Rumor Lion King Flume Ride being considered for Animal Kingdom

[bwr827]

We all know this forum is about something that is ultimately meant to be fun and not that important in the grand scheme of things, but, uh, it’s weird that you have chosen to be here at all if you just want to dismiss all in-depth conversation as pointless and overwrought.

I’m here for hints at what might be coming next, and to hear how things are going, and because I’ve long exhausted my own family’s interest in talking about WDW.

You don’t want a book report ride, that’s fine.

I want a fun new Lion King ride. I want investment in the parks and increased capacity.

Gate-keeping a potential fun new ride based on a very fitting IP because of some overly academic rationale about the true spirit of its intended theme park… feels like too much.

 

[James Alucobond]

And it’s about nature, and the circle of life. Okay stay with me, I know it’s getting hard.

This is not what the film is about, so this is where you lose me. The circle of life is something touched on in the film and is indeed relevant to the themes of AK (and would therefore be a good angle of approach), but neither it nor nature are centered by the narrative.

Gate-keeping a potential fun new ride based on a very fitting IP because of some overly academic rationale about the true spirit of its intended theme park… feels like too much.

No one on this board has the power to make decisions. The ride will happen if it happens. Nothing is being gatekept. We’re just discussing what we hope they will consider when developing the ride and what we hope won’t make the cut.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Gate-keeping a potential fun new ride based on a very fitting IP because of some overly academic rationale about the true spirit of its intended theme park… feels like too much.

No one on this board has the power to make decisions. The ride will happen if it happens. Nothing is being gatekept. We’re just discussing what we hope they will consider when developing the ride and what we hope won’t make the cut.

Yes, this is where I am always on these discussions.

Disney will do whatever they decide to do and I would never make anyone feel bad for enjoying something that is not personally to my taste. These forums, though, are a place for people to share their opinions and debate topics related to the theme parks, so I think it's fine for people to go back and forth about why they do and don't think certain things fit, are or aren't good attractions, etc. Hopefully it's all taken in the spirit of enjoying the parks and what we think works or doesn't rather than trying to establish some kind of moral or intellectual superiority.

On a personal level, I don't like the attitude of "it's people like you who enjoy this stuff/find value in the parks who are the problem."

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think you are trying to say that just because they haven’t built a TLK ride “yet” that it indicates that such a ride wouldn’t fit the park? That seems like a massive leap - a ton of attractions that have been talked about and never been built would be great fits for various parks. Does Jungle Book not fit just because it was never added to DAK? Bambi?

I mean the park has hovered around a dozen attractions and a single digit ride count. That speaks much more to underinvestment than to the fit of any particular ride option.

I think it’s something to consider when a concept is so clearly low hanging fruit.

None of the movies you mention are new. They were there to be a major part of the ideation of the park. These seemingly obvious ideas that people want to be major presences weren’t there even as one of the many ideas seriously developed but pushed aside from the park. Why attractions don’t move forward is often known but also they must first have some serious development behind them.

 

[Suspirian]

To tap into this Lion King fitting convo, I feel like making everything adhere to the principles that keep being quoted here is a bit rigid, and I'm more of a proponent of things fitting aesthetically rather than vetting every IP in a way that makes things feel a bit mathematic? I think an attraction wouldn't really look out of place as the backgrounds from the film are pretty realistically rendered anyway. Settings from TLK wouldn't really look cartoonish in the same way that Toontown does. I'm really not a person that loves IP in parks that much but this is definitely the better rumor of batch that we've gotten for DAK.

I think TLK's existence as a film already speaks to our relationship with the natural world. The Lion King telling a human story is as valuable as any given folktale with animals majority of which give animals and plants anthropomorphic qualities.

While they would likely never go for this, one version I could 100% get behind would be to use some type of doll or effigy of the characters in the various scenes done in a traditional African style. Or, use rockwork or something (ala JoW). Arguably, they should probably restyle the music using African instruments as well. But, that could be a really interesting way to thread the needle. Plus, it would be great representation of art forms lesser known here in the States (or even other parts of the world).

Again, that's 100% armchair Imagineering. I just raise it to say there are ways to do it, if they cared.

I would really love this! I think imagineering should really branch out in how they approach aesthetics for attractions.

 

[Magicart87]

Do yall think The Jungle Book would be easier to fit?

If for nothing else slap it on Kali.

 

[BrianLo]

I think it’s something to consider when a concept is so clearly low hanging fruit.

None of the movies you mention are new. They were there to be a major part of the ideation of the park. These seemingly obvious ideas that people want to be major presences weren’t there even as one of the many ideas seriously developed but pushed aside from the park. Why attractions don’t move forward is often known but also they must first have some serious development behind them.

I do get what you are saying. But it's not like the park didn't launch with the show and a Pavilion hosted by Rafiki.

I think the 'why not' also has every bit to do with the park already having blown its load on Africa via Kilimanjaro to begin with. We can get into the weeds that yes, it's low hanging fruit. But Lion King is low hanging fruit across their portfolio and a bit strange it has never resulted in a significant attraction to this day.

Implementation remains to be seen, naturally.

 

[OptimusPrime]

I’m here for hints at what might be coming next, and to hear how things are going, and because I’ve long exhausted my own family’s interest in talking about WDW.

You don’t want a book report ride, that’s fine.

I want a fun new Lion King ride. I want investment in the parks and increased capacity.

Gate-keeping a potential fun new ride based on a very fitting IP because of some overly academic rationale about the true spirit of its intended theme park… feels like too much.

Not even academic. It’s intellectual in the same way a 14 year old in creative writing class ends his story with “it was in an insane asylum!”

 

[ConfettiCupcake]

A lot of the Disney renaissance films are oddly underrepresented in the parks, attraction wise. It was only relatively recent that Little Mermaid and BatB got in, in terms of actual rides not shows - and this is worldwide. I guess we need to technically count Aladdin as having attraction representation, but that gets an asterisk as far as I’m concerned.

So with the conversation about TLK being low hanging fruit and there’s a good reason we don’t have it yet, is there really? Or is it like it’s late 80s & early 90s brothers and sisters?

 

[James Alucobond]

To tap into this Lion King fitting convo, I feel like making everything adhere to the principles that keep being quoted here is a bit rigid, and I'm more of a proponent of things fitting aesthetically rather than vetting every IP in a way that makes things feel a bit mathematic?

Then change or update the theme of the park. It's there to be a guiding principle for the design. It's not written in stone, but if you're going to start doing things that go against it, you should still develop a cohesive thesis that works for the new vision. Otherwise, it's just a collection of rides with vaguely related facades, not a theme park.

 

[Nickm2022]

My opinion is that Lion King NEEDS and DESERVES a ride. It doesn't make sense in Hollywood or EPCOT, not enough room at Adventureland and doesn't make much sense anyway. Animal Kingdom however NEEDS and DESERVES more rides. So who cares, we get the ride we want, in a park we want more rides. Compared to Guardians at EPCOT and Tianas in Frontier I think there's bigger issues.

 

[Suspirian]

Then change or update the theme of the park. It's there to be a guiding principle for the design. It's not written in stone, but if you're going to start doing things that go against it, you should still develop a cohesive thesis that works for the new vision. Otherwise, it's just a collection of rides with vaguely related facades, not a theme park.

Change it from what to what? Animals to animals? Nature to nature? I just don't understand what a Lion King ride would be detracting from so heavily that it would warrant that.

 

[James Alucobond]

Change it from what to what? Animals to animals? Nature to nature? I just don't understand what a Lion King ride would be detracting from so heavily that it would warrant that.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Change it from what to what? Animals to animals? Nature to nature? I just don't understand what a Lion King ride would be detracting from so heavily that it would warrant that.

I think it's a question of "coherence" vs. "association". Things can be coherent in a number of ways. They can be visually coherent, emotionally coherent, logically coherent, musically / auditorily coherent, etc. But the idea of coherence is a sort of synergistic effect where everything works together towards one goal. One thing builds upon another upon another in a cumulative way.

Whereas associative and categorical thinking is more a matter of "This made me think of this, which made me think of this other thing, which made me think of this other thing over here." I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, in terms of theming. Many of the lands at MK are probably built more around it. Frontier Land is a collection of things we associate with the American Frontier, Tomorrow Land is a collection of things we associate with "the future", and so on.

Lion King is associated with Africa, yes. Is it visually coherent with Harambe? Emotionally an extension of what's happening at Harambe? Not necessarily, and my sense is that AK has been built more around "coherence" vs. categorical theming. I can see why people are resistant to changing what is probably the most cohesive of all the parks (especially as people have watched Epcot and HS become sort of "hodge podge" kinda parks.)

 

[SplashJacket]

I’ve long exhausted my own family’s interest in talking about WDW.

Don’t call me out like that

 

[bwr827]

I think it's a question of "coherence" vs. "association". Things can be coherent in a number of ways. They can be visually coherent, emotionally coherent, logically coherent, musically / auditorily coherent, etc. But the idea of coherence is a sort of synergistic effect where everything works together towards one goal. One thing builds upon another upon another in a cumulative way.

Whereas associative and categorical thinking is more a matter of "This made me think of this, which made me think of this other thing, which made me think of this other thing over here." I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, in terms of theming. Many of the lands at MK are probably built more around it. Frontier Land is a collection of things we associate with the American Frontier, Tomorrow Land is a collection of things we associate with "the future", and so on.

Lion King is associated with Africa, yes. Is it visually coherent with Harambe? Emotionally an extension of what's happening at Harambe? Not necessarily, and my sense is that AK has been built more around "coherence" vs. categorical theming. I can see why people are resistant to changing what is probably the most cohesive of all the parks (especially as people have watched Epcot and HS become sort of "hodge podge" kinda parks.)

Well said.

However, others, while generally understanding this idea (though not in exact words), have questioned the premise that AK is all that pure in its coherence.

Dinoland USA and Pandora are both questionable when contrasted with Harambe’s coherence.

 

[Bocabear]

I just hope it is not going to be some hokey premise ride...Like we are all boarding boats to go find a band to play at Simba's Celebration of the Lion King.....lol

 

[PREMiERdrum]

I just hope it is not going to be some hokey premise ride...Like we are all boarding boats to go find a band to play at Simba's Celebration of the Lion King.....lol

"We need to find one more act for the PrideROCKS! benefit concert. Will you help us?"

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

An attraction could visually, emotionally, and even narratively cohere with Harambe but have nothing to do with animals and fail to cohere with the park as a whole. The park is not about the happenings of African and Asian villages; it only uses them as jumping boards to explore local fauna

Harambe is already established to be on the edge of the savannah via the safari. Real lions live there and we already visit them. It is neither a visual nor emotional nor narrative leap for us to explore another nearby Savannah (or an extension of the current one) where fictional lions are in the midst of their own story. More importantly (to me), the plot naturally coheres with the themes of the park with a story about animals and animal relationships

It's not impossible to mess this up, but I stand by my estimate this film and its story are already 96% of the way to cohering with Animal Kingdom without any adjustment. Disney would really have to mess up the source material (e.g., cardboard cutouts, a story about Nala becoming a police officer) for it to not work

 

[WondersOfLife]

An attraction could visually, emotionally, and even narratively cohere with Harambe but have nothing to do with animals and fail to cohere with the park as a whole. The park is not about the happenings of African and Asian villages; it only uses them as jumping boards to explore local fauna

Harambe is already established to be on the edge of the savannah via the safari. Real lions live there and we already visit them. It is neither a visual nor emotional nor narrative leap for us to explore another nearby Savannah (or an extension of the current one) where fictional lions are in the midst of their own story. More importantly (to me), the plot naturally coheres with the themes of the park with a story about animals and animal relationships

It's not impossible to mess this up, but I stand by my estimate this film and its story are already 96% of the way to cohering with Animal Kingdom without any adjustment. Disney would really have to mess up the source material (e.g., cardboard cutouts, a story about Nala becoming a police officer) for it to not work

Its possible to mess it up. Tiana had a perfect storyline for a flume ride.

In fact, they are going to mess it up.