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

champdisney

Well-Known Member
To his credit, he stays respectful, and replies with thought-out posts. That's more than I can say for some on these boards.
Absolutely. I'm not knocking him down personally. Truth to be told, his knowledge over some of these topics do come in handy and I appreciate that. It's just the ongoing back and forth when he seems not to agree with some. Just let people be or simply agree to disagree.
 

Monorail_Orange

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Exactly it could fit perfectly in Adventureland, but the problem I see is does Magic Kingdom really need more rides right now compared to the other parks. And it could fit in Hollywood Studios, but they’re already getting Star Wars, Toy Story and Mickey and yeah it needs more, I agree, but I think Animal Kingdom, even after Pandora, needs way more. With a little more of a broader message to animal kingdom of like animals/Adventure/jungle/wild/the planet and conservation then you could add more rides like Indy and keep the amazing look of Animal Kingdom and message. I’m just having fun with this. I love Indy and would love for it to come to Florida and if this is the only chance we’ll get then I’ll defitnitly take it!
MK really does need more rides - or if one prefers, CAPACITY - admittedly, the problem with putting Dr. Jones there is while it would increase capacity, it would also create additional draw, like TRON. There might be an argument that over time the capacity would remain but the draw would decrease some, but only if investment in the other 3 parks continues, and thus creates other draws there.
 

rle4lunch

Well-Known Member
 

Monorail_Orange

Well-Known Member
Absolutely. I'm not knocking him down personally. Truth to be told, his knowledge over some of these topics do come in handy and I appreciate that. It's just the ongoing back and forth when he seems not to agree with some. Just let people be or simply agree to disagree.
Well, it is a discussion board, which nominally, carries a certain amount of back-and-forth. I do see your point, however.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
I dunno, coming across Mt Everest and then having a Yeti encounter vs. COming acrosss a lost temple in the Jungle and having a Indy encounter. Both seem about the same as far as how much they mesh with AK's theme. It's loose but say the queue for Indy is all through snake exhibits and jungle/rain forest.

That said, I actually prefer Dinosaur to the Indy attraction in DL.
A yeti is a fictional animal, Indy is a fictional human.
 
Last edited:

ChewbaccaYourMum

Well-Known Member
MK really does need more rides - or if one prefers, CAPACITY - admittedly, the problem with putting Dr. Jones there is while it would increase capacity, it would also create additional draw, like TRON. There might be an argument that over time the capacity would remain but the draw would decrease some, but only if investment in the other 3 parks continues, and thus creates other draws there.

That’s what I’m saying. They need things like the beautiful broadway theater they’re building off Main Street. Perfect addition to MK imo
 

becca_

Well-Known Member
I dunno, coming across Mt Everest and then having a Yeti encounter vs. COming acrosss a lost temple in the Jungle and having a Indy encounter. Both seem about the same as far as how much they mesh with AK's theme. It's loose but say the queue for Indy is all through snake exhibits and jungle/rain forest.

That said, I actually prefer Dinosaur to the Indy attraction in DL.
But isn't AK's whole theme about conservation & how humans interact with animals? So yeti "fits" by those standards, Indy wouldn't?
 

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
I dunno, coming across Mt Everest and then having a Yeti encounter vs. COming acrosss a lost temple in the Jungle and having a Indy encounter. Both seem about the same as far as how much they mesh with AK's theme. It's loose but say the queue for Indy is all through snake exhibits and jungle/rain forest.

That said, I actually prefer Dinosaur to the Indy attraction in DL.
The problem in your equivalency is that there is still no animal component in the Indy side of the equation. Coming across Mount Everest and having an Animal encounter (one that is meant to demonstrate the hubris of man's interactions with natural and animal spaces) is different than coming across a Temple and having an encounter with an Archaeologist.

The designed purpose of Animal Kingdom is to explore the domain of the animals on their terms and be entertained and educated as to how their nature relates to our own. Indy doesn't offer that anywhere in its four movies. They could squeeze it in by fabricating some sort of Shrine of the Silver Monkey that Indy is exploring, but since he's an archaeologist he explores for people's sake not for animal's sake. So while it could be done, it's still such a stretch.

Putting Indy in Animal Kingdom just because Temples and such things feel like they fit in with the existing environs of the park is about as thematically appropriate as putting Frozen in the Norway Pavilion because the two are inspired by the same culture. They are, but to completely different ends. It makes sense only on the most surface of levels, and deeply ignores the Themes of both properties. A sad thing to do in a Theme Park. This example of course demonstrates that Disney would totally do such a thing these days, but I think it also demonstrates some of the problems that come with that.
 

Minthorne

Well-Known Member
But isn't AK's whole theme about conservation & how humans interact with animals? So yeti "fits" by those standards, Indy wouldn't?

The problem in your equivalency is that there is still no animal component in the Indy side of the equation. Coming across Mount Everest and having an Animal encounter (one that is meant to demonstrate the hubris of man's interactions with natural and animal spaces) is different than coming across a Temple and having an encounter with an Archaeologist.

The designed purpose of Animal Kingdom is to explore the domain of the animals on their terms and be entertained and educated as to how their nature relates to our own. Indy doesn't offer that anywhere in its four movies. They could squeeze it in by fabricating some sort of Shrine of the Silver Monkey that Indy is exploring, but since he's an archaeologist he explores for people's sake not for animal's sake. So while it could be done, it's still such a stretch.

Putting Indy in Animal Kingdom just because Temples and such things feel like they fit in with the existing environs of the park is about as thematically appropriate as putting Frozen in the Norway Pavilion because the two are inspired by the same culture. They are, but to completely different ends. It makes sense only on the most surface of levels, and deeply ignores the Themes of both properties. A sad thing to do in a Theme Park. This example of course demonstrates that Disney would totally do such a thing these days, but I think it also demonstrates some of the problems that come with that.

Meh, both yeti and Indy are fictional.

I guess the real hubris may be that we forget Man is another animal in the kingdom. But I'm splitting hairs. :)
 

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Meh, both yeti and Indy are fictional.

I guess the real hubris may be that we forget Man is another animal in the kingdom. But I'm splitting hairs. :)
Well, presumably the yeti is fictional, but the yeti is a fictional ANIMAL. And yes, man is an animal too -- not the kind they're talking about in Animal Kingdom, but I see your point. But then you open the door to any human character being featured at AK, and that was clearly not the idea.

And stepping back, the legend of the yeti is not fictional, and is a powerful narrative about man's relationship with animals and nature.
 

Minthorne

Well-Known Member
Well, presumably the yeti is fictional, but the yeti is a fictional ANIMAL. And yes, man is an animal too -- not the kind they're talking about in Animal Kingdom, but I see your point. But then you open the door to any human character being featured at AK, and that was clearly not the idea.

And stepping back, the legend of the yeti is not fictional, and is a powerful narrative about man's relationship with animals and nature.

Genius! wait I mean - hush don't give them any ideas!

And the Indian Jones movies aren't fictional either and are powerful (sort of?) narratives about a man's relationship with snakes and women. :angelic:

(seriously, I'm just having fun here)
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
Indy has saved:
  • Western Civilization from Nazis
  • the children of a village
  • whatever it was in Crystal Skull
None of those things were the heart of archeology. In fact, when it comes to the archeological thread of the story, Indy keeps failing to bring anything back to a museum (although, he did save the Hindu stone). Archeology was a reason for him to adventure in a story greater than retrieving an artifact. The adventure was greater than archeology.

Any future movie can have Indy using archeology to find himself in a situation where he is saving:
  • dinosaurs in a lost world/island
  • animals at the brink of extinction
  • a huge ecosystem about to be destroyed by humans
And that would work for a plot for an AK attraction.

And really, you don't need a new movie to tell the tale of Indy saving dinosaurs, endangered animals, or the environment... the attraction itself can tell that story.
 

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Indy has saved:
  • Western Civilization from Nazis
  • the children of a village
  • whatever it was in Crystal Skull
None of those things were the heart of archeology. In fact, when it comes to the archeological thread of the story, Indy keeps failing to bring anything back to a museum (although, he did save the Hindu stone). Archeology was a reason for him to adventure in a story greater than retrieving an artifact. The adventure was greater than archeology.

Any future movie can have Indy using archeology to find himself in a situation where he is saving:
  • dinosaurs in a lost world/island
  • animals at the brink of extinction
  • a huge ecosystem about to be destroyed by humans
And that would work for a plot for an AK attraction.

And really, you don't need a new movie to tell the tale of Indy saving dinosaurs, endangered animals, or the environment... the attraction itself can tell that story.
Sure, you could do all that . . . but it's still a leap for the franchise. One that need not be made. But I maintain, if they want to shove Indy in Animal Kingdom, they'll find a way, for better or for likely worse.
 

britain

Well-Known Member
Sure, you could do all that . . . but it's still a leap for the franchise. One that need not be made. But I maintain, if they want to shove Indy in Animal Kingdom, they'll find a way, for better or for likely worse.

A leap that would still be a small step compared to meeting aliens. (EDIT: This is a Crystal Skull reference, not a Pandora reference!)
 

britain

Well-Known Member
Indy has saved:
  • Western Civilization from Nazis
  • the children of a village
  • whatever it was in Crystal Skull
None of those things were the heart of archeology. In fact, when it comes to the archeological thread of the story, Indy keeps failing to bring anything back to a museum (although, he did save the Hindu stone). Archeology was a reason for him to adventure in a story greater than retrieving an artifact. The adventure was greater than archeology.

Any future movie can have Indy using archeology to find himself in a situation where he is saving:
  • dinosaurs in a lost world/island
  • animals at the brink of extinction
  • a huge ecosystem about to be destroyed by humans
And that would work for a plot for an AK attraction.

And really, you don't need a new movie to tell the tale of Indy saving dinosaurs, endangered animals, or the environment... the attraction itself can tell that story.

And Indy is already about the hubris of man meddling with powers greater than his own. This isn't some Batman / Iron Man tale where ingenuity and tech savvy saves the day. This isn't Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker winning because they are the Chosen Ones. Indy and Tarzan are the only action heroes I can see fitting in AK!

And Jake Sully, I guess.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
I don't see the problem. I actually love the idea and think it'll push Animal Kingdom to be a really great park. The whole theme of animal and conservation is just talk and the idea of what Animal Kingdom stands for. Not that hard for Disney to just make a different message for the park as a whole and add adventure into it imo.

Agreed mostly. Disney has some pretty decent conservationist credentials to go along with their message. Credit where credit is due.
 
Top Bottom