• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Rumor Is Indiana Jones Planning an Adventure to Disney's Animal Kingdom?

atighe42

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
BTW, I've heard recently that TDO is liking the cheaper DHS/Indy plan over the more expensive DAK pitch.
What is that cheaper plan? Do you have any info you could share?
 

tirian

Well-Known Member
Considering the park has dropped the "working studio" facade (pun intended) the show no longer seems big. Great show but the land could be used in a better and more immersive way. With a different IP.

Hollywood is too small for Indy.
I’m trying to find the pun. Have you ever seen the British mockumentary “Come Fly with Me”? ;)
 

ChewbaccaYourMum

Well-Known Member
BTW, I've heard recently that TDO is liking the cheaper DHS/Indy plan over the more expensive DAK pitch.
I love Indiana Jones and have been dying for something huge from that franchise in Disney World for way too long. If this is the case though then I really don't care what all the naysayers have to say about this. I would much rather the more expensive (most likely whole land with multiple rides?) plan in Animal Kingdom happen than the dumb coaster from Paris just be thrown in DHS (if that's what the "cheap" plan means).
Everyone says how Pandora fits so perfectly in theme and setting in Animal Kingdom, but in all honesty whenever I walk in there I don't even feel like I'm in Animal Kingdom anymore. And I'm NOT saying this as it's a bad thing! I'm just saying I feel like I'm just not there anymore.
My point is that if they make a huge land with ruins everywhere and some great rides based on Indiana Jones, once I walk in that land in Animal Kingdom, I'm probably going to feel the same way like I currently feel when I walk into Pandora.. Like I'm just not in Animal Kingdom anymore.
So whatever, I know all the naysayers out there won't even have fun with the idea of making Indy fit, but if it's between an expensive huge land, much more deserving for Indy, and a cheap presence in DHS.. then sign me up for ruining the "theme" and "setting" and whatever else in Animal Kingdom.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
I love Indiana Jones and have been dying for something huge from that franchise in Disney World for way too long. If this is the case though then I really don't care what all the naysayers have to say about this. I would much rather the more expensive (most likely whole land with multiple rides?) plan in Animal Kingdom happen than the dumb coaster from Paris just be thrown in DHS (if that's what the "cheap" plan means).
Everyone says how Pandora fits so perfectly in theme and setting in Animal Kingdom, but in all honesty whenever I walk in there I don't even feel like I'm in Animal Kingdom anymore. And I'm NOT saying this as it's a bad thing! I'm just saying I feel like I'm just not there anymore.
My point is that if they make a huge land with ruins everywhere and some great rides based on Indiana Jones, once I walk in that land in Animal Kingdom, I'm probably going to feel the same way like I currently feel when I walk into Pandora.. Like I'm just not in Animal Kingdom anymore.
So whatever, I know all the naysayers out there won't even have fun with the idea of making Indy fit, but if it's between an expensive huge land, much more deserving for Indy, and a cheap presence in DHS.. then sign me up for ruining the "theme" and "setting" and whatever else in Animal Kingdom.
I love Indy.

I love the Indiana jones adventure.

I would love to have an amazing Indy attraction at WDW.

But I’m not so desperate for it that I would wish for it to be somewhere it doesn’t belong.
 

ChewbaccaYourMum

Well-Known Member
I love Indy.

I love the Indiana jones adventure.

I would love to have an amazing Indy attraction at WDW.

But I’m not so desperate for it that I would wish for it to be somewhere it doesn’t belong.
I agree with you 100% ! I would absolutely LOVE for them to just put this "expensive plan" in DHS or even that huge expansion pad in Aventureland next to Pirates maybe... But I'm just saying if this is really how they're going to play this (which is very cruel) Animal Kingdom expensive land pitch vs cheap DHS pitch... then I just have to side with getting the better option.

It's just sad, if this is true, that that's how they are viewing this... Like, why not just put the great pitch they have for Animal Kingdom in DHS and just tear down the stunt show and expand that area? I just don't get why it has to be like this....
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
I agree with you 100% ! I would absolutely LOVE for them to just put this "expensive plan" in DHS or even that huge expansion pad in Aventureland next to Pirates maybe... But I'm just saying if this is really how they're going to play this (which is very cruel) Animal Kingdom expensive land pitch vs cheap DHS pitch... then I just have to side with getting the better option.

It's just sad, if this is true, that that's how they are viewing this... Like, why not just put the great pitch they have for Animal Kingdom in DHS and just tear down the stunt show and expand that area? I just don't get why it has to be like this....
If the choice is great pitch in AK or bad pitch in DHS then my choice would be no Indy at all. Despite my love for the IP and it’s potential.
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
I love Indy.

I love the Indiana jones adventure.

I would love to have an amazing Indy attraction at WDW.

But I’m not so desperate for it that I would wish for it to be somewhere it doesn’t belong.
The problem is, Disney doesn't care. This doesn't mean we shouldn't, but it's hard when they don't care what's thematically appropriate, and honestly, Joe and Jane Schmoe won't care if Indy is put in DAK and I guarantee you most will say it fits "so well", and thus Disney gets away with doing what they did. I guess I'm kind of doing that with IPs in Epcot but that remains a lengthy debate.

If they want Indy in AK he'll be there. We can go back and forth on whether or not it's a fit, but they're going to do what they want. Not that I like it. I can see why people think he fits, and I can see why he really doesn't.

Curious to know about the "cheaper" plan @Disneyhead'71 brought up. I imagine it's the lackluster coaster instead of making over an existing ride that doesn't necessarily need replaced (it needs plussing for sure) or building a new dark ride. Shame.

For a brief while from D23 they seemed really intent on spending money. Now they seem to be cutting back on plans, looking at ways to cut things, re-allocating funds (which always seems to happen anyway), etc. It's disappointing.

I don't want Indy replacing Dinosaur but I loved the ambition of the idea. I want more of that ambition and less "well, this is safer and cheaper". Although I guess some could argue replacing Dinosaur with Indy is a 'safe' choice. I simply mean the ambition of the idea of replacing Dinosaur with Indy. That's the Disney I remember, the one who some of us believe they WOULD move Small World if it benefitted them (again, not saying it's an ideal idea, just suggesting the 'ambition' of it is what we used to come to expect from them).
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
The problem is, Disney doesn't care. This doesn't mean we shouldn't, but it's hard when they don't care what's thematically appropriate, and honestly, Joe and Jane Schmoe won't care if Indy is put in DAK and I guarantee you most will say it fits "so well", and thus Disney gets away with doing what they did. I guess I'm kind of doing that with IPs in Epcot but that remains a lengthy debate.

If they want Indy in AK he'll be there. We can go back and forth on whether or not it's a fit, but they're going to do what they want. Not that I like it. I can see why people think he fits, and I can see why he really doesn't.

Curious to know about the "cheaper" plan @Disneyhead'71 brought up. I imagine it's the lackluster coaster instead of making over an existing ride that doesn't necessarily need replaced (it needs plussing for sure) or building a new dark ride. Shame.

For a brief while from D23 they seemed really intent on spending money. Now they seem to be cutting back on plans, looking at ways to cut things, re-allocating funds (which always seems to happen anyway), etc. It's disappointing.

I don't want Indy replacing Dinosaur but I loved the ambition of the idea. I want more of that ambition and less "well, this is safer and cheaper". Although I guess some could argue replacing Dinosaur with Indy is a 'safe' choice. I simply mean the ambition of the idea of replacing Dinosaur with Indy. That's the Disney I remember, the one who some of us believe they WOULD move Small World if it benefitted them (again, not saying it's an ideal idea, just suggesting the 'ambition' of it is what we used to come to expect from them).
Just because they don’t care doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. If even their so called fans of their theme parks don’t care about thematic continuity then that gives them even more of an invitation to abandon it then they already have. We shouldn’t encourage them.

I would hardly call retheming a 20 year old attraction by essentially coping a 25 year old attraction to base it on an IP that’s inconsistent with the message of the park as something ambitious.
 
Last edited:

Kman101

Well-Known Member
Just because they don’t care doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. If even their so called fans of their theme parks don’t care about thematic continuity then that gives them even more of an invitation to abonded it then they already have. We shouldn’t encourage them.

I would hardly call retheming a 20 year old attraction by essentially coping a 25 year old attraction to base it on an IP that’s inconsistent with the message of the park as something ambitious.
I said that doesn't mean we shouldn't care. I'm just explaining the reality of where we are. And while I want everything thematically perfect, in reality they are not.
And I'm not going to more or less look down on someone who does care about Disney but isn't that concerned over say Indy going into AK. Just because they may not be a stickler for thematic consistency like some and think anyone is wrong who doesn't see it the same way, it doesn't mean they don't care. JMO. Not everyone feels the same way or looks at things so literally. I agree those who eat up Frozen in Epcot are the problem, but if that's "Disney" to them, I'm not going to begrudge them. I'm sad by that though, because Disney to me is a lot of different things and not just watching a movie and expecting it in a theme park.

When you think of Guardians in Epcot, that's the major thematic problem. Indy is nothing compared to Guardians going into Epcot. I'm not going to get up in arms over Indy, but I understand the fight. I don't feel like I'm any less of a Disney fan :confused:

And I guess I didn't explain the "ambition" thing well. The idea itself isn't. I know that doesn't make sense but I know what I'm trying to say :joyfull:

I typically agree with you on most things. If we're forced to have IPs in the parks, I really don't find a big problem with Indy or some of the choices in Epcot. Guess I'm not a true fan then. If I fought against everything they did I'd never find any enjoyment in the parks when they add something new. My personal preference is original ideas, but I'm OK with certain IPs if they make sense and work. And yeah, I do think Indy could work and I don't think it would kill the park. Guardians, that is killing Epcot to me and that placement truly bugs me. I get that you and others feel this way about Indy in AK but I don't share that outrage over the idea.

EDIT:
Yes I think Indy isn't thematically appropriate in Animal Kingdom. He fits DHS and Adventureland to a tee. But I'm also not too up in arms over him coming to AK. I don't want it at the expense of Dinosaur.

I don't always do a great job of explaining what I'm thinking ... and yes I contradict myself sometimes but I have a lot of different feelings on the current direction of the parks. I want the parks to represent what they once did but I also don't hate the use of certain IPs. I know for some it's either or but I really do feel in the middle about this.
 
Last edited:

larandtra

Well-Known Member
IJ is interesting because of the multiple places an attraction or a group of attractions and themes of an area would fit the idea. While everyone may not agree on which one they choose. I have a feeling with all of the open ended ( and various but not one chosen) plans for Tomorrowland, Possible adventureland attraction, frontierland, Studios has wide open theme possibilities which could fit after TSL and SWL, Epcot is a complete overhaul but with tons of options on the table, and Dinoland in AK, the direction, timelines, and announcements that begin happening under the new regime could give everyone a better idea of whats going to happen and the mindset of those leading the charge now.
 

larryz

Can't 'Member Anything
Premium Member
Just because they don’t care doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. If even their so called fans of their theme parks don’t care about thematic continuity then that gives them even more of an invitation to abonded it then they already have. We shouldn’t encourage them.

I would hardly call retheming a 20 year old attraction by essentially coping a 25 year old attraction to base it on an IP that’s inconsistent with the message of the park as something ambitious.
I applaud your sense of outrage, but SMH at the futility of your loyalty to a concept that died when Disney merged with ABC.
 

atighe42

Well-Known Member
The "cheaper" DHS plan isn't the crappy coaster. It would be a brand new mega E Ticket. But it is just one attraction with store, restaurant/bar.

The DAK pitch had more.
Count me in. CineMGM has always been Indy's WDW home and that's just what that park needs. I'd much rather a *slightly* lesser presence than a thematically inappropriate shoehorning.
 
Top Bottom