New nighttime show 'Rivers of Light' confirmed to be coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[Pi on my Cake]

I don't think "most" people do. I think a lot of people on this site don't. There's a difference

There's plenty of ranting here about Frozen, but in reality the majority of people- almost all little girls, and plenty of boys, enjoy the new Frozen offerings.

I think more Jungle Book themes would be cute and popular.

Yeah, I meant "most" on this site lol

 

[Kman101]

It's more so we don't want Rivers of Light to have characters. It wasn't designed that way.

We all know the park has characters in it and most seem to be just fine about it. It's just been done well. Epcot isn't implementing them as well as they could. And that park wasn't designed for characters. There's a difference.

I'd have no problems with a well implemented dark ride but just look at the design of the park, you don't think a cartoon romp through Lion King wouldn't stick out when compared to the stage show? Same thing for Nemo. They're more based in reality and less about being a cartoon. For me it's just personal preference and how they're implemented.

I've always felt Bambi should be represented. I wouldn't hate a Jungle Book dark ride but my preference would be the live action movie not the cartoon, so there ya go. And I know that's probably silly considering it's "Animal Kingdom"

 

[brb1006]

Why are people so against characters and IPs in Animal Kingdom? Characters are literally built into the heart of the park. The actual icon for the park right in the center, the Tree of Life, houses a Bugs Life attraction. The two most popular shows in the park are Lion King and Nemo (Tarzan before that). Dinosaur is (loosely) connected to the movie Dinosaur. There is a land in the park called Rafiki's Planet Watch themed to Rafiki from Lion King. There was a temporary land called Camp Minnie-Mickey themed primarily to classic Disney Characters that also had a Pocahantas show. Beastly Kingdom was planned to have a Fantasia boat ride.

I understand it with Epcot. Even if I personally have no problem with well used Disney Characters in Epcot, I get that the original goal was to not have Disney Characters in that park. So, I understand why people get upset with Disney movie themed rides there.

BUT Animal Kingdom has always been full of Disney Characters. Why do people act like using more Disney Characters would be a tragedy in Animal Kingdom? Why not have a Bambi ride on Discovery Island? Or a Jungle Book Attraction in Asia? Or a parade and/or nighttime show that features Disney's wild characters? As long as it is Animal focused and jungle/forest environments, why not include some Disney characters?

We're referring to IPs invading ROL and not the park itself.

 

[brb1006]

I don't think "most" people do. I think a lot of people on this site don't. There's a difference

There's plenty of ranting here about Frozen, but in reality the majority of people- almost all little girls, and plenty of boys, enjoy the new Frozen offerings.

I think more Jungle Book themes would be cute and popular.

I think most of the IP hated started becoming a common discussion since the announcement of Frozen Forever After ride at Epcot.

 

[brb1006]

It's more so we don't want Rivers of Light to have characters. It wasn't designed that way.

We all know the park has characters in it and most seem to be just fine about it. It's just been done well. Epcot isn't implementing them as well as they could. And that park wasn't designed for characters. There's a difference.

I'd have no problems with a well implemented dark ride but just look at the design of the park, you don't think a cartoon romp through Lion King wouldn't stick out when compared to the stage show? Same thing for Nemo. They're more based in reality and less about being a cartoon. For me it's just personal preference and how they're implemented.

I've always felt Bambi should be represented. I wouldn't hate a Jungle Book dark ride but my preference would be the live action movie not the cartoon, so there ya go. And I know that's probably silly considering it's "Animal Kingdom"

I remember Thumper and Miss Bunny were the only characters from Bambi that were represented at the parks who both can be found at AK. However they aren't as common as they used to once Camp Minnie Mickey was removed resulting in a few meet and greets being moved to the entrance at AK (Thumper and rarely Miss Bunny can be found there) Thumper doesn't have a meet and greet schedule like the other characters).

I heard Flower used to be common at WDW during the 1970's but vanished sometime in the late 1970's. Thumper did return to the parks briefly in 2006 when Bambi II came out but became common sometime in 2010 at AK.

 

[21stamps]

I think most of the IP hated started becoming a common discussion since the announcement of Frozen Forever After ride at Epcot.

My point exactly. It's wildly popular, just not on this site.lol
..I never was able to get a FP for it and the wait never went below 90 minutes while we were there... and everyone that I've talked to who has done it has thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

[marni1971]

My point exactly. It's wildly popular, just not on this site.lol
..I never was able to get a FP for it and the wait never went below 90 minutes while we were there... and everyone that I've talked to who has done it has thoroughly enjoyed it.

As has been said numerous times, it's a good ride. In the wrong place. With low capacity vs the demand. But anyway...

Why are people so against characters and IPs in Animal Kingdom??

Possibly because you've answered your own question already? The park already has lots of IP. There needs to be a balance.

 

[Kylo Ken]

At least the Fast Pass touch points and entrances are up....that's a step in the right direction

Sorry folks. The thread police notified me that this has been posted before although I don't recall the signs themselves. Regardless, my mistake. I apologize

 

[Kman101]

lol. I just realized this thread is already three years old at this point.

 

[ToTBellHop]

View attachment 180125 View attachment 180123 At least the Fast Pass touch points and entrances are up....that's a step in the right direction

They've been up for many months.

 

[mikeh]

They've been up for many months.

I thought I remember seeing a tweet or similar a few months ago. Do you have a link or proof?

 

[marni1971]

View attachment 180125 View attachment 180123 At least the Fast Pass touch points and entrances are up....that's a step in the right direction

They've been up for many months.

I thought I remember seeing a tweet or similar a few months ago. Do you have a link or proof?

A quick google search will reveal they were in position 8 months ago. This very site posted pictures on April 13th showing the FP+ touch points.

 

[mikeh]

A quick google search will reveal they were in position 8 months ago. This very site posted pictures on April 13th showing the FP+ touch points.

Sorry, I meant the signs as seen on the far left of the first picture

 

[Tony the Tigger]

No, thank you. No more characters in DAK. At least not those from Disney animated films.

I will never understand this perspective.

 

[Gomer]

I will never understand this perspective.

Not all WDW fans are equal. Many are fans of Disney theme parks first who happen to also enjoy Disney IP. Others are fans of the Disney movies and characters who also happen to like theme parks. In general, those of us that are theme park fans first, put "theme" as the priority. We cling to a time when the IP was a small portion of the overall experience and we went to the park for unique and original adventures.

As a kid, I enjoyed Disney movies, but I loved Disney World. I listened to the electrical parade, Haunted Mansion, and Pirates albums on loops. I designed rides in my head. I watched home movies of the parks over and over and over. I would seek out movies and experiences that reminded me of Adventureland, Frontierland, or Future World before I'd watch a random Disney cartoon again. Stuff like the latest Disney movie were merely a distraction in my entertainment schedule, but not what I waited for with anticipation like I would a new ride, and definitely not the reason I loved the parks. I loved the stories the parks created and the original ideas and themes they rested on shaped my childhood.

Those original ideas and themes are no longer the emphasis of WDW. It has shifted to cater to those who love the characters and movies first, with preferences of fans like myself secondary. I see DAK as the last bastion of that early Disney age. A park not reliant on characters or films, but something shaped by a theme and dependent on original ideas for the majority of its content. I expect things like Pandora and Bugs life to exit. I accept that as a necessary evil to appease that other style of fan. But when something that was supposed to be unique, and original, gets saddled with IP as an easy fix for popularity, it makes me sad and long for the Disney that gave us 75% original content in the parks and kept IP related attractions to specific areas.

That 's just my opinion on why there is this strong divide between those who want and those who don't want IP in DAK and Epcot. But maybe I'm only speaking for myself.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I see DAK as the last bastion of that early Disney age.

Thanks for your perspective.

As a presumably older person, I still see DAK as that new park that isn't even fully developed yet. It hasn't been around long enough to be "classic" yet.

To me, too much non-IP at DAK = the Bronx Zoo. Big deal. What does Disney have to bring to the experience that is unique? Their IP's. It's Disney World, not Sea World, not Zoo World.

And I expect they are hedging their bets for a time that may or may not be on the horizon (with which I don't necessarily agree) that the traditional zoo may go the way of Shamu, with similar reasoning. You may just be left with things like local places we have such as Flamingo Gardens and the Key West Aquarium, where most of the animal residents are just rescues being nursed back to health or which couldn't survive in the wild.

I grew up on the early Disney cartoons in the 70's, on watching Walt on TV on Sundays (obviously reruns) and with a plastic Mickey Mouse plate in the kitchen.

I didn't get to WDW until I was nearly 30.

I was impressed with the non-Six-Flags aspect of it, but surprised there weren't more rides in Epcot WS, and more IP's in general.

Where the IP's make sense, they make sense. If not to the superfan, then to the average parkgoer. Hard to argue the relevance of Nemo at "The Living Seas" but some people act like it's heresy. It's common sense to me.

That said, I'm also a business person, a merchandiser, a marketer. Of course I would put Nemo in the Seas to bring people to the Seas who are more interested in Nemo first, but then they get into the real aquariums as a result. Some will, some won't, and that's OK.

I think it's borderline crazy to say that Disney characters don't belong in Disney World out of some kind of - what, I don't know - sense of purity? I don't doubt your sincerity at all, but I think some people here just like to be condescending and compete about who is a "real fan" or whatever. I have no use for such labels. I go to enjoy the parks. Seeing Bambi in the ROL projection would make me happy, and I expect it would make a kid happy, also - if their parents showed them the DVD LOL.

Bambi, Dumbo, Pinocchio, Snow White - that's all classic Disney to me. There's never not a place for Bambi in DAK IMO. Bambi came first.

 

[marni1971]

To me, too much non-IP at DAK = the Bronx Zoo..

To many, too much IP = The Magic Kingdom 2.0, 3.0, 4.0....

There used to be a balance between original story and content, and something IP driven. Some, if not most, of WDWs best attractions were developed as original, none IP attractions. You don't need a cartoon character in every attraction to remind you you're in Walt Disney World. But they're trying harder and harder.

 

[Gomer]

Thanks for your perspective.

As a presumably older person, I still see DAK as that new park that isn't even fully developed yet. It hasn't been around long enough to be "classic" yet.

To me, too much non-IP at DAK = the Bronx Zoo. Big deal. What does Disney have to bring to the experience that is unique? Their IP's. It's Disney World, not Sea World, not Zoo World.

And I expect they are hedging their bets for a time that may or may not be on the horizon (with which I don't necessarily agree) that the traditional zoo may go the way of Shamu, with similar reasoning. You may just be left with things like local places we have such as Flamingo Gardens and the Key West Aquarium, where most of the animal residents are just rescues being nursed back to health or which couldn't survive in the wild.

I grew up on the early Disney cartoons in the 70's, on watching Walt on TV on Sundays (obviously reruns) and with a plastic Mickey Mouse plate in the kitchen.

I didn't get to WDW until I was nearly 30.

I was impressed with the non-Six-Flags aspect of it, but surprised there weren't more rides in Epcot WS, and more IP's in general.

Where the IP's make sense, they make sense. If not to the superfan, then to the average parkgoer. Hard to argue the relevance of Nemo at "The Living Seas" but some people act like it's heresy. It's common sense to me.

That said, I'm also a business person, a merchandiser, a marketer. Of course I would put Nemo in the Seas to bring people to the Seas who are more interested in Nemo first, but then they get into the real aquariums as a result. Some will, some won't, and that's OK.

I think it's borderline crazy to say that Disney characters don't belong in Disney World out of some kind of - what, I don't know - sense of purity? I don't doubt your sincerity at all, but I think some people here just like to be condescending and compete about who is a "real fan" or whatever. I have no use for such labels. I go to enjoy the parks. Seeing Bambi in the ROL projection would make me happy, and I expect it would make a kid happy, also - if their parents showed them the DVD LOL.

Bambi, Dumbo, Pinocchio, Snow White - that's all classic Disney to me. There's never not a place for Bambi in DAK IMO. Bambi came first.

And that is my point exactly. I don't think there is really a difference in our age that much (I am also born in the 70's). Just our perspective. I went to WDW before I ever saw a Disney movie. To me, a call back to Horizons or Pirates will bring a smile to my face much quicker than Bambi. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here. It is just frame of reference. you ask what DAK brings over the Bronx zoo? I say level of immersiveness. entering these vague thematic worlds is what appealed to me as a child, and what still appeals to my children. Not any particular character. My 6 year old could care less about meeting Mickey on our yearly trip, but demands we ride SSE every time we enter Epcot as it is his favorite ride. They go for the adventure, the exploration, and the ability to enter into a different world. The characters and IP's are just an added bonus.

There is an assumption, that this about purity when its just about preference. I don't mean to sound condescending at all. There is no "real fan". It's just what part of Disney you are a fan of primarily. you come from a backround interested in their IP. But my point is that the IP is not the starting point of all fans. Many people, including myself, are drawn to Disney because of the parks. And just like you may be pulled out of a movie if it had its plot interrupted by mounds and mounds of product placement. I would find RoL lessened if they decided to throw Bambi in. It breaks the immersion for someone primarily interested in the thematic experience.

No one is right or wrong here. But there is general dismissive nature on both sides to see those who prioritize one or the other as having an incorrect understanding of the nature of the parks. when in reality, it is because the parks cater to two distinct groups with different priorities. it would be nice if there could be a balance that appeals to both, but at the very least the fans could have some level of understanding that not everyone who wants no IP is doing so out of some misplaced elitism, and not everyone who wants IP in the parks is some ignorant rube. We just go for very different reasons.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

The teapot was awesome! I recognize that -- Spode. That's a famous Christmas pattern of theirs.

To many, too much IP = The Magic Kingdom 2.0, 3.0, 4.0....

There used to be a balance between original story and content, and something IP driven. Some, if not most, of WDWs best attractions were developed as original, none IP attractions. You don't need a cartoon character in every attraction to remind you you're in Walt Disney World. But they're trying harder and harder.

And that is my point exactly. I don't think there is really a difference in our age that much (I am also born in the 70's). Just our perspective. I went to WDW before I ever saw a Disney movie. To me, a call back to Horizons or Pirates will bring a smile to my face much quicker than Bambi. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here. It is just frame of reference. you ask what DAK brings over the Bronx zoo? I say level of immersiveness. entering these vague thematic worlds is what appealed to me as a child, and what still appeals to my children. Not any particular character. My 6 year old could care less about meeting Mickey on our yearly trip, but demands we ride SSE every time we enter Epcot as it is his favorite ride. They go for the adventure, the exploration, and the ability to enter into a different world. The characters and IP's are just an added bonus.

There is an assumption, that this about purity when its just about preference. I don't mean to sound condescending at all. There is no "real fan". It's just what part of Disney you are a fan of primarily. you come from a backround interested in their IP. But my point is that the IP is not the starting point of all fans. Many people, including myself, are drawn to Disney because of the parks. And just like you may be pulled out of a movie if it had its plot interrupted by mounds and mounds of product placement. I would find RoL lessened if they decided to throw Bambi in. It breaks the immersion for someone primarily interested in the thematic experience.

No one is right or wrong here. But there is general dismissive nature on both sides to see those who prioritize one or the other as having an incorrect understanding of the nature of the parks. when in reality, it is because the parks cater to two distinct groups with different priorities. it would be nice if there could be a balance that appeals to both, but at the very least the fans could have some level of understanding that not everyone who wants no IP is doing so out of some misplaced elitism, and not everyone who wants IP in the parks is some ignorant rube. We just go for very different reasons.

Thanks for both of your responses, and I agree with much of what you both are saying. I don't have time for a proper response right now but wanted to acknowledge both of them. Running out to buy some record collections!

 

[ford91exploder]

Also lets say they do decide to scrap ROL...What happens?

The usual construction walls and nothing