Rumor Lion King Flume Ride being considered for Animal Kingdom

[Epcot82Guy]

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


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

I think that's the crux of the argument. I fully believe you when you say you find it mind boggling. And, I think those of us on the other side say the same of the argument you are making. I find your bullets very different, because I can relate to and understand the human in those more than I can a yeti or a dinosaur. But, again, I fully believe that you are not seeing that difference.

And, to your second point, that goes to what you want from a theme park. And, what you enjoyed most from Disney Parks prior to the IP push. And, there are valid arguments on all sides there. It is a starkly different approach - admittedly that started long ago but accelerated recently. Whether you like that - are indifferent - or hate it is very personal. But if you are on the "dislike side", you are seeing a place you loved get changed in a way that feels very bad. That doesn't mean we have the right to say anyone else is inaccurate. But, when someone feels something is being actively taken away with disregard, it's a different position than those who like what is happening (despite both positions being personally valid).

 

[lazyboy97o]

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?

The opportunity to look around the setting is already there.

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

The opportunity to look around the setting is already there.

Where do I find Pride Rock, the stampede canyon, the elephant graveyard, the watering hole of colorful stylized 90s animals, the log where Timon & Pumbaa get their grub, Rafiki's tree with his lion symbol, the night sky of past kings, the audience of animals bowing at their future king, Scar's lair filled with hundreds of hyenas? Please don't say Kilimanjaro Safari

 

[DisneyHead123]

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

I should have been specific, as a word like "explore" is very elastic and can mean a lot of things. You can explore the internet, mentally explore something, explore a local Target, explore your options, etc. So yes, any ride - to some extent almost any act of being awake and conscious - has an element of "exploration" to it. So really any ride could qualify as an "exploration". I agree on that.

I'm going to have a difficult time putting to words the specific type of "exploration" I was picturing. So I may need to add detail to this definition later or tweak it. But in general I'm thinking of people physically moving through a new, natural environment, or perhaps a human civilization near a natural environment. For the purposes of either experiencing or learning new things.

I think I'm mostly stuck on the fact that LK is animated. Like if I sent my son to a day camp where he was going to "explore nature!", and I later found out he was watching about three Disney movies involving animals each day, I would probably find a different camp. Ideally he would actually be out in nature, walking around and climbing things and such. But if I found out he was watching three nature documentaries a day as part, but not all, of the program? I mean I could see that. Why does having him watch "real" nature seem like the better way for him to spend his time in that context? I don't know. It's an interesting question, I'd have to think about it. (It's not even the learning element, because I do think children learn important Theory of Mind skills from fictional movies and stories.) But my guess is that most parents would have a similar intuition. Hopefully that gives you an idea of where I'm coming from, even though I might have to ponder it more to put it to words better.

 

[The Leader of the Club]

Like if I sent my son to a day camp where he was going to "explore nature!", and I later found out he was watching about three Disney movies involving animals each day, I would probably find a different camp. Ideally he would actually be out in nature, walking around and climbing things and such. But if I found out he was watching three nature documentaries a day as part, but not all, of the program? I mean I could see that. Why does having him watch "real" nature seem like the better way for him to spend his time in that context? I don't know. It's an interesting question, I'd have to think about it. (It's not even the learning element, because I do think children learn important Theory of Mind skills from fictional movies and stories.) But my guess is that most parents would have a similar intuition. Hopefully that gives you an idea of where I'm coming from, even though I might have to ponder it more to put it to words better.

What if the day camp showed a Disney movie, then a documentary on the culture that inspired the movie, then gave kids a chance to explore that culture in a hands-on kind of way?

I think that’s what this expansion brings to DAK. There is the Disney movie, but we also get to see the cultures that inspired the movie as well as creating our own adventure through the natural world. I think these elements can, and should, coexist.

 

[DisneyHead123]

What if the day camp showed a Disney movie, then a documentary on the culture that inspired the movie, then gave kids a chance to explore that culture in a hands-on kind of way?

I think that’s what this expansion brings to DAK. There is the Disney movie, but we also get to see the cultures that inspired the movie as well as creating our own adventure through the natural world. I think these elements can, and should, coexist.

I think if they did that it would basically be a camp specifically focused on learning about Disney IP, with a sub focus on learning about the world represented in Disney IP.

A "Disney Edutainment Day Camp" honestly sounds kind of cool in its own rite, but it would represent a big shift in focus.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

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

This thread very much reminds me of the quote "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him" in that we all seem to be speaking the same language but somehow none of us have any idea what the others are saying!

 

[James Alucobond]

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

The animals in The Lion King do not act like animals. They are driven by human emotions, morals, and values rather than instinct and natural social hierarchy, and they could generally be replaced with humans without affecting the narrative or message. It does not explore how a lion pride actually works, and any animal behaviors are essentially superficial. Real lions don’t strike shady deals with hyenas or take up a diet of bugs after their uncles shame them. It is a story about responsibility, betrayal, guilt, love, and redemption that has nothing to do with how animals actually operate and relate to one another. By contrast, the yeti in Expedition Everest and the dinosaurs in Dinosaur cannot be replaced with humans because the fact that they’re animals is the whole point; your suggestions fundamentally alter the narrative and purpose.

 

[SplashJacket]

The animals in The Lion King do not act like animals. They are driven by human emotions, morals, and values rather than instinct and natural social hierarchy, and they could generally be replaced with humans without affecting the narrative or message.

It does explore the animal (or more realistically, the human) connection to the circle of life and our place within that. It explores the individual animals and their respective relationships and places within the circle of life.

It uses animals as a message, but irrespective of that, the theme and morals align with animal kingdom.

Zootopia doesn’t work because they’re not even pretending to be animals. They’re humans that act like humans and have humans specific problems.

Something like Indy works because it’s a human story but it explores (or can explore) our human connection with the natural and animal world through archeology and exploration.

It does not explore how a lion pride actually works, and any animal behaviors are essentially superficial. Real lions don’t strike shady deals with hyenas or take up a diet of bugs after their uncles shame them.

An IP doesn’t need to be edutainment to be able to fit. A Bug’s Life is very clearly not an edutainment movie but they made it into edutainment.

It is a story about responsibility, betrayal, guilt, love, and redemption that has nothing to do with how animals actually operate and relate to one another.

I mean, I disagree, they have a whole dialogue at several different points about their place in the hierarchy of animals and this theme is rehashed with Timon and Poomba.

The movie also shows the effects of overconsumption and a lack of preservation/balance in our actions, a theme very close to the core of animal kingdom.

By contrast, the yeti in Expedition Everest and the dinosaurs in Dinosaur cannot be replaced with humans because the fact that they’re animals is the whole point; your suggestions fundamentally alter the narrative and purpose.

I don’t think your views are flawed, I just think your the goal post for what belongs/doesn’t belong is too high. By your goal posts, I agree, but I don’t think that goal post aligns with the amazing (but under built) park we have now, or the overall intended theme and impact of Animal Kingdom.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

An IP doesn’t need to be edutainment to be able to fit. A Bug’s Life is very clearly not an edutainment movie but they made it into edutainment.

I think this is the point most people are getting at here: there are almost certainly ways the Lion King IP could be appropriately used at Animal Kingdom. A book report-style ride through the film, though, wouldn't be one of them because it would clash in tone and style with the rest of the park.

 

[James Alucobond]

The point is that the things you mention that approach or touch upon animal- or nature-specific themes would not make it into a book report ride because they are not plot critical, the lyrics of Circle of Life notwithstanding. They’re basically animal flavor text that surrounds a very human Bildungsroman. You could certainly dive deeply into some of those themes if you opted to build something that supported that rather than just doing a drive-by of Circle of Life, I Just Can’t Wait to Be King, Be Prepared, Hakuna Matata, and Can You Feel the Love Tonight.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The Circle of Life is essentially the Great Chain of Being. The key to restoring balance is Simba taking his divined place in the social hierarchy.

 

[DonniePeverley]

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

You are chatting nonsense.

Build Zootopia. The land is a solid 9/10, with the main attraction being a very good 7/10.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Disney already created an attraction in which Lion King characters and the idea of "The Circle of Life" was used to explain real world problems to its audience, children in particular.

I think we can all agree a ride through version of that would not be very interesting.

A Lion King ride for the Disney of the 2020s is likely either a book report, a series of sing-along scenes or a thrill ride through one of the movie's settings. Not sure any of those is really ideal for AK, or why the IP is necessary when it's already in the park and you could have a new ride be about anything.

 

[doctornick]

Disney already created an attraction in which Lion King characters and the idea of "The Circle of Life" was used to explain real world problems to its audience, children in particular.

I think we can all agree a ride through version of that would not be very interesting.

A Lion King ride for the Disney of the 2020s is likely either a book report, a series of sing-along scenes or a thrill ride through one of the movie's settings. Not sure any of those is really ideal for AK, or why the IP is necessary when it's already in the park and you could have a new ride be about anything.

Rohde is back with the company and there was a previous TLK ride planned (but not approved) around the time of Pandora so I remain hopeful that the execution of any TLK ride in DAK can be harmonious with the park.

 

[FigmentJedi]

The animals in The Lion King do not act like animals. They are driven by human emotions, morals, and values rather than instinct and natural social hierarchy, and they could generally be replaced with humans without affecting the narrative or message. It does not explore how a lion pride actually works, and any animal behaviors are essentially superficial. Real lions don’t strike shady deals with hyenas or take up a diet of bugs after their uncles shame them. It is a story about responsibility, betrayal, guilt, love, and redemption that has nothing to do with how animals actually operate and relate to one another. By contrast, the yeti in Expedition Everest and the dinosaurs in Dinosaur cannot be replaced with humans because the fact that they’re animals is the whole point; your suggestions fundamentally alter the narrative and purpose.

Scar's whole scheme of "Kill the dominant male and any male cubs to take over the pride" is how real lions behave though, albeit put under a bunch of extra layers of cartoon plot contrivance. I've seen multiple nature documentaries about lions (or saber toothed cats being assumed to have the same social structure like in Walking with Beasts) following power struggles over control of the pride including the one Disney put out under the DisneyNature label narrated by Samuel L. Jackson.

 

[bwr827]

I think we can all agree that The Lion King is a Disney movie.

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

The animals in The Lion King do not act like animals. They are driven by human emotions, morals, and values rather than instinct and natural social hierarchy, and they could generally be replaced with humans without affecting the narrative or message. It does not explore how a lion pride actually works, and any animal behaviors are essentially superficial. Real lions don’t strike shady deals with hyenas or take up a diet of bugs after their uncles shame them. It is a story about responsibility, betrayal, guilt, love, and redemption that has nothing to do with how animals actually operate and relate to one another. By contrast, the yeti in Expedition Everest and the dinosaurs in Dinosaur cannot be replaced with humans because the fact that they’re animals is the whole point; your suggestions fundamentally alter the narrative and purpose.

Animals don’t feel responsibility? They don’t betray? They don’t feel guilt? Redemption? Animals don’t love? They do all of those things, and you must not have a dog.

Your logic suggests animals are empty emotionless robots that operate solely on instinct. That the “point” of being an animal is just to eat, sleep and roar. That if a fictional animal exhibits emotion, it must be a stand-in for a human because a real animal could’ve never…

Animals, especially fictional animals, are humanized because we are the ones trying to consume their stories. Attenborough humanizes animals on Planet Earth all the time; who knows how much of what he’s saying is made up or if that penguin really does “go to work” every day. Dinosaurs don’t hold up falling trees to save time traveling jeeps from meteors. Bugs don’t put on variety shows for humans, either. But seeing these behaviors gives us an opening to connect with them, and empathize. That doesn’t make them any less animal. Animals that do hunt in packs. Animals do stray from their diet to avoid starvation. Animals do have natural social hierarchies that are often challenged. So what if these are brought to life with a little Shakespeare?

This thread makes me more glad than ever Animal Kingdom exists, to teach us animals are more than just instinctive objects walking across our jeep as we ride through a fake savannah with our Mickey ears and stomachs full of Dole whip. They’re beautiful and astonishing creatures, and we clearly have so much more to learn about them

 

[999th Happy Haunt]

You are chatting nonsense.

Build Zootopia. The land is a solid 9/10, with the main attraction being a very good 7/10.

 

[James Alucobond]

Animals don’t feel responsibility? They don’t betray? They don’t feel guilt? Redemption? Animals don’t love? They do all of those things, and you must not have a dog.

Your logic suggests animals are empty emotionless robots that operate solely on instinct. That the “point” of being an animal is just to eat, sleep and roar. That if a fictional animal exhibits emotion, it must be a stand-in for a human because a real animal could’ve never…

This really isn't a discussion worth having if you can't even concede that The Lion King is very clearly a human narrative with animals superimposed over it. It is truly plain as day. I didn't say that animals have no emotions, but they don't check them against human morals or logic. Their actions are not governed by the kinds of motivations and rationalizations presented in the film. The animals are window dressing. The conclusion isn't even some fabulistic ponderance of animal nature; it's just ascension to the throne via destiny and divine right.

Animals, especially fictional animals, are humanized because we are the ones trying to consume their stories. Attenborough humanizes animals on Planet Earth all the time; who knows how much of what he’s saying is made up or if that penguin really does “go to work” every day. Dinosaurs don’t hold up falling trees to save time traveling jeeps from meteors. Bugs don’t put on variety shows for humans, either. But seeing these behaviors gives us an opening to connect with them, and empathize. That doesn’t make them any less animal. Animals that do hunt in packs. Animals do stray from their diet to avoid starvation. Animals do have natural social hierarchies that are often challenged. So what if these are brought to life with a little Shakespeare?

As to the bolded, yes it does. That's exactly what it does. When you anthropomorphize something, you make it more human and less animal. That doesn't mean anthropomorphized animals are incapable of delivering attraction content that is on theme for Animal Kingdom, but I personally believe it does mean that you have to put in a bit of extra effort to make doubly sure that they're doing so.