Rumor Lion King Flume Ride being considered for Animal Kingdom

[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.

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

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 didn't say that animals have no emotions

Yes you did — see above. You said the movie is about emotions and actions inconsistent with how animals actually operate. Which is categorically false.

You are stuck on a view of the world where animals have no room to be complex compared to us truly exceptional humans. Your logic does not give fictional animals credit for the fundamental similarities they share with their real life counterparts. It diminishes their capacity to only basic survival instinct, and assigns all else that makes them interesting to humans. Which is ironic to say in a thread about a park that goes out of its way to tell us otherwise.

 

[RosR9]

*checks on this forum to see if there’s any update on TLK ride rumor*
*has an existential crisis and questions everything I know about animals*

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yes you did — see above. You said the movie is about emotions and actions inconsistent with how animals actually operate. Which is categorically false.

You are stuck on a view of the world where animals have no room to be complex compared to us truly exceptional humans. Your logic does not give fictional animals credit for the fundamental similarities they share with their real life counterparts. It diminishes their capacity to only basic survival instinct, and assigns all else that makes them interesting to humans. Which is ironic to say in a thread about a park that goes out of its way to tell us otherwise.

Inconsistent doesn’t mean not present or lacking complexity. The emotions they have to do map to human emotions and reasoning. They do not follow human views on social organization or ecological concerns. A male lion doesn’t lead a pride because he watches over other animals the way Mufasa and Simba do. Ecological balance is not a concept they know or consider. That’s actually so ridiculous that it’s a joke on The Jungle Cruise.

 

[James Alucobond]

Yes you did — see above. You said the movie is about emotions and actions inconsistent with how animals actually operate. Which is categorically false.

You could read the surrounding sentences which give that statement context, but whatevs.

You are stuck on a view of the world where animals have no room to be complex compared to us truly exceptional humans. Your logic does not give fictional animals credit for the fundamental similarities they share with their real life counterparts. It diminishes their capacity to only basic survival instinct, and assigns all else that makes them interesting to humans. Which is ironic to say in a thread about a park that goes out of its way to tell us otherwise.

I'm not stuck on that at all. Their complexities are just fundamentally different from ours. That doesn't mean we can't understand them or empathize with them, but the main narrative arc of The Lion King doesn't help do that from any sort of perspective rooted in the reality of animals.

 

[OptimusPrime]

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

I thought Dreamworks did it?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Simba already wears pants and has for decades now. When The Lion King was being developed for Broadway there were people at Disney who objected to the costuming design. They wanted the characters to look more like animals and be more on model to the animated movie. Julie Taymor correctly argued that the focus of the story isn’t on the characters actually being animals. You don’t lose anything by seeing the puppeteers and the main animals being represented as head pieces. Instead we actually gained incredibly iconic design.

 

[Turtlekrawl]

I’m all for scrutinizing the thematic integrity and consistency of Disney park additions.

But good Lord, this thread is a tough read.

 

[abaker1975]

Doesn't it just have to be fun? What Animal Kingdom is or isn't is completely illusionary. The focus, theme or purpose can be changed at the stroke of a pen.

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

A male lion doesn’t lead a pride because he watches over other animals the way Mufasa and Simba do.

This is fiction. Lion King is not a documentary nor does it need to be. We are seeing animals act in ways that are extensions, but not carbon copies, of how they act in the real world. We are seeing imagined explanations for real behaviors, and make-believe drama motivating real life emotions. The former explains the latter. Even nature documentaries do this, all the time. And again, that does not make those behaviors human.

That doesn't mean we can't understand them or empathize with them, but the main narrative arc of The Lion King doesn't help do that from any sort of perspective rooted in the reality of animals.

You missed the point of the movie if you reduce the main narrative to a series of basic plot events that could be performed by anyone. You are stripping the story of the characters performing them to make a point. The Circle of Life, as a theme and song, loses all of its impact and meaning if you replace the opening scene with humans. I’ve already demonstrated how comical it sounds when you apply this technique to the Yeti, Dinosaur, or anything involving an animal

Connecting back to Animal Kingdom, we’ve seen fictional and anthropomorphic animals at this park since day 1. A Lion King retelling is not inconsistent with Meeko signing autographs in Camp Minnie Mickey or Simba asking a live audience to roar at Festival of the Lion King. And later additions where bugs are putting on a variety show it, or we see a stage retelling of a fish getting lost. The park has never adhered to your narrow definition of animal behaviors. So even the story and retelling, as you’ve chosen characterize it, is entirely consistent with the park

 

[James Alucobond]

You missed the point of the movie if you reduce the main narrative to a series of basic plot events that could be performed by anyone. You are stripping the story of the characters performing them to make a point. I’ve already demonstrated how comical it sounds when you apply this technique to the Yeti or Dinosaur.

The bolded is exactly what a book report ride does. That is why the format is likely unsuitable to something intended to exemplify Animal Kingdom's themes well. It would ideally instead find a way to focus on some of the incidental animal trappings of the story rather than the core narrative, which, as you said, any anthropomorphized being could perform.

Connecting back to Animal Kingdom, we’ve seen fictional and anthropomorphic animals at this park since day 1. A Lion King retelling is not inconsistent with Meeko signing autographs in Camp Minnie Mickey or Simba asking a live audience to roar at Festival of the Lion King. And later additions where bugs are putting on a variety show it, or we see a stage retelling of a fish getting lost. The park has never adhered to your narrow definition of animal behaviors. So even the story and retelling, as you’ve chosen characterize it, is entirely consistent with the park

I feel like I'm a parrot at this point, but I suppose I must repeat again that there is no issue with anthropomorphized animals in Animal Kingdom. There is no problem with The Lion King at Animal Kingdom. There is no problem with animals being able to speak or explain themselves or draw parallels with the human experience at Animal Kingdom. You're imagining a narrow definition of the theme that I don't actually espouse. My only point is that I hope this isn't a book report because that is neither consistent with the park's unique design nor an effective means of conveying the themes I feel the park should.

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

The bolded is exactly what a book report ride does. That is why the format is likely unsuitable to something intended to exemplify Animal Kingdom's themes well. It would ideally instead find a way to focus on some of the incidental animal trappings of the story rather than the core narrative, which, as you said, any anthropomorphized being could perform.

A film retelling ride is not intended to be standalone. If the film never existed, and all we got about these lions were 5 musical scenes of animal animatronics, I'd agree with you. But the film does exist, and the scenes are meant to remind us of the 88-minute story we got about these animals. As riders, we're able to fill in gaps because we know what happened and what it represented. And if we didn't happen to see the movie and are lost about what the scenes mean, hopefully we're inspired to watch

Na'vi River Journey is a nice ride through a fictional planet if we take it at face value. It's not even a film retelling - it's plotless. The ride has zero message about animals or nature other than the fact they exist on this planet, and are unique in physical appearance than animals on Earth. But if you see the film, the ride takes a more profound meaning because you know it's an extremely fragile environment at risk of human colonization, and that the Na'vi have a deep spiritual connection to every plant and animal there. You'd don't get that from the ride alone, but that's ok, because it works in tandem with the film.

Which is the point of the IP strategy. To augment one another in different formats. Each format is a chance to experience different aspects -- even of the same story or of related stories -- in different ways.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Doesn't it just have to be fun? What Animal Kingdom is or isn't is completely illusionary. The focus, theme or purpose can be changed at the stroke of a pen.

I think that's the thing though - what makes a park fun? What design and theming principles go into it? For years I had no interest in Universal because it just lacked - something. It was so hodge-podgey. Once they built the Potter stuff, and now with EU opening, I'm really quite interested. Whereas I fear Disney is going in the opposite direction - sewing on random IP in a Frankenstein-esque manner. (Maybe that's unfair because what stands out most is Epcot, but Covid was a huge disruption to what they had planned.)

I will say, if it was just a LK flume, tucked away in a well-themed building, it would be a bit of a shrug for me. But to me this represents the first steps in the "random IP" push. I'm legit waiting for a Tarzan spinner in the middle of Harambe next, lol (kind of kidding.... kind of). I guess time will tell though.

 

[Rhinocerous]

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?

Absolutely, and Scar has Lightning Lanes for all the best rides.

"Long live the King"

 

[Rhinocerous]

You are chatting nonsense.

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

I really don't want to wade into the Zootopia debate, but the central conflict of the film involves animals acting according to their basic nature being an existential threat to their society. That can't possibly fit in Animal Kingdom, regardless of how pretty the land may or may not be.

 

[bwr827]

Plot twist: humans are animals.

Could that mean lions representing human-like qualities are extra animalistic?

Look at me. I am the animal now.

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

Plot twist: humans are animals.

Could that mean lions representing human-like qualities are extra animalistic?

Look at me. I am the animal now.

THIS is the point our existential debate needed

 

[OptimusPrime]

This thread reads like Jim Shull’s Twitter feed.

“The Lion King is about fictional animals. Why are they in a park about real animals? #AnimalKingdom #LionKing #Imagineering”

 

[DisneyLeo18]

Maybe the real lions are the friends we made along the way

 

[mickEblu]

So does flume mean log or boat ride? And is this an E ticket?