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

Moth

Well-Known Member
I still can't get over how they're giving Indiana Jones, who's recent film is now sitting alongside John Carter as "one of the biggest flops of all time" is getting a whole ing land. Surely we can get Chicken Little in Epcot now, right?
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
I still can't get over how they're giving Indiana Jones, who's recent film is now sitting alongside John Carter as "one of the biggest flops of all time" is getting a whole ing land. Surely we can get Chicken Little in Epcot now, right?
Because IJ had successful movies as well as bombs. They're not going to make the ride based on one of the bombs. The IJ Stunt Show doesn't become horrible because of a recent dud. The IJ ride in DL doesn't become spurned by guests because of a recent dud.
 

britain

Well-Known Member
Two words: GIFT. SHOP.

If they can show that (despite the last two films being disappointments) the Indiana Jones IP is still popular enough to sell more fedoras, jackets and rubber snakes than anything sold at Chester & Hesters, it’s worth the change over.

It’s possible that they just wanted to see if dial of destiny really caused merchandise sales to dip at the DL Indiana Jones outpost. I suspect that it’s been long enough to demonstrate that the merchandise at that gift shop is moving as steadily as it ever has, and so adding the attraction to AK will be seen as a wise investment.
 

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
This I can confirm I’ve heard the same. It is being written and designed to be fully integrated into Animal Kingdom. It won’t be a clone, story wise to any other Indy ride.

So no animatronics, light on practical effects, heavy on screens and projection mapping with low hourly capacity?

I jest, of course... but that's also kind of my honest expectation when I hear they're going totally new these days.
 
Last edited:

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
Internally, it’s called, “Project Bruno,” but they don’t talk about it.
tenor.gif


Maybe I just went a little too meta...



Then again, merfolk are mythic creatures. :oops:
 

WorldExplorer

Well-Known Member
Two words: GIFT. SHOP.

If they can show that (despite the last two films being disappointments) the Indiana Jones IP is still popular enough to sell more fedoras, jackets and rubber snakes than anything sold at Chester & Hesters, it’s worth the change over.

It’s possible that they just wanted to see if dial of destiny really caused merchandise sales to dip at the DL Indiana Jones outpost. I suspect that it’s been long enough to demonstrate that the merchandise at that gift shop is moving as steadily as it ever has, and so adding the attraction to AK will be seen as a wise investment.

Indiana Jones would need to be a better seller than DINOSAURS, the notorious obsession of small children regardless of what movies they watch. I would need to see numbers to believe that. Especially since Disney doesn't treat Indy like a big merchandise seller in Disney World. It had a franchise-specific gift shop and yet they haven't bothered to reopen it and instead all the merchandise they sell can now fit on one five foot wide or so wall or one free standing display.

That's not even taking into account Dino-Rama's Baby's First Gambling Experience setup, which has to be a huge money funnel and they would lose with any proposed change.
 

Fox&Hound

Well-Known Member
I am really curious what happens to the boneyard play area with all of this. I hope they are not shortsighted and they remove it. Every park should have a safe place (like Dumbo in MK and the boneyard) where little kids can run free and be safe. Say what you will about Zootopia but retheming that area to little rodentia would have been adorable. Does this become part of Indy? Encanto?

Still wish Up was considered for this South America land. How DIS has not built Carl’s and Ellie’s house with all of the balloons above it in any of their parks is beyond me.
 

SpectreJordan

Well-Known Member
Dinosaurs are not a successful Disney IP/franchise...but they are for their main competitor.

So they're not a part of the Disney brand in the eyes of management.
I wish they'd make a Countdown to Extinction movie. It'd be a pretty fun premise for an adventure movie. They just need to get someone with some talent & vision for it like the Pirates trilogy had. Kind of a tall order for Disney nowadays though.
I still can't get over how they're giving Indiana Jones, who's recent film is now sitting alongside John Carter as "one of the biggest flops of all time" is getting a whole ing land. Surely we can get Chicken Little in Epcot now, right?
One flop, that is Disney's own fault in multiple ways, doesn't negate the massive success of the other four movies (Yes, even Skull was a big hit). It also doesn't negate how the Disneyland Indy ride is one of the most beloved Disney rides in the world.

I'd say Indy is a more reasonable choice for a new ride than something recent that's only had one movie. It's proven to be stable outside of Disney's recent failure.
 

Brer Panther

Well-Known Member
One flop, that is Disney's own fault in multiple ways, doesn't negate the massive success of the other four movies (Yes, even Skull was a big hit).
The 2011 Muppets movie being successful didn't stop Disney from not making any more theatrical Muppet movies after Muppets Most Wanted flopped.
 

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
I still can't get over how they're giving Indiana Jones, who's recent film is now sitting alongside John Carter as "one of the biggest flops of all time" is getting a whole ing land.

In the Behind the Attraction episode for Indiana Jones, Tony Baxter retells the story of Eisner saying "we can't afford not to do it". It had already been so many years since Last Crusade and they wanted to capitalize on the franchise while the character was still in the cultural zeitgeist.

Given the reception to the last 2 Indiana Jones movies, its obvious the character [and his actor] is way past its prime, even if there's still nostalgia for the original trilogy.

It doesn't make sense from Iger's IP philosophy, except it was one he bought himself and maybe feels obligated to use it.
 

SpectreJordan

Well-Known Member
The 2011 Muppets movie being successful didn't stop Disney from not making any more theatrical Muppet movies after Muppets Most Wanted flopped.
As a big Muppets fan, I definitely wish they'd treat the series better. But Muppet movies were never as big as the Indy movies were. So, I'd understand why they'd want to keep trying with Indy here. We'll see if they actually do anything besides this ride though, I have my doubts about it.
 

Sorcerer Mickey

Well-Known Member
In the Behind the Attraction episode for Indiana Jones, Tony Baxter retells the story of Eisner saying "we can't afford not to do it". It had already been so many years since Last Crusade and they wanted to capitalize on the franchise while the character was still in the cultural zeitgeist.

Given the reception to the last 2 Indiana Jones movies, its obvious the character [and his actor] is way past its prime, even if there's still nostalgia for the original trilogy.

It doesn't make sense from Iger's IP philosophy, except it was one he bought himself and maybe feels obligated to use it.
It's becoming increasingly evident that all of Disney's once-biggest properties are past their prime. Indy, Star Wars...and now Marvel begins its descent. Perhaps it was a bad idea to run franchises into the forever. Everything must come to an end.

Maybe that's why the princesses live on in the parks without ill will, because we never had an extended Cinderella cinematic universe to exhaust our affection for singing mice, fairy godmothers, and pumpkin carriages. Each IP only has a finite amount of fuel in the tank before its exhaust begins to stink up the place.

People were passionate about Star Wars until 2017 and now there is so much resentment towards the galaxy far, far away, and now Disney has a billion-dollars sitting in the Florida open air that still needs to recoup its investment.

How does Disney move forward? Leave "Frozen" at two movies. Let Moana sail over the horizon. There's no need to explore every corner of Zootopia. Start seeding new IP. The most painful move would be to trash D+ because it is the primary reason why Disney feels the need to milk every one of its characters dry. Without the need to pay billions to maintain a streaming service and its steady cadence of content, Disney can focus on quality and carefully curate the image around those hits that make a connection with audiences.
 

Brer Panther

Well-Known Member
As a big Muppets fan, I definitely wish they'd treat the series better. But Muppet movies were never as big as the Indy movies were. So, I'd understand why they'd want to keep trying with Indy here. We'll see if they actually do anything besides this ride though, I have my doubts about it.
My point was more that Disney rarely seems to realize that it's their fault if a movie flops, so I doubt they'd find a reason for why the Indiana Jones movie would've flopped other than "Meh, I guess people just don't like Indiana Jones anymore."
 

SpectreJordan

Well-Known Member
My point was more that Disney rarely seems to realize that it's their fault if a movie flops, so I doubt they'd find a reason for why the Indiana Jones movie would've flopped other than "Meh, I guess people just don't like Indiana Jones anymore."
Oh, fair. That's why I'm worried about the future of the series outside of this ride. This ride could just be a fluke with someone high up in Imagineering being an Indy fanboy or something. Meanwhile, LF might view it as a dead series.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom