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

CrescentLake

Well-Known Member
I have not been able to confirm this current info, but the unverified rumor mill is saying yes to Indy but not the big S. Am. pitch. Dinos staying. And Dinorama gets replaced with a new version of the Excavator coaster.

That leaves the Shanghai PotC ride system still up in the air.

So an upgraded dino E Ticket slathered in a popular IP and a coaster. Why does this plan sound so familiar?
Now this I can get behind. It sounds like an enhancement for Dinosaur (if done right), a removal of C+H, and a new rollercoaster. Dinosaur needs a ton of love anyway. This could be a way to do that and introduce a new story that works with AK. What's not to like? (Again if done right).

Honestly asking here.
 

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
Does Indy invent a time machine or are dinos now around in modern times (as in Jurassic Park)? Neither really works with the Indy franchise.
Less Jurassic Park, more King Kong/Arthur Conan Doyle's Lost World/The Valley of Gwangi/Edgar Rice Burroughs's Pelucidar books/The Land of the Lost/That Dinosaur River Ride that Tony Baxter wanted to put in Discovery Bay. The list goes on.
 

CrescentLake

Well-Known Member
Dinosaurs and Indy is a better fit then Space Aliens and Indy.
See, I never understood this line of thinking. Aliens are more farfetched than the arc of the covenant that is legitimately magic and melts people's faces off? Or anything in the entirety of the Temple of Doom? Or the (magical) Holy Grail?

Now if you want to complain about shoehorning Shia LaBeouf in, I am all ears, but aliens are as legitimate as anything else in the Indy universe. Dinosaurs may be a stretch, but it fits.
 
Last edited:

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
See, I never understood this line of thinking. Aliens are more farfetched than the arc of the covenant that is legitimately magic and melts people's faces off? Or anything in the entirety of the Temple of Doom? Or the damn (magical) Holy Grail?

Now if you want to complain about shoehorning Shia LaBeouf in, I am all ears, but aliens are as legitimate as anything else in the Indy universe. Dinosaurs may be a stretch, but it fits.
Most people took issue with Crystal Skull because of the genre swerve from 30s adventure movies to 50s sci-fi B-Movie. I'm not as harsh on the "Chariots of the Gods" direction they took with an Indiana Jones movie as it does fit into the weird archaeology themes of the franchise, but I get why people were whining about it.

Even with it being an oddball mix, I feel like "Indiana Jones journeys into a hidden land of Dinosaurs" seems like a smoother mix.
 

CrescentLake

Well-Known Member
Most people took issue with Crystal Skull because of the genre swerve from 30s adventure movies to 50s sci-fi B-Movie. I'm not as harsh on the "Chariots of the Gods" direction they took with an Indiana Jones movie as it does fit into the weird archaeology themes of the franchise, but I get why people were whining about it.

Even with it being an oddball mix, I feel like "Indiana Jones journeys into a hidden land of Dinosaurs" seems like a smoother mix.
I understand. But given the age of Ford, wasn't that an inevitability? For me that was always the next logical progression of Indy.

Agreed.
 

MansionButler84

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
See, I never understood this line of thinking. Aliens are more farfetched than the arc of the covenant that is legitimately magic and melts people's faces off? Or anything in the entirety of the Temple of Doom? Or the (magical) Holy Grail?

Now if you want to complain about shoehorning Shia LaBeouf in, I am all ears, but aliens are as legitimate as anything else in the Indy universe. Dinosaurs may be a stretch, but it fits.
I guess, if they adequately retheme it to some sort of ancient temple infested with dinosaurs, it works for Indy and DAK. Plus it wouldn’t age badly. Although I’d still argue the inclusion of Indy is unnecessary.
 

CrescentLake

Well-Known Member
Given the age of Ford, the next movie can take place in the 80's. That's olden times now, right?
Not appreciating the snark and sarcasm. If Ford is to star in the next one, in order for them to make it believable, of course there is going to have to be a time skip. Or am I missing something?


I'd prefer not the 80s...but still.
 
Top Bottom