Jungle Book would probably fit what some people think of Animal Kingdom better, but Lion King is the more popular IP. I’d personally like both to be added to the park.Do yall think The Jungle Book would be easier to fit?
Jungle Book would probably fit what some people think of Animal Kingdom better, but Lion King is the more popular IP. I’d personally like both to be added to the park.Do yall think The Jungle Book would be easier to fit?
No one said The Lion King doesn't fit. What was said was that, as with everything that goes into Animal Kingdom, the content of an attraction based on the IP needs to take the themes of the park into consideration. You can't just drop the narrative of the original film into the ride; there's a reason FotLK deviates already deviates from the source material.I'm sorry but if The Lion King doesn't fit the theme of Animal Kingdom yet Pandora does then what exactly is acceptable or not anymore?
I never thought Pandora fit! #BeastlyKingdomForeverI'm sorry but if The Lion King doesn't fit the theme of Animal Kingdom yet Pandora does then what exactly is acceptable or not anymore?
Good for being consistent!I never thought Pandora fit! #BeastlyKingdomForever
I never thought Pandora fit! #BeastlyKingdomForever
Look in to Mayan mythology: gods looking like animals, animals looking like humans, and humans looking like animals?Its really not that hard to tie Indiana Jones into Animal Kingdom.
Problem is, where? According to the yearly rumors thread, it will cut into the safari, but from existing Africa, or from the north of the park?[Lion King] will be a wonderful addition to the park!!!
Why not both? Baloo and Mowgli were in D'Amaro's teaser for D23.I would take either[Lion King and Jungle Book]. Both are well loved stories and IP
Odds that Zootopia land ends up in DAK rather than DHS? ... I really think it's going to eventually end up here in a secluded expansion area of the park. Maybe not with the tree of life allegedly still on the table ... but three trackless rides in DHS or shoehorning it into MK doesn't sound ideal either.
** especially if they build a train to take you from DAK to the ZOOTOPIA area. Let the park have a splash of whimsy for the kids. It would truly make this park a full day park.
Jim Hill's reporting that Beastly Kingdom is on track again...this time with lovable Disney characters in tow.
Sounds like Fantasyland in the Jungle.
My favorite quote from his story: "And given that DAK is pretty light when it comes to rides, shows and attractions that prominently feature the Disney characters (To date, there's only seven of these in that entire theme park)."
Um...only 7 out of, what, 12 attractions? I think Disney characters are visible enough around the park, but I'm sure there's room for more.
And supposedly DAK's River of Lights parade is a dead idea now.
But Disney is all about presenting their IP as real within the fantasy of its worlds. They're their own mythology. The artistic style and media chosen to represent them -- whether classic hand-drawn animation or ultra-realistic CGI -- does not define whether the world is "real" (or could've been "real"). Only defines how we're experiencing it in the moment. And it certainly doesn't detract from messages around animals' relationships with humans, and each other.It can obviously get in. It already is in. But a Lion King book report styled like the original film would stand in stark contrast to almost every other ride in the park.
The yeti, the dinosaurs, and the fauna of Pandora are presented as “real” within the fantasy of AK. The denizens of Beastly Kingdomme would have been treated similarly. Such would not be the case with the stylized talking and singing animals of something potentially following the Lion King’s plot. As I mentioned previously, It’s Tough to Be a Bug is the nearest existing analogue.
Again, this is about the potential of cloning whatever is going into Paris' Adventure World, which would likely be a Lion King book report. Nothing else in the park is currently presented as a drive-by of film sequences because everything is adapted to allow you to explore various fauna, the worlds they inhabit, and their relationships with humans. Some of the fauna are themselves pure fantasy, but they have a fairly consistent presentation that is intended to convince you that they could exist and that what we learn about them can be extended to their real-world analogues. A re-hash of what is essentially a Broadway musical based on Hamlet with an animal visual overlay doesn't do any of that; the book report format is inherently about passive observation of what is already known rather than active exploration or discovery, and musicals are intrinsically artificial in their staging, perhaps doubly so with animals doing the singing.But Disney is all about presenting their IP as real within the fantasy of its worlds. They're their own mythology. The artistic style and media chosen to represent them -- whether classic hand-drawn animation or ultra-realistic CGI -- does not define whether the world is "real" (or could've been "real"). Only defines how we're experiencing it in the moment. And it certainly doesn't detract from messages around animals' relationships with humans, and each other.
Kingdom Hearts shows this well -- a "real" boy travels to a variety of worlds where some happen to be presented in a 3D cartoon, some realistic, some black and white, etc.
At the end of the day, Lion King is one of the few Disney classics entirely featuring animals and animal relationships existing in our natural world (which isn't even a requirement as we know AK was open to the unnatural world) without a single human. And they chose to hand draw it. Adding a Lion King section to Africa in AK is just adding the corner of Africa where Pride Rock exists and is "real" in the movies. No less real than the section of Asia where the "real" Yeti's lair exists, or the "real" makeshift theater we visit under a big tree where bugs are putting on a show for us
Nothing at Disney is intentionally presented as fake
No one's asking the park to adhere to standards beyond those that it already established for itself when it opened. Are we seriously at the point where it's considered snooty to hope that what gets built fits well within the themes Animal Kingdom had zero trouble following for the past quarter century?Reading this thread is like watching someone sip a fruit smoothie and then expound on its tannins, oakiness, mouth feel, and how the orchard soil must have been mildly acidic that particular growing season.
Please explain how this fit the themes...No one's asking the park to adhere to standards beyond those that it already established for itself when it opened. Are we seriously at the point where it's considered snooty to hope that what gets built fits well within the themes Animal Kingdom had zero trouble following for the past quarter century?
This has been expounded upon extensively, including by Rohde himself in some of the "Making of" books. I'm not going to veer off topic about it, nor do I particularly like Dinoland. However, there is a consistent in-park logic to it.Please explain how this fit the themes...
View attachment 802817
I know the in-park logic of Chester and Hesters roadside attraction for people visiting the area for the dino institute backstory. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't remember anything about dinorama relating to conservation, man's relationship to nature, or a call to action.This has been expounded upon extensively, including by Rohde himself in some of the "Making of" books. I'm not going to veer off topic about it, nor do I particularly like Dinoland. However, there is a consistent in-park logic to it.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.