Rumor Lion King Flume Ride being considered for Animal Kingdom

[The Leader of the Club]

I genuinely can’t believe that people are arguing against a Lion King ride coming to DAK. It feels like a natural marriage between IP and land. It’s a net addition that isn’t replacing anything.

If we’re really this hard to please then we deserve to see a Zootopia land in this park.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

This is why Encanto is better suited for a stage show then a ride to me.

You don't think the setting of Encanto in a magical house surrounded by tropical rainforest is interesting or 'exotic' enough for a theme park attraction?

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

That anecdote comes from the book Mouse Under Glass - Tony Baxter explained, "Whether it's a good movie or not is beside the point. It's a movie that's characters, there's no atmosphere in it. I call it 'sticks and stones and rocks and leaves'. First you have the stone walls outside the castle, then the stone walls inside the castle, then the leaves in the forest, that's it. There are no exotic environments, you just have all these scenes with Robin meeting Friar Tuck, then Robin meeting Little John, then Robin meeting Maid Marian. That's when I figured it out: rides are about exotic places, not characters. The best attractions are where you suddenly find yourself in a jewel mine or flying over London."

Of course, Tiana's Bayou Adventure is more about the "exotic location" of the bayou than characters from The Princess and the Frog and we know how THAT turned out.

While I strongly admire Tony Baxter and also 100% agree with his statement about interesting and "exotic" environments being critical in a ride (i'll cite Ratatouille for being an example of inherently bland environment design with its boring industrial kitchens and dirty wall interiors), i've never agreed with him on his cited example of Robin Hood.

Robin Hood IMO actually has a lot of really great looking environments that I fully believe would translate very well into a dark ride, provided good artists and imagineers were involved. I already think forests with a medieval village, festival and castle are all plenty interesting in the first place. But if you combine that with a team of skilled artists that can stylize these environments to look like a painting come to life, then I don't think there would be any complaints about the ride being bland and uninteresting. The large colorful cast of characters would only further enhance it.

Several classic Fantasyland dark rides also had a lot of scenes traveling through "basic" forests or castle-looking environments. Snow White and Mr Toad being two prime examples. Pooh's Hunny Hunt is another example, the first half of that ride is a romp through a forest. The key is the lack of any sort of "realism", Disney had a lot of talented people who were really great at converting a 2-dimensional painting into something with actual layered depth, but still retaining the art style of something hand drawn. Everything was hand painted and resembled a pop-up book. Even "cheap" looking wood cutouts and flat walls were covered in some really wonderful artwork. This style was further elevated by the rebuilt versions that Tony Baxter oversaw in the early 80s.

I'll also note that Tony Baxter didn't adhere to this philosophy on one of his absolute best projects (i'd argue it was his best work and up there with the best rides ever made). On paper, Song of the South has all of the same environmental criticisms that Tony points out about Robin Hood. It's pretty much the American South equivalent to Robin Hood's rivers, forests and countrysides (in fact, Robin Hood actually has a bit more variation thanks to the medieval village, festival and castle). And yet SOTS translated beautifully into a lush and detailed ride regardless. In part because I don't even agree with his sentiment that these types environments are inherently boring to begin with. But again, they're even further elevated by artists who were masters at preserving a hand painted art style in a physical environment.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

While I strongly admire Tony Baxter and also 100% agree with his statement about interesting and "exotic" environments being critical in a ride (i'll cite Ratatouille for being an example of inherently bland environment design with its boring industrial kitchens and dirty wall interiors), i've never agreed with him on his cited example of Robin Hood.

Robin Hood IMO actually has a lot of really great looking environments that I fully believe would translate very well into a dark ride, provided good artists and imagineers were involved. I already think forests with a medieval village, festival and castle are all plenty interesting in the first place. But if you combine that with a team of skilled artists that can stylize these environments to look like a painting come to life, then I don't think there would be any complaints about the ride being bland and uninteresting. The large colorful cast of characters would only further enhance it.

Several classic Fantasyland dark rides also had a lot of scenes traveling through "basic" forests or castle-looking environments. Snow White and Mr Toad being two prime examples. Pooh's Hunny Hunt is another example, the first half of that ride is a romp through a forest. The key is the lack of any sort of "realism", Disney had a lot of talented people who were really great at converting a 2-dimensional painting into something with actual layered depth, but still retaining the art style of something hand drawn. Everything was hand painted and resembled a pop-up book. Even "cheap" looking wood cutouts and flat walls were covered in some really wonderful artwork. This style was further elevated by the rebuilt versions that Tony Baxter oversaw in the early 80s.

I'll also note that Tony Baxter didn't adhere to this philosophy on one of his absolute best projects (i'd argue it was his best work and up there with the best rides ever made). On paper, Song of the South has all of the same environmental criticisms that Tony points out about Robin Hood. It's pretty much the American South equivalent to Robin Hood's rivers, forests and countrysides (in fact, Robin Hood actually has a bit more variation thanks to the medieval village, festival and castle). And yet SOTS translated beautifully into a lush and detailed ride regardless. In part because I don't even agree with his sentiment that these types environments are inherently boring to begin with. But again, they're even further elevated by artists who were masters at preserving a hand painted art style in a physical environment.

Must admit that I am also a little puzzled as to why Robin Hood specifically wouldn't provide good material for a Fantasyland attraction. I haven't seen the film in a while, but I think it has a bit of the old FL dark ride energy to it and, indeed, might work better as a ride than a film. It has chase sequences, narrow escapes, flying arrows, set pieces like the medieval faire, and a style of animation that could work in the context of the quick movements and simple sets and effects of those old busbar rides. Some kind of plot involving escaping or outwitting Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham would seem a reasonable idea, even if a book report wouldn't really work.

Maybe, though, when you actually plot it out in practice, the attraction doesn't end up as compelling in reality as it does as a concept.

 

[James Alucobond]

I genuinely can’t believe that people are arguing against a Lion King ride coming to DAK. It feels like a natural marriage between IP and land. It’s a net addition that isn’t replacing anything.

I feel the need to point out again that this isn't what's happening. People are just discussing what they think the nature of such a ride should and shouldn't be. No one is hoping that nothing additional gets built.

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

I'm just hoping we get a Tokyo Frozen and not another Tiana in terms of depth and execution quality (+ budget to go with)

I know the latter is a re-skin, but it's still a disservice to both its predecessor and source material

Lion King is iconic source material, so perhaps we can agree that on execution, they need to do it and DAK justice

 

[doombuggy999]

You don't think the setting of Encanto in a magical house surrounded by tropical rainforest is interesting or 'exotic' enough for a theme park attraction?

Right? Just look at Mystic Manor and you can see the potential there.

 

[PizzaPlanet]

It’s also equally strange to me the best we’ve seen out of a magic carpet ride is a spinner. Which is far more suggestive of an actual experience that is probably deserving and hasn’t really been done before.

Don’t forget the ride at Disney Quest

 

[FigmentJedi]

You don't think the setting of Encanto in a magical house surrounded by tropical rainforest is interesting or 'exotic' enough for a theme park attraction?

Antonio and Bruno seem to have the only interesting rooms in the magical house while everything else is just kinda "Normal with animated floor tiles".

 

[Epcot82Guy]

Thinking about it more, I think the difference is actually about how you view the film lands, especially the animated films. I actually think Pandora, in a strange way, narrowed the story of DAK for me. It then became focused on exploring unknown natural realms. It's the one common theme among all (or at least most) of the attractions. I remember walking into Pandora for the first time (having no seen Avatar) and feeling really uncomfortable. I didn't understand this place or this land. And, then it hit me - that's the point. DAK (to me) is about exploring unknown areas (linked to nature) at the edge of the familiar human world. Even ITTBaB is about exploring (in a cute way) the unknown world of how an Insect feels. If the park has a main thesis, it's "Exploration" (which requires something unfamiliar/unknown).

I think that's why a more traditional Disney Lion King flume ala Fantasyland, Splash, etc. feels so off. Most of the Disney IP rides are about being "familiar". Even if it's a new story, many of them focused on the animated content are about being FAMILIAR. It's characters we know either retelling a story we know or a story that is just a mini-sequel to that story (like TBA or even Guardians). The focus of TBA is really Tiana, not the Bayou. The focus of CR is the really Guardians, not exploring space. And... potentially... the focus of LK Flume would be the LK characters, not exploring the savannah. (And I don't see a way to change that to do both.)

 

[RSoxNo1]

I genuinely can’t believe that people are arguing against a Lion King ride coming to DAK. It feels like a natural marriage between IP and land. It’s a net addition that isn’t replacing anything.

If we’re really this hard to please then we deserve to see a Zootopia land in this park.

Exactly. We are often so protective of IP infusion in DAK and EPCOT that we fail to see the forest from the trees (pun intended). This is the new way of the Walt Disney company, and that means we need to be tolerant of IPs that do make sense for the park.

The values of DAK correlate very well to many of the values of the Lion King. This isn't a leap.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Thinking about it more, I think the difference is actually about how you view the film lands, especially the animated films. I actually think Pandora, in a strange way, narrowed the story of DAK for me. It then became focused on exploring unknown natural realms. It's the one common theme among all (or at least most) of the attractions. I remember walking into Pandora for the first time (having no seen Avatar) and feeling really uncomfortable. I didn't understand this place or this land. And, then it hit me - that's the point. DAK (to me) is about exploring unknown areas (linked to nature) at the edge of the familiar human world. Even ITTBaB is about exploring (in a cute way) the unknown world of how an Insect feels. If the park has a main thesis, it's "Exploration" (which requires something unfamiliar/unknown).

I think that's why a more traditional Disney Lion King flume ala Fantasyland, Splash, etc. feels so off. Most of the Disney IP rides are about being "familiar". Even if it's a new story, many of them focused on the animated content are about being FAMILIAR. It's characters we know either retelling a story we know or a story that is just a mini-sequel to that story (like TBA or even Guardians). The focus of TBA is really Tiana, not the Bayou. The focus of CR is the really Guardians, not exploring space. And... potentially... the focus of LK Flume would be the LK characters, not exploring the savannah. (And I don't see a way to change that to do both.)

I do think there's this hunger for what is happy, familiar, comforting, and reassuring right now. AK was built in the 90s when the overarching zeitgeist was something like "bored", and exploration fit right into that. What better antidote to nihilism and boredom than exploration, right?

I hope that at least any thematically distinct additions to the park are built in separate areas, rather than being plopped in the middle of existing ones. I agree that it would be extremely hard to make a LK ride fit the theme of exploration, especially because Disney seems to be in a "tell don't show" era. There would be no subtle embodied experience of simply exploring because that's what the ride invites you to do. There is a 1000% chance an exploration theme would involve Simba in a pith helmet (also available in the gift store!) shouting down from an overhang "Hey gang, do you like to explore? Cause today you're gonna explore with me and Nala! C'mon, let's go!" Not trying to be snarky, I just think stylistically that is almost a guarantee.

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

I do think Disney has lost sight of their parks as sources of original IP. The main funnel these days is film-to-park, and they feed the top of that funnel with new film-first IP (though even that is sparse given sequel and remake-mania). You have the occasional park-to-film (Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Jungle Cruise) but they aren't feeding that funnel at the top with new park-first IP

Whatever direction you go though, it makes too much business sense to not cross-pollinate IP across your touchpoint with customers. And even more important than that, the average park guest loves and expects it now

I don't see exploration as the unifying vision for Animal Kingdom. If a ride through the Pride Lands doesn't count as exploration because we already saw it in the movies (which I don't think is fair), then Na'vi River Journey fails too. The ride has no plot, so there's nothing we're exploring narratively, and the physical exploration isn't new by that same logic because we've already seen the jungles of Pandora in all its bioluminescent glory in the Avatar films.

I also don't buy it when there are more obvious unifying visions for the park, like "animals." Pandora is fine because, in its case, it did not retell a story that had little to do with animals. They instead designed attractions to highlight its fauna. Lion King's original story, being about animals, has a much stronger starting position as far as connection to the park

 

[Epcot82Guy]

I do think Disney has lost sight of their parks as sources of original IP. The main funnel these days is film-to-park, and they feed the top of that funnel with new film-first IP (though even that is sparse given sequel and remake-mania). You have the occasional park-to-film (Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Jungle Cruise) but they aren't feeding that funnel at the top with new park-first IP

Whatever direction you go though, it makes too much business sense to not cross-pollinate IP across your touchpoint with customers. And even more important than that, the average park guest loves and expects it now

I don't see exploration as the unifying vision for Animal Kingdom. If a ride through the Pride Lands doesn't count as exploration because we already saw it in the movies (which I don't think is fair), then Na'vi River Journey fails too. The ride has no plot, so there's nothing we're exploring narratively, and the physical exploration isn't new by that same logic because we've already seen the jungles of Pandora in all its bioluminescent glory in the Avatar films.

I also don't buy it when there are more obvious unifying visions for the park, like "animals." Pandora is fine because, in its case, it did not retell a story that had little to do with animals. They instead designed attractions to highlight its fauna. Lion King's original story, being about animals, has a much stronger starting position as far as connection to the park

I can understand your point. And, I think you could do that with self-contained lands. I don't think it works very well as part of DAK's Africa (in it's current story and iteration).

To your statement on the Pride Lands, it depends solely on the story. Navi River Journey is about exploring and seeing the environment. I agree, it's been seen before. If they genuinely did a Navi-style ride through the Pride Lands. It's a stretch, but it could maybe work. However, I would sooner see the Pride Lands being the setting, not the focus/story. That's where it would fail for me. Even with the "animals" theme, I think you have to abide by the "no pants" rule to some extent. People don't love LK because it shows the lifestyle of African animals. It's because it tells a human coming of age story through animals. The animals are a vehicle, not the focus.

If you can swap out the animals for humans in the story, it doesn't work. (And, if you swapped out the animals for humans on Kilamanjaro, Dinosaur or even Everest, the story would make no sense - so it does work.)

Again, as others have noted, I don't think Disney cares at this point. It's somewhat like Epcot, and that ship has long sailed.

 

[DisneyHead123]

I do think Disney has lost sight of their parks as sources of original IP. The main funnel these days is film-to-park, and they feed the top of that funnel with new film-first IP (though even that is sparse given sequel and remake-mania). You have the occasional park-to-film (Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Jungle Cruise) but they aren't feeding that funnel at the top with new park-first IP

Whatever direction you go though, it makes too much business sense to not cross-pollinate IP across your touchpoint with customers. And even more important than that, the average park guest loves and expects it now

I don't see exploration as the unifying vision for Animal Kingdom. If a ride through the Pride Lands doesn't count as exploration because we already saw it in the movies (which I don't think is fair), then Na'vi River Journey fails too. The ride has no plot, so there's nothing we're exploring narratively, and the physical exploration isn't new by that same logic because we've already seen the jungles of Pandora in all its bioluminescent glory in the Avatar films.

I don't know if exploration was the stated unifying vision, but it seems to be the most consistent thing that is happening as you move through that park. Whether that was the original intent or not. Rohdes seems big into exploration so that may have been a sort of byproduct given his personality, not sure. From the first person park-goer perspective it seems like the biggest unifying theme though.

On a LK ride being just as much an exploration as Na'vi River, will just have to agree to disagree on that one. Na'vi River is made to look like a natural landscape that you are indeed exploring on a boat. Maybe other people see that in a potential LK ride, I'm just having a hard time picturing it.

I also don't buy it when there are more obvious unifying visions for the park, like "animals." Pandora is fine because, in its case, it did not retell a story that had little to do with animals. They instead designed attractions to highlight its fauna. Lion King's original story, being about animals, has a much stronger starting position as far as connection to the park

To my mind "animals" is too broad. To give an extreme example for the purposes of illustration, you can't serve McNuggets in a Michelin Star restaurant because they fit the theme of "food". Again, that's an extreme example for the purposes of clarity, but hear me out. While McNuggets and whatever they serve at Michelin Star restaurants are certainly both "food", what differentiates a McDonald's from a Victoria and Albert's? I'm not even saying the Victoria and Albert's is objectively "better" - quite frankly I'd probably prefer McDonald's fries. But clearly there are other factors that make them different. Atmosphere. The look of the places. The flavor profiles of the food. The - something. I don't know. I'm not a designer so these are just my impressions, but I think we can agree something is different there, right? There are other factors than just broad categories.

 

[DonniePeverley]

A police chase ride (where you are an active participant) in the states would go over just fine I’m sure

Oh behave. It's a cartoon. What next .... Popeye being sexist? Or a cat chasing a mouse as violence?

 

[DonniePeverley]

Correct. It’s strange that the company that has employed this strategy for the better part of 15 years hasn’t done this yet. For the record this is not a defense of a book report.

It’s also equally strange to me the best we’ve seen out of a magic carpet ride is a spinner. Which is far more suggestive of an actual experience that is probably deserving and hasn’t really been done before.

What's more strange is they have the plans for a Zooptopia Land that they have implemented in another park around the world - where the likelyhood of any American going (or a Chinese coming this way) is in the very low numbers.

Just copy the bloody plans to the chore and get built.

Maybe it's a different imagineering team so noses are put out. But that Land is brilliant, and at night it's even more brilliant.

Just build it, and stop with the imagineering nonsense of 'they should build this, they should build that', when they've already built something brilliant somwhere else. Just copy it. Save money.

 

[999th Happy Haunt]

Oh behave. It's a cartoon. What next .... Popeye being sexist? Or a cat chasing a mouse as violence?

I’m not saying that represents my thoughts on it. But this is Disney and this is a domestic park.

 

[mickEblu]

I genuinely can’t believe that people are arguing against a Lion King ride coming to DAK. It feels like a natural marriage between IP and land. It’s a net addition that isn’t replacing anything.

If we’re really this hard to please then we deserve to see a Zootopia land in this park.

Personally I'm not against Lion King going to AK. I think it'll be a nice addition to the park. I just wonder if they'll be able to pull it off. Like someone said earlier It's a movie that focuses on character interactions. It's also why I don't feel like Frozen makes for a great dark ride. They embraced this in Tokyo and to me it looks like you are watching a Soap Opera on a moving vehicle. The only two settings in Lion King that really feel like they work on a ride is the jungle with Pumba/ Timon and the elephant Graveyard. Then some of the parts the movie that you think would be great for a ride - like the stampede seems like it would be tough to emulate on an attraction. Of all the Renaissance movies, Aladdin needs a dark ride like yesterday between the fact that you are flying on a magic carpet. The Cave of Wonders and Whole New World scenes are enough to justify a ride alone.

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

It's because it tells a human coming of age story through animals. The animals are a vehicle, not the focus.

I just find this argument so mind boggling. Lion King is a coming of age story of a fictional lion that is learning to roar and hunt and find his place in a lion pride. If you distill it to "coming of age" you've stripped it of...everything. Who does the stampede represent -- park goers at rope drop?

Here are similarly conceived plot summaries

• Expedition Everest is a story about a terrifying encounter. The Yeti is a grizzled man who guards the mountain from an oncoming passenger train. The animal is a vehicle, not the focus.
• Dinosaur is a story about time travel to save a historical figure from death. The Iguanodon is Pliny the Elder, ancient Roman author whom we are saving from the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. The animal is a vehicle, not the focus

You have to deliberately reject reality (or close your eyes) for a full 88 minutes to say Lion King is not a movie about animals. Even then, I'm not even sure how you get past the noises and dialogue

On a LK ride being just as much an exploration as Na'vi River, will just have to agree to disagree on that one. Na'vi River is made to look like a natural landscape that you are indeed exploring on a boat. Maybe other people see that in a potential LK ride, I'm just having a hard time picturing it.

Why couldn't we explore a detailed environment and have plot elements around us? If you don't care for the plot or it doesn't live up to the film, why can't you have just enjoyed the opportunity to look around? We're grading a ride like Na'vi -- who forces you to only look around -- on a completely different rubric than a would-be Lion King ride where a beautiful environment and plot vignettes would somehow make it worse than just giving us beautiful environment. Rise of the Resistance and Tokyo Frozen do both very effectively. The plot vignettes enhance the experience by serving as reminders of memorable moments from the movie