geekza
Well-Known Member
I'm going to try the test seat, but I'm not hopeful. I'm fairly well-proportioned, just big.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Rumor Is Indiana Jones Planning an Adventure to Disney's Animal Kingdom?
- Thread starter The Visionary Soul
- Start date
FigmentFan82
Well-Known Member
I think the big thing most people push back against is because of Universal and BP most likely falling into their rights usage. I'm wondering if Disney could flex some muscle in regards to using BP somewhere in WDW, but it seems unlikely in the current climate. Unless Disney backs off their SKY bid as a bargaining chip to put in place a plan to get their Marvel East coast theme park right back. But who knows???
geekza
Well-Known Member
The general consensus is that, right now, Universal doesn't stand to benefit from letting the theme park rights go to Disney. As long as the Marvel films continue to be successful, they're able to make money off of them. Heck, they sell Disney-licensed products in their gift shops. Backing off of Sky might make a difference, but it doesn't look good. I'm not as up on Universal parks as I am Disney, but I think Disney will be able to use the Fantastic Four, but Universal has had a Wolverine walk-around character, so I'm not sure how that would affect the X-Men. We don't have access to the actual contract, so all we have to go on is that we know that Universal owns theme park rights to certain "families" of Marvel heroes.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
Dr. Doom prevents Disney from using Fantastic Four.
geekza
Well-Known Member
Well, there you go. Universal has Disney by the mouse ears, for the most part.
Princess Leia
Well-Known Member
DHS is the only place I would have been happy with a MCU expansion (not a replacement- an actual expansion), but I also would have been okay with Guardians being put into Stitch in Tomorrowland- and if the Universal contract weren't an issue, Black Panther, Iron Man, and Ant-Man too. Doctor Strange is a character that I think only works in DHS (altering reality isn't something that fits Epcot).
Yep. But with Indy, there are already 2 parks that could use an Indy ride- DHS and Magic Kingdom (Adventureland).
I'd really, really like to keep Indy and Marvel out of AK. I love both properties, but they just don't fit at this park.
Absimilliard
Well-Known Member
That's weird! At 6'3. 290 lbs, I was able to ride Space Fantasy with no issues. I've dropped some weight since and I can fit in B&M regular seats with shoulder restraints with no help from the ride ops again. I figure if I lose another 10-15 lbs, I'll be ok to ride Hollywood Dream again.
FigmentFan82
Well-Known Member
Is it the "superhero-ness" of those properties that you think don't fit? Is it because they are not animal based IP? UP has a presence in AK and I would say that while animals do have a role in the movie, the movie is primarily dealing with the human story first and foremost.
Princess Leia
Well-Known Member
They're not animal-based. Black Panther has occasional animal motifs, but they weren't referenced in Civil War or Infinity War. Indy hates certain animals. You could take the animals out of both films and the story would mostly be the same (spirits would be in human form for BP, Indy doesn't have a run in with the snakes/bugs/rats).
Up has a better fit since Dug and Kevin are a bit more prominent (especially Kevin and her babies).
FigmentFan82
Well-Known Member
I hear ya and def don't disagree. Putting it in "Animal-forward" terms it very much makes it easier to delineate what would and wouldn't be a good IP fit for AK. I still feel the "high-tech" world of Wakanda could find a home in EPCOT. Again, we don't know the full nitty gritty of the contract, but do you think removing BP and simply having Wakanda tech on display be permissible? Like not naming the character or him personally having a presence, or does his home land of Wakanda also have ties to BP therefore fall within Universals rights? I know I'm asking for speculation, but curious what your take would be?
geekza
Well-Known Member
Since Wakanda is specifically tied to Black Panther, I'd say that it's Universal's. These rights issues are muddy, though. Remember when Fox couldn't use Scarlet Witch but could use Quicksilver because he had been in the X-Men and the Avengers? Marvel used both, but they couldn't be "mutants" and couldn't be the children of Magneto because Fox owned the rights to the X-Men and all other mutants. Sony only played nice with Marvel for Spider-Man because their movies were flopping and it was beneficial to both companies. Marvel could use Spidey in the Avengers and produced Homecoming, but Fox got to distribute the film and make money from that. So muddy.
drod1985
Well-Known Member
You're not wrong that the rights issues are complicated, but the theme park rights situation and the film rights situations are totally different.
WDW likely cannot use Black Panther because he is featured at IOA, but somehow they were able to display some of the costumes from the film at Hollywood Studios.
Back on topic though...I think Indy is a much better fit for AK than Marvel is. The only property I could think of that'd really be fitting at AK would be Ant-man and the Wasp, but Ant-man is also featured at IOA.
WDW likely cannot use Black Panther because he is featured at IOA, but somehow they were able to display some of the costumes from the film at Hollywood Studios.
Back on topic though...I think Indy is a much better fit for AK than Marvel is. The only property I could think of that'd really be fitting at AK would be Ant-man and the Wasp, but Ant-man is also featured at IOA.
Ant-man and the Wasp in DAK? Wuh?
More likely MK-Tomorrowland (Stitch) or EPCOT-Future World (Honey I Shrunk)
DAK shouldn't do Marvel.
drod1985
Well-Known Member
@Magicart87 I agree that AK shouldn't have Marvel properties. I'm just saying if they absolutely had to then Ant-Man and the Wasp would make the most sense as the first film had a big emphasis on the different types of ants and their unique skills, and that could work with AK's theming.
Pi on my Cake
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Animal Kingdom is about Man's relationship with nature (focused primarily around animals, but not exclusively). Every land and attraction ties into this. From the logging plot of Kali River Rapids, to the study of fossils and our interactions with long gone elements of nature in Dinosaur, to the decayed buildings reclaimed by the elements showing the consequences of trying to fight nature in Pandora, to the music and art inspired by animals as seen in Festival of the lion King. Even Dinorama ties into this idea with Chester and Hester exploiting mankind's misconceptions about extinct animals the way so many have for some cartoony fun.
Mankind's relationship with nature.
Up fits this becuase the ideas of mankind's ability to either destroy or protect animal species as well as our ability to either exploit or protect natural wonders like Paradise Falls are both themes very prevelant in the film.
Arguments could be made to justify Black Panther (rights issues aside) if the focus was on how the animal spirits influence the tribes and how Wakanda lives in harmony with the land. But while both of those are elements of the film, neither were ever a focus. The movie was about a blend of science and mysticism inspire by African cultures. Not nature.
Arguments could be made too about Indiana Jones often dealing with the follies of mankind trying to use supernatural forces they don't understand to control natural forces of the world. This again is a stretch as the focus of Indiana Jones has never been about mankind's relationship to nature in any way. It is about science and mysticism inspired by various cultures. Indiana jones, just due to the nature of the IP, would be easier to make fit in animal Kingdom by telling a new story about some fictional culture that fell because it tried to control nature and focus on the relationships between man and the natural world (especially if some animals were involved). But it is not inherently a good fit for Animal Kingdom.
So, that's the issue. And what is often misunderstood. animal Kingdom isn't about animals. Or nature. Or jungles. Or ruins. Or adventure. Or culture. It is about mankind's relationship with nature. That's why Up fits and Zootopia doesn't. Why Tarzan fits and Bambi doesn't. Why Jungle Book fits and Black Panther doesn't.
Mankind's relationship with nature.
Up fits this becuase the ideas of mankind's ability to either destroy or protect animal species as well as our ability to either exploit or protect natural wonders like Paradise Falls are both themes very prevelant in the film.
Arguments could be made to justify Black Panther (rights issues aside) if the focus was on how the animal spirits influence the tribes and how Wakanda lives in harmony with the land. But while both of those are elements of the film, neither were ever a focus. The movie was about a blend of science and mysticism inspire by African cultures. Not nature.
Arguments could be made too about Indiana Jones often dealing with the follies of mankind trying to use supernatural forces they don't understand to control natural forces of the world. This again is a stretch as the focus of Indiana Jones has never been about mankind's relationship to nature in any way. It is about science and mysticism inspired by various cultures. Indiana jones, just due to the nature of the IP, would be easier to make fit in animal Kingdom by telling a new story about some fictional culture that fell because it tried to control nature and focus on the relationships between man and the natural world (especially if some animals were involved). But it is not inherently a good fit for Animal Kingdom.
So, that's the issue. And what is often misunderstood. animal Kingdom isn't about animals. Or nature. Or jungles. Or ruins. Or adventure. Or culture. It is about mankind's relationship with nature. That's why Up fits and Zootopia doesn't. Why Tarzan fits and Bambi doesn't. Why Jungle Book fits and Black Panther doesn't.
Princess Leia
Well-Known Member
I would make a case for Bambi. It’s definitely got a lesson about man’s effect on nature (disclaimer, I’ve spent about half of my life hunting with my dad, but that movie taught me a lot about treating nature with respect- ie not killing animals with young, not neglecting a fire while camping, etc.). Would it make a good attraction? Probably not, unless it was a wooded walking trail with North American mammals.
Pi on my Cake
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
I'll give you Bambi. I mostly just said that as an example of just because a movie stars animal doesn't mean it fits. But Bambi would fit in the park if there was a land it would fit in
Andy Whitfield
Active Member
Anything else you can share with us?