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

[lazyboy97o]

Generally, I’m against shoehorning IP. But you’ve got to admit it would seem like a big mistake for Disney NOT to include film IP in the parks. In fact, Disney often refers to the fact that in the darkest days of Epcot, it routinely received low guest satisfaction ratings due to it not feeling sufficiently “Disney.”

The low days when the park had attendance far closer to the Magic Kingdom and was profitable, helping keep the entire company profitable while the studio was losing money.

 

[_caleb]

The low days when the park had attendance far closer to the Magic Kingdom and was profitable, helping keep the entire company profitable while the studio was losing money.

Oh, I wasn’t referring to park attendance.

 

[TheIceBaron]

I think the IP mandate would be easier to swallow if Disney’s studios divisions actually made good movies and shows. Lately it’s been lopsidedly miss more than hits. They seem too focused on creating “content” rather than making timeless classics.

Which I think sours most of us on these forums because not only are profits from the parks subsidizing bad films and TV shows. The funds are siphoned enough that we don’t get many new attractions in the horizon. And the ones we do are only recent IP based attractions. Those bad films and tv shows are often sequels/spinoffs of existing IP which cheapens the IP itself and makes the attraction also feel less special. (Especially when done cheaply).

 

[rle4lunch]

The eternal IP debate. If you create something and copyright it, it's your IP, it's automatic! It's whether it fits thematically into a land that's important, not if the original creation has grown into a money making extended entity on its own merit/story.

 

[_caleb]

I think the IP mandate would be easier to swallow if Disney’s studios divisions actually made good movies and shows. Lately it’s been lopsidedly miss more than hits. They seem too focused on creating “content” rather than making timeless classics.

Which I think sours most of us on these forums because not only are profits from the parks subsidizing bad films and TV shows. The funds are siphoned enough that we don’t get many new attractions in the horizon. And the ones we do are only recent IP based attractions. Those bad films and tv shows are often sequels/spinoffs of existing IP which cheapens the IP itself and makes the attraction also feel less special. (Especially when done cheaply).

If the same old formula still worked, don’t you think they’d keep cranking out new “classics?”

 

[TheMaxRebo]

If the same old formula still worked, don’t you think they’d keep cranking out new “classics?”

Will be interesting to see how Wish performs and is received - it seems the most likely th classic formula is a long time and they have cranked up the marketing for it

If it bombs I think they have some serious issues

 

[Jrb1979]

If the same old formula still worked, don’t you think they’d keep cranking out new “classics?”

IMO the IP mandate isn't the issue as much as it's how lackluster a lot of the new attractions are. Outside of Rise when it's working properly, they aren't on the same level as the attractions built before them.

 

[TheIceBaron]

If the same old formula still worked, don’t you think they’d keep cranking out new “classics?”

I don’t really know what you mean by “same old formula” all I know is whatever they are doing now, whether a new or old approach, isn’t working.

It’s particularly telling that movies like Barbie, Oppenheimer and other non Disney owned movies are doing particularly well at the box office, while Disney movies have been consistently not profitable this year. This is also compounded by the fact that Disney+ is still currently losing money, despite continued promises of eventual profitability.

In short it’s a mentality that bleeds into the parks where Disney believes all it needs to do is put their name on anything and people will spend money and consume it. They seem to be forgetting why people even like them to begin with.

 

[ToTBellHop]

I don’t really know what you mean by “same old formula” all I know is whatever they are doing now, whether a new or old approach, isn’t working.

It’s particularly telling that movies like Barbie, Oppenheimer and other non Disney owned movies are doing particularly well at the box office, while Disney movies have been consistently not profitable this year. This is also compounded by the fact that Disney+ is still currently losing money, despite continued promises of eventual profitability.

In short it’s a mentality that bleeds into the parks where Disney believes all it needs to do is put their name on anything and people will spend money and consume it. They seem to be forgetting why people even like them to begin with.

It’s not the Disney name that prints money. It’s the use of a + sign. Start releasing Marvel+ films and they’ll make billions!

 

[TheMaxRebo]

I don’t really know what you mean by “same old formula” all I know is whatever they are doing now, whether a new or old approach, isn’t working.

It’s particularly telling that movies like Barbie, Oppenheimer and other non Disney owned movies are doing particularly well at the box office, while Disney movies have been consistently not profitable this year. This is also compounded by the fact that Disney+ is still currently losing money, despite continued promises of eventual profitability.

In short it’s a mentality that bleeds into the parks where Disney believes all it needs to do is put their name on anything and people will spend money and consume it. They seem to be forgetting why people even like them to begin with.

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

 

[Brer Panther]

plenty of non-Disney films disappointed as well.

Indeed. Shazam was DC, not Marvel, and it flopped. Ruby Gillman was DreamWorks, the animation studio that everybody was going nuts about and claiming was "triumphing over Disney", and it flopped. Heck, even in 2022, while Disney's theatrical releases (Lightyear, Strange World) were flops, it's not like ONLY Disney's movies were underperforming.

Hey, how have Disney's recent re-releases for the 100th anniversary been doing box office-wise?

 

[Twirlnhurl]

Hey, how have Disney's recent re-releases for the 100th anniversary been doing box office-wise?

Nightmare Before Christmas has been doing pretty well (over $8 million with a healthy per theater average).

Hocus Pocus wasn't as successful, but not terrible ($4.8 million).

But to bring this back around to the topic at hand, IP is only moderately predictive of the success of a themed land. Whether the IP has theme park ready moments is very important, and execution is obviously the most important.

Oppenheimer is a hugely successful movie, but wouldn't work in a theme park, for instance.

Indiana Jones and Encanto are full of theme park ready moments, so it is going to be down to execution.

 

[SpectreJordan]

Displaying less exotic European species with the cottage as a setting? Would love to see diversity in Animal Kingdom.

It'd have to be a cottage that's in a heavily forested area. The large amounts of foliage is part of what makes DAK so special IMO; it adds so much natural life & beauty to the park. I hope any future expansions continue on that path.

And that would render Encanto even more inappropriate for the park.

Perhaps if it would be renamed to "Disney's Movie-IPs-that-are-not-about-animals-but-have-animals-as-a-secondary-subplot-to-the-main-plot Kingdom" then it could incorporate any movie that had a connection to animals, and introduce attarctions based on those movies that re-tell the movies but without using the animals. [That's what they did to EPCOT wasn't it, with Frozen, Ratatouille, BATB - using Norway and France as the tenuous connections but then not actually using the countries in the attraction)

Ratatouille is a good fit for EPCOT though. Food is a big part of French culture & the ride takes you through a French kitchen.

Pandora is AK's version of The Land Pavilion with Soarin (FoP) and LwTL (NRJ aka the boat ride no one likes but praises the one at Epcot).

LwTL is pretty lengthy & its wait times are almost always worth it. NRJ is pretty short but has some of the worst wait times at WDW; the ride is pretty good though, it'd even be a favorite of mine if it was longer.

 

[Bocabear]

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...

 

[UNCgolf]

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...

I don't think it needs a story; most (although not all) of the best Disney attractions don't really have significantly more story (at least not in terms of a linear on-ride narrative) than NRJ does. It's more about the moment to moment experience/immersion and NRJ nails that.

Everything else you mentioned would absolutely be great, but it's essentially just a complaint that it's not an E ticket. I don't think that's a fair way to look at the ride. It's not supposed to be an E ticket.

It would likely be classified as a C (like Peter Pan, Mr. Toad, and Snow White) in the old ticket books and it's probably the best C at WDW.

 

[SpectreJordan]

I think a North America forest land could work in Animal Kingdom. There's a lot of animals you could include... grizzly bears, moose, raccoons, rabbits, foxes, wolves... maybe you could include some Bambi or Brother Bear stuff in there if you want to include IPs (Disney probably wouldn't, since neither of those are "flavor of the month" IPs that are popular right now, but still...).

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.

I'd still love for it to happen; North America has some of the most beautiful wilderness & wildlife in the world. I'd prefer for a land like this to have original rides though... soooo Disney probably isn't interested in that nowadays.

IMO the IP mandate isn't the issue as much as it's how lackluster a lot of the new attractions are. Outside of Rise when it's working properly, they aren't on the same level as the attractions built before them.

From a pure coaster perspective, Guardians is the best coaster Disney's ever made. Every time I ride it the people in my cars are absolutely glowing, I've even had people clap when it was over too. It's not as visually impressive as Big Thunder or Everest, but it absolutely nails the fun factor.

I'm not as big of a fan of Flight of Passage as some people are, but it's still insanely beloved. It's definitely the best use of screens I've seen, it's a great experience.

Ratatouille isn't amazing but it's sort of the evolution of the classic dark ride & I think it does good job there. It's a pretty cute ride; the wait times for it are insane though but that's because EPCOT desperately needs more rides.

 

[Bocabear]

I don't think it needs a story; most (although not all) of the best Disney attractions don't really have significantly more story (at least not in terms of a linear on-ride narrative) than NRJ does. It's more about the moment to moment experience/immersion and NRJ nails that.

Everything else you mentioned would absolutely be great, but it's essentially just a complaint that it's not an E ticket. I don't think that's a fair way to look at the ride. It's not supposed to be an E ticket.

It would likely be classified as a C (like Peter Pan, Mr. Toad, and Snow White) in the old ticket books and it's probably the best C at WDW.

I used the word "story" and I meant narrative...a throughline that is not just woods and projected animals and one AA at the end... It does not necessarily need a story but some sense of journey....a beginning middle and end... Pirates and Haunted Mansion have a sort of narrative... NRJ needs a better one... One that offers a little more. IMO

 

[MR.Dis]

I don't think it needs a story; most (although not all) of the best Disney attractions don't really have significantly more story (at least not in terms of a linear on-ride narrative) than NRJ does. It's more about the moment to moment experience/immersion and NRJ nails that.

Everything else you mentioned would absolutely be great, but it's essentially just a complaint that it's not an E ticket. I don't think that's a fair way to look at the ride. It's not supposed to be an E ticket.

It would likely be classified as a C (like Peter Pan, Mr. Toad, and Snow White) in the old ticket books and it's probably the best C at WDW.

My biggest complaint on complainers is they expect every ride to be an E ticket. Numerous complaints about say the Little Mermaid ride in MK--yet I have NEVER heard a 10 yo or younger child complain about the ride or say anything other than can we do it again. The biggest issue with NRJ is the ride system. Instead of designing boats that hold more capacity (say like the boats in Pirates or Its a Small World) we have these small capacity boats. When I was there a few days ago, the stand by wait for Flight of Passage was 60 minutes but the same time the wait was 70 min on NRJ, now does that make sense to anyone?

 

[ToTBellHop]

I love NRJ—when I wait 20 min or less. I’d be angry if I waited 80 mins.

 

[Indy_UK]

I love NRJ—when I wait 20 min or less. I’d be angry if I waited 80 mins.

Agreed but for me I would wait 80 minutes for NRJ compared to the 180 minutes I waited for King Kong in IoA when it opened.

Biggest waste of 3 hours in my whole life