Well when the entire theater was full of CMs, and at all levels of the company, from CPer to Iger, nobody wanted to take the risk of discovering who was sitting next to them.
But still, in this day and age, still somewhat surprising.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
New nighttime show 'Rivers of Light' confirmed to be coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
But still, in this day and age, still somewhat surprising.
MatthewWho13
Well-Known Member
cjkeating
Well-Known Member
Hmmm... let's hope as Joe is posting this publicly on Instagram and it's only a few days before Christmas he is delivering good news.
Jeremy Geertsema
Well-Known Member
If they're going to be showing the show in it's current state to the public, let's hope it'll be very soon! David Miller is in Orlando too.
Here's what I wrote about it. I know the temptation is great and we all want to see it publicly, but I stand by this:
Overall, the show (in its current form) has the ability to underwhelm guests. It will be a beautiful thing to watch and the technology involved is very impressive, but will have no lasting effect or payoff for the guest. I hope that what we saw tonight wasn’t the finished product, or if it is, Disney continues to work on a version 2.0 of the show immediately.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
You completely turned around what I said. The idea of Disney's park's being defined by their characters is Disney fans defining a theme park based on Six Flags' example. Six Flags says they are a theme park operator and distinguished from other amusement parks because of the characters they include. This is furthered by a correlation between a preference for IP and acceptance of themed decor, it just has to be themed decor that looks expensive.
We do know because we can look at the properties that were included in Disneyland. It was mostly box office duds and disappointments. Walt Disney Productions (the Studio), only owned ⅓ of Disneyland at opening. The interest was in Walt Disney as a storyteller, not the lackluster film properties that were included as a minor component of the attraction line up.
I was referring to the oft made point that adding more characters to EPCOT Center and Disney's Animal Kingdom would turn them into little more than duplicates of the Magic Kingdom. I disagree with that point because it falsely assumes that the Magic Kingdom is and always has been an IP park.
Disneyland became a cultural icon when the characters were only a very minor component, and even today character attractions make up the bulk of additions but not total content. EPCOT Center deliberately avoided characters and also became a cultural icon. They didn't just make people happy on their rides, or help people create family memories; they created lasting impressions that permeated more than amusement time. They embodied the Architecture of Reassurance by influencing larger outlooks. EPCOT Center is still referenced by that very name in relationship to its subjects
You call this the exception but even you are pointing to the non-character elements as the source of what grew your interest.
That though is not the nuance I a was referring to, but that someone can be obsessed with Disney and still not have any like, respect or appreciation of themed entertainment as its own creative medium. The A=B=C of such a position is that such a person, despite also adoring Disney's theme parks, does not like theme parks. It is also not a value judgement. There is nothing wrong with not liking themed entertainment. The problem though is that instead of taking a more apathetic view of themed entertainment in which the liked elements always remain, there is often a very strong hostility towards themed entertainment as a valid medium.
It is a perfect analogy. The rule right now is that every attraction must be franchise based. It is also a strong desire amongst a set of fans but a similar rule applied to movies is so ridiculous it comes across as nonsensical.
The content of Mickey Mouse Park is documented and it included plenty that was not related to cartoons or movies. It was that unrelated content which continued to grow into the larger Disneyland project. The characters were always there, but by the clear progression through the 1980s was that WED Enterprises was doing less and less based on studio work.
Wizarding World of Harry Potter followed the pattern of Marvel Superhero Island and Jurassic Park.
Last edited:
Magic Feather
Well-Known Member
I have to ask, did you see the first or second round of previews, as that could have effected your answer?
First day of first round. Honestly haven't even read reviews from the second round, should I?
Rteetz
Well-Known Member
Well the second round did have a few more affects than the first round from what I understand.
I thought I heard (some) fire, anything else?
Magic Feather
Well-Known Member
The finale got some more of its actual elements, like fire and lasers. I will say that no matter when though, you should not expect the show to evolve much from either preview, as the show will be similar at its core. My personal thought is to debut v. 1.0 ASAP and a radical upgrade debuts in a year or two (just my thoughts, although a similar plan was proposed but passed on). No new show.
Admittedly, this show has had issues from square one story wise, the meetings went "this would be cool, so would this, let's use them both", but at its core it has a bunch of potential. (Almost) Every (likely) other I have seen proposed is Disney IPalooza: Starring Animals! That will definitely draw people in, but will go far from what the park needs. RoL is what the park needs, just in a better form. IMO, DAK needs a nighttime spectacular, but Discovery River Theater (At least in its current state) is hardly the venue.
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
I'm talking further back. Universal made a decision to copy the Disney model eventually. Harry Potter was the epitome of that later on.
Agree about the books.
The analogy still doesn't work. Putting Nemo adjacent to the Living Seas is nothing like putting Elsa in Moana.
Putting Elsa in Moana would be like putting Nemo in Peter Pan's Flight. That's equally ridiculous.
Next Big Thing
Well-Known Member
I wish they would've made the amphitheater a full theatre-in-the-round. They could have cut off part of the river to extend seating between sides and create a much more intimate viewing area (with much higher capacity to boot). Sure it would change how they perform the show by doing this, but it would make for a MUCH better experience imo.
Kman101
Well-Known Member
It's really a shame they don't believe it on it's own could draw people in. I guess we should enjoy a non-IP version while it lasts whenever it debuts? I'm not completely against Bambi, Jungle Book, Tarzan, Nemo or Lion King showing up but it's really a shame they have to fall back to that. I'd rather not see Shakira's song from Zootopia pop up though....
Possibly. But it'd ruin the vista even more during the daytime.
Perhaps the question should be asked was this the best location or format.
Next Big Thing
Well-Known Member
If not on Discovery River, where are you going to hold any sort of nighttime show in this park? It certainly was not designed with a nighttime show in mind.
There's several dozen acres still spare north of Kali. Assuming the location is wrong.
Assuming it's right, would a stand up, in the round show have been more workable? It would eliminate several issues with the new amphitheater layout and also increase capacity. Or did they not learn from Carnival de Lumiere?
Next Big Thing
Well-Known Member
Has the land near Kali been looked at for a show before? I didn't even take that into consideration as a possibility.
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
Right, Snow White was a huge flop. And the characters from that were not featured prominently at all.
Why were they interested in Walt as a storyteller? Because he had already proven himself a storyteller. Through short films and movies. Alice was an IP. Oswald was an IP.
Never mind for the moment that he stole the vast majority of his stories from other sources. He was a far better director than talent. He knew he wasn't the best artist, he knew he wasn't the best songwriter. He hired those people and guided them with his vision, and mostly rewrote other peoples' stories.
But comparing IPs then and now is as pointless as comparing telephones then and now. It's a completely different world. The reality is they matter, and a lot of people expect to see them when they come to the parks.
I disagree with that point as well, but for a different reason. The parks are already different, and enhancing existing attractions with relevant characters does not change one theme park into another.
Adding Disney character animals to a short projection of other animals at a nighttime show makes perfect sense, is entirely appropriate, ties everything from the park together without ignoring the Disney characters which arguably make the whole thing possible, and I guarantee the characters will get the biggest reaction from the crowd with the exception of the finale.
As to your disputed analogy, I already explained that in another post. I think you just didn't think through the idea completely or possible counter arguments. Again putting Disney animals into a show about animals is nothing like putting a character from one land and story into a completely irrelevant land and story.
So some parks used to have no or few characters. That's over. That's not dumbed down, that's not incorrect. That's knowing your audience.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
I feel that it was discussed 10+ years ago, but getting to that land would be a bit tough. It would require either extremely long queues to get back there and/or relocating Maharajah Jungle Trek and/or the train.