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

[21stamps]

Because it's not an ip.

What would be the difference between animals/characters from Disney movies being in the Tree of Life show vs RoL?

@Tony the Tigger said characters are not inappropriate nor do they dumb something down. @lazyboy97o said you can't just throw characters in just because the park is called "Animal Kingdom".
I used an example of character integration that fits the park and the audience perfectly.

I'm not for or against characters in Rivers of Light.. just saying that plenty of Disney movies can (and do) fit the theme of Animal Kingdom.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Because it's not an ip.

So an animal being a known, named character vs. an unnamed character makes it not fit?

Still seems like a purity test that loses sight of the big picture.

There is nothing elevating a tiger sleeping in hiding during the day in it's own habitat replica at AK vs. the same at the Bronx Zoo, which did that first. Both are boring (to me.)

What could make the Disney version unique? Storytelling? Generic theming, as they would say on shark Tank, has nothing proprietary about it and there's nothing stopping anyone from duplicating it. Characters are proprietary.

Yes, it's true that truly classic, original Disney attractions have in effect become their own IP's. They were first to market, with little if any competition and appeared at a unique time in history that will not be duplicated. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen with new, completely original (read: generic) attractions unless they are absolutely mind blowing. Snow white was never mind blowing. We liked the ride because of nostalgia.

Make something similar to small world today, and see if park attendance explodes.

Inserting IPs appropriately in rivers of light and animal kingdom just gives another element for those of us who are not geeking out over the geeky stuff. And I'm a geek lol.

Is it *necessary? Nothing is. But it's a nice touch a lot of us will appreciate.

Horse beaten to death. Oops.

 

[21stamps]

So an animal being a known, named character vs. an unnamed character makes it not fit?

Still seems like a purity test that loses sight of the big picture.

There is nothing elevating a tiger sleeping in hiding during the day in it's own habitat replica at AK vs. the same at the Bronx Zoo, which did that first. Both are boring (to me.)

What could make the Disney version unique? Storytelling? Generic theming, as they would say on shark Tank, has nothing proprietary about it and there's nothing stopping anyone from duplicating it. Characters are proprietary.

Yes, it's true that truly classic, original Disney attractions have in effect become their own IP's. They were first to market, with little if any competition and appeared at a unique time in history that will not be duplicated. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen with new, completely original (read: generic) attractions unless they are absolutely mind blowing. Snow white was never mind blowing. We liked the ride because of nostalgia.

Make something similar to small world today, and see if park attendance explodes.

Inserting IPs appropriately in rivers of light and animal kingdom just gives another element for those of us who are not geeking out over the geeky stuff. And I'm a geek lol.

Is it *necessary? Nothing is. But it's a nice touch a lot of us will appreciate.

Horse beaten to death. Oops.

I think it's important to also look how much the world has changed since Disney World's inception.

In this day and age we all, children included, have knowledge at our finger tips. You want to know how long the Great Wall of China is? Ask Siri. You want to know what animals live in Kenya? Ask Siri, or type the question in your browser. You want to see them? Book a tour or plan it yourself with the help of the Internet.

People did not have access to this several years ago..they could go to a library, but it's not the same as watching a video in high def and surround sound...and travel wasn't as affordable as it is today.

"Themes" exist all over now. You want an amazing aquarium? Go to most big cities and find one. You want to stay for a week in an amazing aquarium? Go to Atlantis.
You want to be immersed in science or dinosaurs? There are amazing museums across the country, they offer camps and overnights and just wonderful fun while learning. Same thing with a lot of Zoos.

The world is so much smaller than it was 45 years ago..people have access to more than they did 45 years ago. The difference with Disney World, for many, is the nostalgia, the characters.. the themes that are unique to Disney alone.

It's not a bad thing, it just means that your audience has more choices today than yesterday..and it is the job of the entertainment and travel world to figure out how to roll with the changing times.. how to get people of today interested in what they are offering.

 

[SorcererMC]

plenty of Disney movies can (and do) fit the theme of Animal Kingdom.

Including the Disney Nature docu-style films (which I rarely see mentioned). Maybe they're niche but I think they're theme-appropriate.

 

[21stamps]

Do you think Frozen fits in Norway?

What does that have to do with characters from the Lion King being in an Animal Kingdom show?

But I'll answer.. I'm neutral about it.
Not being snarky..I'm just not bothered one way or the other by Frozen being in WS or somewhere else. I think it does help families with children who are spending a good portion of time in WS..if they can get a FP for it.. I haven't been on the ride so can't make a personal judgement call on the entertainment factor..but it looks to be better than it's predecessor.

 

[Next Big Thing]

So an animal being a known, named character vs. an unnamed character makes it not fit?

Still seems like a purity test that loses sight of the big picture.

There is nothing elevating a tiger sleeping in hiding during the day in it's own habitat replica at AK vs. the same at the Bronx Zoo, which did that first. Both are boring (to me.)

What could make the Disney version unique? Storytelling? Generic theming, as they would say on shark Tank, has nothing proprietary about it and there's nothing stopping anyone from duplicating it. Characters are proprietary.

Yes, it's true that truly classic, original Disney attractions have in effect become their own IP's. They were first to market, with little if any competition and appeared at a unique time in history that will not be duplicated. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen with new, completely original (read: generic) attractions unless they are absolutely mind blowing. Snow white was never mind blowing. We liked the ride because of nostalgia.

Make something similar to small world today, and see if park attendance explodes.

Inserting IPs appropriately in rivers of light and animal kingdom just gives another element for those of us who are not geeking out over the geeky stuff. And I'm a geek lol.

Is it *necessary? Nothing is. But it's a nice touch a lot of us will appreciate.

Horse beaten to death. Oops.

Do "Disney" characters belong in Pirates of the Caribbean? Haunted Mansion? Country Bear? Carousel of Progress? Jungle Cruise? Tiki Room (oops...)?

The answer is no. Those rides work great just as they are with original stories/characters, which fit the theme of each respective attraction much better than lazily sticking Mickey Mouse in to appease the people who have short attention spans.

Rivers of Light is no different than any of those. It is meant to showcase an original story and original characters and evoke the same type of feeling that a show similar to Illuminations gives you.

Sticking in characters from Lion King, Nemo, Jungle Book, etc will do nothing to enhance this show if the show itself is no good as is. All you'd be doing is putting lipstick on a pig.

 

[Gomer]

"Themes" exist all over now. You want an amazing aquarium? Go to most big cities and find one. You want to stay for a week in an amazing aquarium? Go to Atlantis.
You want to be immersed in science or dinosaurs? There are amazing museums across the country, they offer camps and overnights and just wonderful fun while learning. Same thing with a lot of Zoos.

Maybe one of the main things the provides the division here is the definition of immersion and theme. None of these things would apply as immersion in a themed environment to me. But, it is a vague topic and we all define what it is for ourselves I suppose. To me, immersion in a theme means creating a space where everything about it represents a world built by an artist to convince you that you are actually there.

A museum, is a great place to view artifacts or exhibits. But it doesn't make me feel like I walked back in time into a world of dinosaurs. This is what Disney excels at, and main draw for me to their parks. They are still capable of it, but more often than not, that level of theming is sacrificed in favor of other factors.

 

[Daveeeeed]

So an animal being a known, named character vs. an unnamed character makes it not fit?

Still seems like a purity test that loses sight of the big picture.

There is nothing elevating a tiger sleeping in hiding during the day in it's own habitat replica at AK vs. the same at the Bronx Zoo, which did that first. Both are boring (to me.)

What could make the Disney version unique? Storytelling? Generic theming, as they would say on shark Tank, has nothing proprietary about it and there's nothing stopping anyone from duplicating it. Characters are proprietary.

Yes, it's true that truly classic, original Disney attractions have in effect become their own IP's. They were first to market, with little if any competition and appeared at a unique time in history that will not be duplicated. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen with new, completely original (read: generic) attractions unless they are absolutely mind blowing. Snow white was never mind blowing. We liked the ride because of nostalgia.

Make something similar to small world today, and see if park attendance explodes.

Inserting IPs appropriately in rivers of light and animal kingdom just gives another element for those of us who are not geeking out over the geeky stuff. And I'm a geek lol.

Is it *necessary? Nothing is. But it's a nice touch a lot of us will appreciate.

Horse beaten to death. Oops.

It truly depends on the placement. Animal Kingdom's Pandora is probably going to be one of the best ips to use for the park. As for Tree of Life Awakenings it is like EPCOT Center, yes you can add an ip, but it being pure and just focused on the nature is what is so pretty. A live-action Jungle Book Ride could work for Asia where you go through the forests or something, but a non-ip ride is usually how you get classics like Jungle Cruise and Pirates although I personally wouldn't mind a ride like that.

When you take a night show into consideration like Rivers of Light, Ips work wonders for Fantasmic, World of Color, and Wishes but it would seem odd at Illuminations and We could tread into that area of the park about nature but it doesn't need it necessarily. The problem is not not using ips but failing to use nature properly for a show that is supposed to tie-in the park's theme which is currently nature.


I'm not one of those on the boards that is super anti-ip but the Walt Disney Company (along with Universal) are overkilling it, but I still love all of their parks and will continue to go to them. I think (although would prefer a ride exclusively about the culture or the country) Ratatouille for the France Pavilion is actually a good thing if it happens. It's not a ride that gets shoehorned into a classic and is not even set in that country: Frozen; but Ratatouille could work because it is after all in Paris about French food.


The Tower of Terror is a perfect use of an ip that I 100% support (it is my favorite ride after all not because of thrill but because of theming). Tot is able to successfully use an ip saying that YOU yes YOU the guest are entering another dimension. And it works so well because it uses an original story within the ip. a Jungle Book book-report style ride would not work at Animal Kingdom, but a Jungle Book ride that you go on a new story could potentially work. It would be better than not getting anything at all, but not the best option. The main thing Rivers of Light with ips has against it is its story -- it doesn't need an ip to enhance it. In a way that is like having an advertisement for a film. Works for Fantasmic because the story is about Mickey and his dreams, works for World of color because it is about movies, but it would not work for Rivers of Light because the story focuses on nature which tie's in the entire park together.


But even with an ip like the Jungle Book it still just wouldn't follow the story of Asia. The theming Fromm kali to Everest immerses you somewhere else and even an incredible ride like a Jungle Book ride would be flawed before it even got put in. And again Pandora will work because he theme is about nature and the entire land is cohesive. The Lion king to Africa would not be.


You can use ips effectively like the Tower of Terror or a good ride but is a book report and doesn't fit at all like Frozenstrom.


The main issue with ips is that current management is shoehorning then wherever they get the chance to: Frozen, Guardians of the galaxy etc. There's nothing wrong with ips until you do that.

 

[21stamps]

Maybe one of the main things the provides the division here is the definition of immersion and theme. None of these things would apply as immersion in a themed environment to me. But, it is a vague topic and we all define what it is for ourselves I suppose. To me, immersion in a theme means creating a space where everything about it represents a world built by an artist to convince you that you are actually there.

A museum, is a great place to view artifacts or exhibits. But it doesn't make me feel like I walked back in time into a world of dinosaurs. This is what Disney excels at, and main draw for me to their parks. They are still capable of it, but more often than not, that level of theming is sacrificed in favor of other factors.

I agree. However, when I was a kid museums were nothing like they are today. They do succeed in immersing you in a theme.. not on a Disney scale.. but it means that Disney better offer much much more to hold someone's interest and give them a reason to spend thousands of dollars more to go there. Atlantis is a gorgeous theme..so well done, and no strollers, or at least not many lol. Point being, people have already "seen and done" so much more now than the previous generations.

 

[Daveeeeed]

What does that have to do with characters from the Lion King being in an Animal Kingdom show?

But I'll answer.. I'm neutral about it.
Not being snarky..I'm just not bothered one way or the other by Frozen being in WS or somewhere else. I think it does help families with children who are spending a good portion of time in WS..if they can get a FP for it.. I haven't been on the ride so can't make a personal judgement call on the entertainment factor..but it looks to be better than it's predecessor.

Imagine those animatronics as trolls and the extra scenes being a Viking Village. I guarantee you that the vast majority would have liked an overhauled Maelstrom vs. Frozen. Also you could actually get on rather than wait 90 minutes. Not to mention it does not even represent Norway, so the buildup through the pavilion is not even cohesive. You have to have the land, or in this case pavilion, working with the rides. I'm sure it is a great ride for the room they had to work with, but it's a shame that the location is bad (it's not even set in Norway and it has no cohesive theme with the pavilion), the limited space (and with that pacing), and the capacity (less than half the capacity than Pirates).



As for the Lion King, it could work, but how on Earth is that going to add any more enjoyment rather than it feeling pushed at you? It would feel odd amongst animals and the current story. Perhaps the show itself is flawed in its pacing. The finally could be Mufasa on Pride Rock roaring, but it is about nature, not an animated film. It wouldn't tie-in the park's theme -- nature is the park's theme. Illuminations does that perfectly without a single one; yes I'm sure there are ways they can use ips but for a park about nature, like EPCOT is to the world and the future, why not try to not use an ip as that would tie-in the park the best?

 

[Daveeeeed]

I agree. However, when I was a kid museums were nothing like they are today. They do succeed in immersing you in a theme.. not on a Disney scale.. but it means that Disney better offer much much more to hold someone's interest and give them a reason to spend thousands of dollars more to go there. Atlantis is a gorgeous theme..so well done, and no strollers, or at least not many lol. Point being, people have already "seen and done" so much more now than the previous generations.

Atlantis is not really a museum. It's incredible, but museums like the Louvre are I think is what he's talking about.

I still love museums and I'm only a teenager -- hardly the main demographic. But the museums you mentioned are a different type; they're much more like an attraction rather than a museum.

I would read Fahrenheit 451 if you haven't. It shows what happens when we lose sight of nature being wonderful and instead need technology to keep us entertained and it was written decades ago.

 

[21stamps]

Atlantis is not really a museum. It's incredible, but museums like the Louvre are I think is what he's talking about.

I still love museums and I'm only a teenager -- hardly the main demographic.

I would read Fahrenheit 451 if you haven't. It shows what happens when we lose sight of nature being wonderful.

We are members of fantastic zoo, with a wonderful reciprocity program. We love nature. I go to Disney's Animal Kingdom to see more than nature. We are doing Alaska and the Olympic Peninsula in June, this will definitely be the most "focused on nature" trip that we have ever done as a family. Disney can not provide an equivalent to that, nor should they.

The Louvre is great, it's also not the main reason (for myself) to go to Paris..one of the reasons..but it's not where a 3-4-5-6-7 year old will become immersed in a certain land, a vacation to France (or any country) is for culture and exploration and first hand knowledge and experience. Disney doesn't provide that either.
There are museums all within driving distance of most people, which can immerse you in a different land just as Disney does. We have amazing opportunities all over the country to provide that type of experience. Disney is the grandest scale for sure..but they must provide something more than just "grander" to get people to spend several thousands of dollars of their hard earned money. A lion is a lion, regardless of he is at DAK or a zoo.m

ETA- regarding Atlantis. It is impeccably themed..a theme that children and adults can appreciate, enjoy, and fall in love with. There's also aquariums all over the States, none as "grand" as Atlantis..but the location of the hotel itself adds to the draw. They don't need characters because their theme is a lost colony and ruins..not a movie based company.

These are all my reasons for selecting Disney or another destination..and weighing what suits us at the time...and what I want to see from Disney to remain a place to make me choose them over somewhere else. I do realize that everyone may not feel the same.. just again, want to point out that back when I was a kid, most of what I mentioned was not available to us. Kids today are more knowledgeable and have more "experiences" on a weekly basis than my generation did for sure.

 

[Daveeeeed]

We are members of fantastic zoo, with a wonderful reciprocity program. We love nature. I go to Disney's Animal Kingdom to see more than nature. We are doing Alaska and the Olympic Peninsula in June, this will definitely be the most "focused on nature" trip that we have ever done as a family. Disney can not provide an equivalent to that, nor should they.

The Louvre is great, it's also not the main reason (for myself) to go to Paris..one of the reasons..but it's not where a 3-4-5-6-7 year old will become immersed in a certain land, a vacation to France (or any country) is for culture and exploration and first hand knowledge and experience. Disney doesn't provide that either.
There are museums all within driving distance of most people, which can immerse you in a different land just as Disney does. We have amazing opportunities all over the country to provide that type of experience. Disney is the grandest scale for sure..but they must provide something more than just "grander" to get people to spend several thousands of dollars of their hard earned money. A lion is a lion, regardless of he is at DAK or a zoo.

Kilimanjaro Safaris is arguably the best Safaris ride on the planet. That is because it uses theming. Haha Imagine if it just had an animatronic Simba instead of real lions.

Ips do not make something grander...
It is the story and the theming that do.
Animal Kingdom is about nature if you just don't like it don't go, but how the park is currently has a wonderful theme, but unfortunately the park was originally under built but the theme works.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I agree. I'm inclined to mention my belief it goes beyond DAK though, affecting lot of newer Disney rides built after the early 90s. It is particularly noticeable at DAK, likely because the amazing quality of the theming in the outside and queue areas putting the lesser details of the rides themselves in even greater contrast.

The replacement rides at Epcot's Future World during the mid to late 90s felt extremely empty and bland compared to their original forms as well.

New Fantasyland rides are also lacking in scenery, either poorly done (Mermaid) or not enough (7DMT). 7DMT was intended to have additional mine scenes, and art had much better outside scenery. More streams passing through, I suspect a better night lighting package (there were extra gemstones scattered around the mine entrances probably intended to be lit internally for an after-dark spectacle), and a little scene of the 7 dwarfs marching along the top of a fallen tree.

Even the new Frozen ride has some let-downs visually within the confines of the space it has to work with (the second level feels empty). Even the already modestly themed Slinky Dog coaster has showcased a severe downgrade in scenery from its originally released art and newer art...

Hopefully some of these can be addressed during regular refurbs. The night time effects are a great idea to encourage re-rides.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I think it's important to also look how much the world has changed since Disney World's inception.

In this day and age we all, children included, have knowledge at our finger tips. You want to know how long the Great Wall of China is? Ask Siri. You want to know what animals live in Kenya? Ask Siri, or type the question in your browser. You want to see them? Book a tour or plan it yourself with the help of the Internet.

People did not have access to this several years ago..they could go to a library, but it's not the same as watching a video in high def and surround sound...and travel wasn't as affordable as it is today.

"Themes" exist all over now. You want an amazing aquarium? Go to most big cities and find one. You want to stay for a week in an amazing aquarium? Go to Atlantis.
You want to be immersed in science or dinosaurs? There are amazing museums across the country, they offer camps and overnights and just wonderful fun while learning. Same thing with a lot of Zoos.

The world is so much smaller than it was 45 years ago..people have access to more than they did 45 years ago. The difference with Disney World, for many, is the nostalgia, the characters.. the themes that are unique to Disney alone.

It's not a bad thing, it just means that your audience has more choices today than yesterday..and it is the job of the entertainment and travel world to figure out how to roll with the changing times.. how to get people of today interested in what they are offering.

Including the Disney Nature docu-style films (which I rarely see mentioned). Maybe they're niche but I think they're theme-appropriate.

Agree and agree.

 

[21stamps]

Kilimanjaro Safaris is arguably the best Safaris ride on the planet. That is because it uses theming. Haha Imagine if it just had an animatronic Simba instead of real lions.

Ips do not make something grander...
It is the story and the theming that do.
Animal Kingdom is about nature if you just don't like it don't go, but how the park is currently has a wonderful theme, but unfortunately the park was originally under built but the theme works.

This may sound horrible to you then-
We didn't even go on Kilimanjaro Safari this past trip. Expedition Everest, Dinosaur, and (gasp) Primevil Whirl were the FPs that I chose..hoping to have time for the safari ride, but scratched it in order to take the train and visit Rafiki's Planet Watch and spend more time just enjoying Africa and the street shows. We can see animals any time..even though it would have been nice to fit the safari in, I don't regret the decision to skip it.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Do "Disney" characters belong in Pirates of the Caribbean? Haunted Mansion? Country Bear? Carousel of Progress? Jungle Cruise? Tiki Room (oops...)?

The answer is no. Those rides work great just as they are with original stories/characters, which fit the theme of each respective attraction much better than lazily sticking Mickey Mouse in to appease the people who have short attention spans.

Rivers of Light is no different than any of those. It is meant to showcase an original story and original characters and evoke the same type of feeling that a show similar to Illuminations gives you.

Sticking in characters from Lion King, Nemo, Jungle Book, etc will do nothing to enhance this show if the show itself is no good as is. All you'd be doing is putting lipstick on a pig.

So Jack Sparrow doesn't belong in pirates? Because that's what we're talking about here, not something random like Mickey Mouse.

I completely agree characters will not make a bad show good. But if I was a big Simba fan (I'm not) and I'm watching animals projected on water at Disney's animal kingdom, and I see a real lion image morph into Simba or vice verses, I might get a little more excited than with just the generic lion.

Why do we need Tinkerbell at Cinderella's castle?

Why do all kinds of characters that would never meet all get together for stage shows, villain shows, Fantasmic, Once Upon A Time?

I think at some point a little fun is more important than absolute perfection - which is something to strive for, but has never been (despite nostalgia) and never will be, and is unrealistic.

I've mentioned this before, but I own a record store. I can put Pat Benatar's jazz album in the jazz section where it will rarely be appreciated, or I can know my audience and put it in the 80s section with the other Benatar. If I have more than one, I'll put one in each. There are purists who would (and did) argue with me about that (really!) and there is no perfectly correct answer. But bottom line, it's a business, not a museum, and I have to put it where I think it is more likely to sell, and have employees to help as needed.

We can have fantastic ideas that are curbed by physical or financial limitations, customer expectations (realistic and otherwise) etc.

You should, and I do, always have high standards. But chasing perfection is not a goal unto itself, and can be counterproductive.

And taking theming so seriously at the expense of general entertainment can be also.

 

[marni1971]

So Jack Sparrow doesn't belong in pirates?

Many would say unless you're in Shanghai, no.

 

[Next Big Thing]

So Jack Sparrow doesn't belong in pirates? Because that's what we're talking about here, not something random like Mickey Mouse.

General consensus is the ride was better before Sparrow was shoe-horned in there.

Why do we need Tinkerbell at Cinderella's castle?

Why do all kinds of characters that would never meet all get together for stage shows, villain shows, Fantasmic, Once Upon A Time?

All of those shows that you mentioned are IP-based to begin with. Wishes is hosted by Jiminy Cricket. Stage shows generally revolve around Mickey and friends. Fantasmic is Mickey-based, Once Upon A Time is a characterpalooza.

To me, we need to think of RoL like we would think of Illuminations. Would characters feel right in Illuminations to you? I can't answer for you, but for most people I would guess the answer is no. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should or that it will flow well within the context of the story.

 

[21stamps]

Many would say unless you're in Shanghai, no.

Really?! Pirates was always one of my faves as a child, before Jack Sparrow, and I actually preferred the Pirates of the Caribbean of my youth to the current one..although I don't know if that's just the nostalgia factor talking.

I do think the whole Jack emphasis is great now and really adds to Adventurland in a wonderful way.
Placing oneself in the mind of a child, which would people prefer?
To become a "real pirate apprentice" deemed so by a character they know and love, or that same show, interaction, and experience with pirates whom the children have no personal attachment to?