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

[MisterPenguin]

But they're letting Andy's backyard be part of a so-called theme park celebrating show business? It can't work both ways.

That's not DHS's theme anymore as witnessed by SWL.

 

[njDizFan]

What would you say the theme of Animal Kingdom is? Is it just animals? No, we have already established it's more than just another zoo. It's a park that builds an appreciation of the natural world around us with an interest in telling their stories (both fictional and real) and to build an interest in conservation and preservation. While Indy is not a treehugger or an animal rights activist, neither is most of Animal Kingdom...and it's not the intention to indoctrinate visitors with either viewpoint. It is to build appreciation, to educate, and to implant a desire in guests to preserve these treasures found all around the earth. We are taught, not just to appreciate the animal or the tree, but also its habitat, its attributes, and (when applicable) it's culture. Humans are included in the animal kingdom. Just as there is interest in long lost animals such as the dinosaurs, there is room for appreciating humans of the past along with their culture and attributes. This is what Indiana Jones embodies, the quest for artifacts from ancient cultures with the intent to preserve them in a museum and to educate others about them. Am I the only one who sees it this way?

I'm sorry you lost me when you said AK is not a "tree hugger", not sure what that even means or if it's meant to be a insult. Either way I think you were going with the argument that humans are also animals I'm going o have to disagree again on that one.

 

[No Name]

That's not DHS's theme anymore as witnessed by SWL.

Huh? That's no excuse for either SWL or TSL. What kind of theme do those two lands fit?

 

[MrHappy]

but my question is, When did "fine" become good enough for a Disney Theme Park? that is the real issue. Disney is the premium entertainment company worldwide....It is a premium priced product for it's consumers... How then is "fine" ok? There is no limit to the creativity within the organization...this just comes off as cheap, uninspired, and Chester and Hester part 2

I think @mikejs78 was saying that the land will be "fine" in terms of success, not "fine" as in the lowest level of standards.

 

[RSoxNo1]

As I've kept going on and on about, the problem with Dinorama is that they approached the "Roadside Dinosaur Americana" thing from a misguided and inaccurate perspective. Like a carnival midway is very much a "One of these things is not like the other things" choice for what to put into a "Great American Roadtrip town obsessed with dinosaurs" setting. Like pretty much every roadside dinosaur park that's existed is a walkthru/drivethru low-tech folkart tour through prehistory and B-Movie tropes laid out in a woodsy setting that'd lend itself well to a prehistoric pastiche of the Jungle Cruise or if they bothered to do more with the "We're grabbing dinosaurs from the past" thing from the Dino Institute side of things, give us some encounters between "real" dinosaurs and their dated concrete counterparts.

I think they could have done this up with a funhouse style dark ride and the complaints would have been significantly lessened.

 

[RSoxNo1]

But they're letting Andy's backyard be part of a so-called theme park celebrating show business? It can't work both ways.

The theme as I understand it now is basically "Stepping into the Hollywood that never was and always will be". Which is a very general theme that allows them to keep the front half of the park like the idealized version of Hollywood in the 30s, 40s and 50s and the back half an area where you can experience some of your favorite stories.

 

[Kman101]

Isn't that the point though? For some people, the All Stars are Disney. And TSL will be Disney for them and a really fun experience. Other people are more Port Orleans, or Yacht and Beach, or Poly. And others want more immersive lands. And it's not like we aren't getting those - Pandora, Galaxy's Edge. I think this is more of Disney catering to different demographics than Disney simply catering to one.

And it strikes me as somewhat condescending to imply that people who love the All Stars and that side of Disney have no taste. Disney can have lots of different experiences that cater to different people. Are the Teacups cheap? Dumbo? Not my favorites, I haven't ridden them in years, but for many Dumbo is something they are nostalgic for and want to take there kids.

TSL will be fine. Not Earth shattering, not immensely themed, but fine. People will love it and it will help the park.

Now C&H (not Dinoland as a whole) on the other hand has no redeeming value in my mind, and from what I've gathered, doesn't do too well on satisfaction surveys...

Sorry that you believed my post implied those who like those resorts have no taste. I might have worded it all a bit better. I've often said to each their own on "what is Disney" to them. Again, maybe I could have worded my post better. Not sure why you're saying some of this stuff to me, I've been saying a lot of it for a long time

EDIT: And I've stayed at Pop Century more times than I can remember (along with French Quarter ... both to me are Disney, neither right or wrong but big figures shouldn't, to me, be entirely what "Disney is" but again, that's just my opinion.

 

[Kman101]

Huh? That's no excuse for either SWL or TSL. What kind of theme do those two lands fit?

But Potter's OK at Universal Studios? What makes that fit there? Hollywood Studios and Universal Studios are both theme parks defined by movie IP. Notice I said defined. It's not a theme.

If we go for theme, "Hollywood entertainment" is a large brush that gives them an excuse for anything. Why do we accept one but not the other? What makes SWL fit any less into DHS than Potter into Universal?

Just a thought.

Not saying you're wrong in asking "how they fit" and I do agree with the point you were likely trying to make. But if we excuse Potter at Universal as "fitting" then why can't Star Wars? Just curious what you think about that. Not that you brought up Potter, but it's just a comparison. Are you tired of Star Wars, is that why you insist it doesn't fit?

I think it's silly in the case of a Studios park to be so strict. Take the park for what it is. There are more important placement concerns that deserve attention, like Guardians into Epcot. Studio Parks are to me a bit lazy but it gives you attractions that likely couldn't or wouldn't fit or work anywhere else. Do we want Star Wars in Epcot?

 

[MisterPenguin]

I think @mikejs78 was saying that the land will be "fine" in terms of success, not "fine" as in the lowest level of standards.

Wait, I thought they meant 'fine' as in 'fine dining'?!!

 

[Bocabear]

Right. And Disney spends more that one would think necessary for lands of excellence, also.

but TSL is by no means "Excellence"...it is an unimaginative reboot of something they have done several times, none of which are compelling. Great they needed a couple new rides, everyone knows that, but it was the IP choice and execution that is such a bummer.

 

[No Name]

The theme as I understand it now is basically "Stepping into the Hollywood that never was and always will be". Which is a very general theme that allows them to keep the front half of the park like the idealized version of Hollywood in the 30s, 40s and 50s and the back half an area where you can experience some of your favorite stories.

We're supposed to ignore the fact that Pandora was based on a movie franchise and look at the content of the land itself to see how it fits the theme of DAK. That's what you and @Kman101 (ironically the two who replied) like to say, and I agree. But if you do the same for Toy Story Land and Star Wars Land, then what's left? What about the content of the lands themselves fits the park? When Disney hasn't built a non-IP-based ride in the last decade, it's tough to argue that IP-based rides/lands denotes a theme.

Throughout this thread, people have been debating how the ride would have to be tailored to fit DAK, but nobody raised the question for DHS. I think the idea that any IP-based attraction fits in DHS stems from people's aversion to the IP mandate. Same reason some think GotG in Epcot couldn't possibly work.

But Potter's OK at Universal Studios? What makes that fit there? Hollywood Studios and Universal Studios are both theme parks defined by movie IP. Notice I said defined. It's not a theme.

If we go for theme, "Hollywood entertainment" is a large brush that gives them an excuse for anything. Why do we accept one but not the other? What makes SWL fit any less into DHS than Potter into Universal?

Just a thought.

Not saying you're wrong in asking "how they fit" and I do agree with the point you were likely trying to make. But if we excuse Potter at Universal as "fitting" then why can't Star Wars? Just curious what you think about that. Not that you brought up Potter, but it's just a comparison. Are you tired of Star Wars, is that why you insist it doesn't fit?

I think it's silly in the case of a Studios park to be so strict. Take the park for what it is. There are more important placement concerns that deserve attention, like Guardians into Epcot. Studio Parks are to me a bit lazy but it gives you attractions that likely couldn't or wouldn't fit or work anywhere else. Do we want Star Wars in Epcot?

I think they're both almost equally poor fits. However, Universal runs a two-park resort instead of a four-park resort, so making each park unique isn't as important. Two Islands of Adventures is sustainable. If they had four Islands of Adventures, the average guest might tire out. Disney invented the idea of a theme park vacation, which nobody had envisioned before, by having four distinct experiences. Now it's become a thing people do, but poor decisions can reverse that over time. Oh and I love Star Wars.

 

[dennis-in-ct]

but TSL is by no means "Excellence"...it is an unimaginative reboot of something they have done several times, none of which are compelling. Great they needed a couple new rides, everyone knows that, but it was the IP choice and execution that is such a bummer.

Judging by photos of Toy Story lands at other Disney parks (Paris Studios, Hong Kong) the WDW version is looking pretty good. I would much rather have the Florida version.

 

[mikejs78]

We're supposed to ignore the fact that Pandora was based on a movie franchise and look at the content of the land itself to see how it fits the theme of DAK. That's what you and @Kman101 (ironically the two who replied) like to say, and I agree. But if you do the same for Toy Story Land and Star Wars Land, then what's left? What about the content of the lands themselves fits the park? When Disney hasn't built a non-IP-based ride in the last decade, it's tough to argue that IP-based rides/lands denotes a theme.

Throughout this thread, people have been debating how the ride would have to be tailored to fit DAK, but nobody raised the question for DHS. I think the idea that any IP-based attraction fits in DHS stems from people's aversion to the IP mandate. Same reason some think GotG in Epcot couldn't possibly work.



I think they're both almost equally poor fits. However, Universal runs a two-park resort instead of a four-park resort, so making each park unique isn't as important. Two Islands of Adventures is sustainable. If they had four Islands of Adventures, the average guest might tire out. Disney invented the idea of a theme park vacation, which nobody had envisioned before, by having four distinct experiences. Now it's become a thing people do, but poor decisions can reverse that over time. Oh and I love Star Wars.

So barring a 5th gate, where should a star wars land go except DHS? Or are you just saying Star Wars doesn't belong in the studios? Is Star Tours a poor fit?

 

[No Name]

So barring a 5th gate, where should a star wars land go except DHS? Or are you just saying Star Wars doesn't belong in the studios? Is Star Tours a poor fit?

The problem isn't a Star Wars land, the problem is it making little attempt to fit aside from being "inspired by" a movie franchise.

Star Tours and TSMM were obviously designed for their west coast parks. As was SWL.

 

[BrianLo]

When Disney hasn't built a non-IP-based ride in the last decade

In WDW... that’s definitely not true otherwise.

In fact depending how liberal you are there are 7 Asian E tickets in the last ten years: Tower of Terror Tokyo, Small World HK (albeit includes character cameos), Grizzly Gulch, Mystic Manor, Roaring Rapids, and Soaring in SDL.

North America on the other hand only produced 2 E-tickets in the last decade. Three if we lower the bar.

The future is dire, I agree.

 

[Haymarket2008]

To be honest, Star Wars and Toy Story fit just fine, and I’m more excited for the eventually fully realized/utilized Hollywood Studios than I ever have been in the distant past. The original intent of the park has been totally scrapped. That being a working studio vibe. Now it’s really making a statement about placemaking and setting. Within this “Hollywood that never was and always will be” are areas where you can step into the worlds of beloved films. Not sure what anyone else would want in place of those...the working studio attractions don’t fit and we’re past their due in the early 2000’s. Tower of Terror, since ‘94, have been immersing guests in the world of a television franchise. So why can that fit and the others can’t? Is everything supposed to be old Hollywood themed?

 

[Haymarket2008]

Also the way they made Star Tours originally fit, (walking onto a set of Star Wars with a break room/C-3PO’s name on a director’s chair where he’ll take a cigarette break in between takes) was cute but gimmicky and could only work in the first iteration of that park. I’d much rather have inconspicuous transitions into different worlds than a random building with a hokey set up. Gimme fully realized settings any day. Bring on the Indy jungle & Battu. Andy’s backyard is another story lol.

 

[No Name]

Expedition Everest doesn't just fit because it's based on an authentic myth, it fits because of the content of the ride itself. Tower of Terror doesn't fit because it uses The Twilight Zone, it fits because of the content of the ride itself. Two of the most organic fits yet some people I'm arguing with will tell you otherwise.

"The Twilight Zone isn't a movie so it doesn't fit in a 'park about movies.'" - many people

In WDW... that’s definitely not true otherwise.

In fact depending how liberal you are there are 7 Asian E tickets in the last ten years: Tower of Terror Tokyo, Small World HK (albeit includes character cameos), Grizzly Gulch, Mystic Manor, Roaring Rapids, and Soaring in SDL.

North America on the other hand only produced 2 E-tickets in the last decade. Three if we lower the bar.

The future is dire, I agree.

Not to discount those, but notice what all of those have in common? There was another party involved and Disney was usually spitting the bill. WDW also got a "new" Test Track and Soarin' because Disney was splitting the bill. Since Bob Iger overtook the throne, Disney hasn't paid in full for an original ride by their own choosing.

 

[brb1006]

Expedition Everest doesn't just fit because it's based on an authentic myth, it fits because of the content of the ride itself.

Well Animal Kingdom was originally going to have an entire area dedicated to Legends and Myths. So Expedition Everest with the Yeti might be as close as we can get to anything related to mythology at the park.

 

[Mike S]

Also the way they made Star Tours originally fit, (walking onto a set of Star Wars with a break room/C-3PO’s name on a director’s chair where he’ll take a cigarette break in between takes) was cute but gimmicky and could only work in the first iteration of that park. I’d much rather have inconspicuous transitions into different worlds than a random building with a hokey set up. Gimme fully realized settings any day. Bring on the Indy jungle & Battu. Andy’s backyard is another story lol.

Especially with the announcement just made for the Paris Studios.