' and 'Indiana Jones'-themed experiences at Animal Kingdom

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
Me too. It's not a 60+ minute wait kind of ride.

That's really a failure on Disney for not having more to do at DAK, though, as opposed to a failure of the ride itself.
Absolutely. It’s crazy to me that, at minimum, they haven’t started the 3rd Pandora attraction. The land is popular and the films still make a ton. C’mon. Get moving! Seems like the type of project Iger would actually approve, too.
 

TheMaxRebo

Well-Known Member
Absolutely. It’s crazy to me that, at minimum, they haven’t started the 3rd Pandora attraction. The land is popular and the films still make a ton. C’mon. Get moving! Seems like the type of project Iger would actually approve, too.

Yeah, add the third attraction there and a the TS restaurant

Plus that will make it easier to take Dino down for the retheme if something new to take that capacity
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
Absolutely. It’s crazy to me that, at minimum, they haven’t started the 3rd Pandora attraction. The land is popular and the films still make a ton. C’mon. Get moving! Seems like the type of project Iger would actually approve, too.
Not sure if you're projecting here, but this is largely a function of Dinorama taking too long. Primeval Whirl went to seasonal operation in June of 2019 and fully closed in July of 2020 (not sure if it actually re-opened after COVID). Regardless, even those dates were probably too much a case of them dragging their feet. It's now been 3+ years with only vague concept art released about a replacement for the area. Also, all that would do is bring the attraction count for the park back up to it's peak.
 

Brer Panther

Well-Known Member
It's sort of shocking that this wasn't a land from the beginning. AK launched 3 years after Pocahantas, so I feel a land like that would've been really popular. I feel like AK partially exists because of the immense success of The Lion King, it would've made sense to throw in a North American land because of Pocahantas too.
Maybe they thought Camp Minnie-Mickey qualified as a "North America land"?
 

HMF

Well-Known Member
It's sort of shocking that this wasn't a land from the beginning. AK launched 3 years after Pocahantas, so I feel a land like that would've been really popular. I feel like AK partially exists because of the immense success of The Lion King, it would've made sense to throw in a North American land because of Pocahantas too.
Considering how Pocahontas the movie handled real american history . I think it was wise not to have a dedicated land at Animal Kingdom.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
NRJ suffers from a lack of pacing and story... It needs a beginning middle and end...not just the repetitious droning music and luminous foliage...It needs the glowing tree of life finale in a massive show building set... The Shaman should be about midway...more AAs...a small drop a-la-pirates... It just needs something...

NSFW language...

 

TheIceBaron

Well-Known Member
I think there are also just fewer 'Mega hits" overall and not just Disney suffering. Only 2 billion $ movies this year (Oppenheimer is getting close) and Disney still has 4 of the top 10 highest grossing movies of the year and plenty of non-Disney films disappointed as well.

Think just the way you capture the attention and become a "thing" is a bit different nowadays and the old ways of marketing don't really work. Will be interesting to see how Wish does as on paper it has all the elements to be a classic Disney hit - but if it way underperforms that will be a pretty bad sign

View attachment 752088

Yes but are Disney’s movies profitable? It’s one thing to be high grossing, but after the movie theater takes their cut and after the budget and marketing are considered, I’m willing to wager Disney’s movies continue to have bloated budgets. For example Indy 5 had a budget of $300 million not including marketing.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Yes but are Disney’s movies profitable?
You mean in the theatrical or post-theatrical window?

We have a very general and loosey-goosey rule of thumb for figuring out if a movie turned a profit in the theatrical window (most don't).

But after they've been in theaters, movies continue to bring in revenue with pay-per-view streaming, digital sales, physical material (Blu-Ray, DVD), streaming, premium channels, broadcast, and merch. These post-theatrical windows can bring in tens or even hundreds of millions more depending on the movie.

Disney films have a huge advantage in the post-theatrical windows due to Disney's synergy machineries.

Unless the loss in the theaters was huge, most Disney movies eventually turn a profit.
 

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
Do we really need a bona fide N. America land? Like, “ooh a rabbit and a duck! Amazing!” And then, “Mom, we saw both while walking to the food court at Pop this morning…~eyeroll~”
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Do we really need a bona fide N. America land? Like, “ooh a rabbit and a duck! Amazing!” And then, “Mom, we saw both while walking to the food court at Pop this morning…~eyeroll~”
We already have North America Land in Living with the Land. You can see a few buffalo, some prairie dogs, and a dog. Not to mention all the wildlife that remarkably is there in the dessert but not at all shown... but they're there!
 

Sir_Cliff

Well-Known Member
Do we really need a bona fide N. America land? Like, “ooh a rabbit and a duck! Amazing!” And then, “Mom, we saw both while walking to the food court at Pop this morning…~eyeroll~”
If they could include different environments, that would be kind of cool. For example, woodlands, deserts, prairies, etc. with the different flora and fauna. Typing that out, though, I can't imagine Iger jumping out of his seat at hearing the proposal and green lighting $500million to make it a reality.
 

McMickeyWorld

Well-Known Member
Do we really need a bona fide N. America land? Like, “ooh a rabbit and a duck! Amazing!” And then, “Mom, we saw both while walking to the food court at Pop this morning…~eyeroll~”
Coyote_by_Rebecca_Richardson.jpg
como_es_un_gato_montes_31039_orig.jpg
NationalGeographic_2697714 (1).jpg
large.jpg
5372.600x450.jpg
perro_de_las_praderas_210_600_square.jpg
1200px-Desert_Bighorn_Sheep_Joshua_Tree_4.jpeg
1-8.jpg
oso_grizzly_102_orig.jpg
puma_36_orig.jpg


May be...
 

SpectreJordan

Well-Known Member
Maybe they thought Camp Minnie-Mickey qualified as a "North America land"?
I guess that makes sense given what they did for a Dinosaur land.
Considering how Pocahontas the movie handled real american history . I think it was wise not to have a dedicated land at Animal Kingdom.
I don't think it would've been a Pocahontas land, but a North American land with Pocahontas elements in it; stuff that could be easily removed since the movie's now outdated. Similar to how Africa isn't Lion King themed but TLK has a healthy presence in it.
Do we really need a bona fide N. America land? Like, “ooh a rabbit and a duck! Amazing!” And then, “Mom, we saw both while walking to the food court at Pop this morning…~eyeroll~”
North America has a variety of beautiful animals within it, the diversity goes far beyond the animals that wander into your backyard. Especially when you consider how many biomes are on this continent.
 

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
I guess that makes sense given what they did for a Dinosaur land.

I don't think it would've been a Pocahontas land, but a North American land with Pocahontas elements in it; stuff that could be easily removed since the movie's now outdated. Similar to how Africa isn't Lion King themed but TLK has a healthy presence in it.

North America has a variety of beautiful animals within it, the diversity goes far beyond the animals that wander into your backyard. Especially when you consider how many biomes are on this continent.
I just don’t think people pay Disney prices to see animals that live near them and/or are visible at the local zoo. The local zoo may also have a lion or an elephant but Disney has an impressive assortment of animals that most WDW guests find exotic.

Also, it’s hard to pull off multiple biomes with the way DAK lands are themed. Asia could include Siberia for some variety, too, but they stay tropical except for the peak of Everest. If you want multiple biomes, how effective can your 1 acre tundra section really be?

At a guess, I imagine they’ve decided an animal park in Florida most realistically showcases hot places. The Blizzard Beach treatment is fun for a water park but would be ridiculous here.
 

SpectreJordan

Well-Known Member
I just don’t think people pay Disney prices to see animals that live near them and/or are visible at the local zoo. The local zoo may also have a lion or an elephant but Disney has an impressive assortment of animals that most WDW guests find exotic.

Also, it’s hard to pull off multiple biomes with the way DAK lands are themed. Asia could include Siberia for some variety, too, but they stay tropical except for the peak of Everest. If you want multiple biomes, how effective can your 1 acre tundra section really be?

At a guess, I imagine they’ve decided an animal park in Florida most realistically showcases hot places. The Blizzard Beach treatment is fun for a water park but would be ridiculous here.
How many people nowadays actually go out into the wilderness to see these animals though? I feel like Disney would elevate it from a normal zoo with their theming; imagine if they themed it to the forests of Canada or the Pacific Northwestern US, that could be stunning.

I do think doing South America first is the right play though. I'm excited about the possibilities this will bring.
 

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
How many people nowadays actually go out into the wilderness to see these animals though? I feel like Disney would elevate it from a normal zoo with their theming; imagine if they themed it to the forests of Canada or the Pacific Northwestern US, that could be stunning.

I do think doing South America first is the right play though. I'm excited about the possibilities this will bring.
Sure. After they build S. America and Australia, they can build Canada with black squirrels for my great, great, great, great grand kids to enjoy in 2107 😁

I’ll be there, too, of course.
1699032991878.jpeg
 

zipadee999

Well-Known Member
How many people nowadays actually go out into the wilderness to see these animals though? I feel like Disney would elevate it from a normal zoo with their theming; imagine if they themed it to the forests of Canada or the Pacific Northwestern US, that could be stunning.

I do think doing South America first is the right play though. I'm excited about the possibilities this will bring.
Exactly, and I think that this would help further differentiate the park from just a very high quality zoo. Most zoos in America just have a generic ‘jungle’ theme and let you see lions, tigers, elephants, etc. But how many let you see moose, elk, grizzly bears, or even a polar bear? I think the North American theme is relatively untapped when it comes to a zoo. Just imagine something that looks and feels like Grizzly Peak at DCA but with animal exhibits!
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom