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

[21stamps]

I think you didn't see what the show presented and you saw what you wanted to see.

It pains me to read what you think the Disney Co. is about. You have a mindbooglingly simple and shallow perception of the Disney Co.

I almost never say this, but you really don't get it, and you absolutely don't want to. I don't think kids have changed that much but, man, adults have. Thanks to the internet, everybody is now an expert.

The bold- exactly. People are living thru the internet and basing opinions on things they have not seen in front of them, in real life. I haven't been on Frozen Ever After, so I can't base an opinion on it one way or the other. I know other people enjoy it, and I wish I could have secured a FP for it...that's the extent of my knowledge with that attraction, so I will never discuss what it "is or isn't".

I did see the ToL awakenings, you claim that "I saw what I wanted to see" and me and everyone else around me were completely wrong about what we saw with our own eyes. We (all of the people and articles who say the same and- specifically me) "have a simple and shallow perception. We don't get it."

How can you claim that? Music playing and images of character from Disney movies..or even if they were just the same animals from the movies, set to the music of the scene..what do you think that purpose would be? To make someone not think of Nemo? I'll give the show creators more credit than that, it's common sense. I don't need an insider to say what the intent was.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

The comparison with the tree of life is directly analogous. Same park, same question – how much IP is good IP?

I haven't seen it, so I appreciate the discussion of it and the descriptions.

It seems to me if they used music from jungle book with animals, but maybe not full colored characters, from same - at the same time, they intended to suggest the characters from the jungle book.

Not fully fleshing them out could have been for artistic consistency, to make them appear more similar to the generic animals during that presentation. It could also (gasp!) be saying that Disney animals and animals are all - animals!

Someone used the word 'art' earlier which hit me a little funny, but 'art' is interpreted by different people in different ways.

Maybe that technique used was meant to please both the kid looking for a character and the adult looking for intricacy. And the adult looking for a character.

It would absolutely make sense to replicate that level of character/animal interaction in RoL for consistency throughout the park.

 

[MisterPenguin]

It seems to me if they used music from jungle book with animals, but maybe not full colored characters, from same - at the same time, they intended to suggest the characters from the jungle book.

Not fully fleshing them out could have been for artistic consistency, to make them appear more similar to the generic animals during that presentation. It could also (gasp!) be saying that Disney animals and animals are all - animals!

Indeed, it is very very clear that these are their IP animals. While not exactly looking like their cartoon versions, they look like their CGI realistic versions (like the Jungle Book live-action remake).

Only one of the four vignettes make reference to Disney IPs. So, we're talking about just that one vignette. If there was the intention of the Imagineers to simply show these IP animals in their naturalistic forms in that vignette, they failed in two dramatic ways:

1. The school of fish turn colors and form a supersized clownfish and then they swim in the form of an arrow. We have a high degree of certainty they don't do that in the wild.
2. The flock of birds form a large elephant head and shake back and forth in rhythm to the music. This time, it's pretty much an impossibility that they can hover without flapping their winds.

So... these then, are cartoon animals. Now, where does one find cartoon animals?

So, is that Bambi and Thumper? No, not the way their cartoon versions look. If they ever do a 'live' remake, then most certainly, that is exactly what Bambi and Thumper will look like.

Is that Balou?

Supposed Imagineer: No, it's the outline of a CGI bear while they play music from The Jungle Book, so, how could anyone ever make the connection that that's the CGI Balou from the recent movie?

Yeah... of course that's Balou.

A large Clownfish with a smaller one? Of course that's Nemo and Dad.

Not from their movies? Half the animals that show up are poor photoshopped images clipped from Disney documentaries.

This vignette does not a have a sly wink of referencing Disney IP animals, instead, it is very, very obviously referencing the Disney IPs. If that wasn't the intention of some Imagineer... they failed at subtlety.

 

[CanadianGordon]

I'm just popping in to wish EVERYONE a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

(16 pages later.... Holy cow. Stunning pictures. Not wading into the discussion. Here's to 2017 being the year we see ROL.)

 

[ctxak98]

They don't?

Could that be one of the issues?

Pretty sure there is some narration in the show, can't remember to be honest but I remember narration in parts I believe

 

[marni1971]

See what you have done to us Disney?!

Blame Shanghai.

Or Meg.

Oh....

 

[Kman101]

Blame Shanghai.

Or Meg.

Oh....

 

[lazyboy97o]

I read posts from David and think how sad it must be, what a missed opportunity, that he can't just sit back and enjoy the ride, warts and all, like I just did.

Why is it sad? You say you respect people enjoying things in different ways but then dismiss a manner of enjoyment as sad. Just because you don't see how one can "nit pick" and enjoy does not make it impossible.

My bottom line is this: unless you are or were an imagineer, opinions here are all equally valid.

And what if you learn that someone here is or was an Imagineer? That in itself does not mean much. You equate it to an objective credential but that completely ignores the diversity of fields within Walt Disney Imagineering. Which disciplines and titles are acceptable to you? And are only Imagineers credible? What about Universal Creative? What about the many third parties with which they consult?

Also, Walt Disney Imagineering still reports to Bob Chapek, a man who has absolutely no prior experience in themed entertainment. The same is true of his predecessor, Tom Staggs. Their boss also has no such experience.

This is another misperception that is promoted in America these days. Opinions about personal taste ARE all equally valid. One person may enjoy IP-related shows while another may not. As long was we're talking about personal taste, you are correct.

The root of this is not a matter of taste. The true issue is whether or not themed entertainment is its own, legitimate storytelling medium.

I think this is such an interesting discussion, you are correct in the difference between then and now. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

What I've said consistently, is what I think should be taken into consideration, or at least acknowledged, is that people now are different than people back then. Very different. With many options available to us. How does a company make us spend their money with them instead of someone else? what can they provide that is unique to anywhere else?

Despite any changes, good movies still have good stories. Good books still have good stories. Good theater is still good stories. Good television shows are still good stories. But somehow themed entertainment needs to become a marketing medium and ditch a focus on stories.

 

[ford91exploder]

Why is it sad? You say you respect people enjoying things in different ways but then dismiss a manner of enjoyment as sad. Just because you don't see how one can "nit pick" and enjoy does not make it impossible.


And what if you learn that someone here is or was an Imagineer? That in itself does not mean much. You equate it to an objective credential but that completely ignores the diversity of fields within Walt Disney Imagineering. Which disciplines and titles are acceptable to you? And are only Imagineers credible? What about Universal Creative? What about the many third parties with which they consult?

Also, Walt Disney Imagineering still reports to Bob Chapek, a man who has absolutely no prior experience in themed entertainment. The same is true of his predecessor, Tom Staggs. Their boss also has no such experience.


The root of this is not a matter of taste. The true issue is whether or not themed entertainment is its own, legitimate storytelling medium.


Despite any changes, good movies still have good stories. Good books still have good stories. Good theater is still good stories. Good television shows are still good stories. But somehow themed entertainment needs to become a marketing medium and ditch a focus on stories.

The parks must become only a sales tool because the guy in charge is a retail guy who sees the parks as a mall and a venue for pushing Merchandise, He has no creative vision and has no appreciation for creativity or story beyond creating a marketing campaign to foist overpriced imported junk upon unsuspecting consumers.

Disney has been down this path before with Paul Pressler and we've seen this story before and how it ends (badly). Chapek's only concern with the parks are how much merchandise can we sell per square foot and it's why WDW is devolving into a mall with a cover charge

 

[GoofGoof]

Indeed, it is very very clear that these are their IP animals. While not exactly looking like their cartoon versions, they look like their CGI realistic versions (like the Jungle Book live-action remake).

Only one of the four vignettes make reference to Disney IPs. So, we're talking about just that one vignette. If there was the intention of the Imagineers to simply show these IP animals in their naturalistic forms in that vignette, they failed in two dramatic ways:

1. The school of fish turn colors and form a supersized clownfish and then they swim in the form of an arrow. We have a high degree of certainty they don't do that in the wild.
2. The flock of birds form a large elephant head and shake back and forth in rhythm to the music. This time, it's pretty much an impossibility that they can hover without flapping their winds.

So... these then, are cartoon animals. Now, where does one find cartoon animals?

So, is that Bambi and Thumper? No, not the way their cartoon versions look. If they ever do a 'live' remake, then most certainly, that is exactly what Bambi and Thumper will look like.

Is that Balou?

Supposed Imagineer: No, it's the outline of a CGI bear while they play music from The Jungle Book, so, how could anyone ever make the connection that that's the CGI Balou from the recent movie?

Yeah... of course that's Balou.

A large Clownfish with a smaller one? Of course that's Nemo and Dad.

Not from their movies? Half the animals that show up are poor photoshopped images clipped from Disney documentaries.

This vignette does not a have a sly wink of referencing Disney IP animals, instead, it is very, very obviously referencing the Disney IPs. If that wasn't the intention of some Imagineer... they failed at subtlety.

Since we don't really know if the animals are just regular animals or if they are the animals based on Disney IP I have an idea:

• Those who want or prefer they were IP based can imagine they are indeed IP based.
• Those opposed to IP can imagine they are just a fish, a deer and a bear but not based on anything related to Disney IP.

Everyone wins the argument and we can all go back to complaining together about why ROL still hasn't started for regular guests

@MisterPenguin this isn't directed at you, yours just happened to be one of the last posts on the topic.

 

[MisterPenguin]

@MisterPenguin this isn't directed at you, yours just happened to be one of the last posts on the topic.

I won't take it personally.

At times this one vignette was indeed subtle. At other times: When you play Jungle Book music and show a panther, a constrictor, and a bear... you're not being subtle. Were those the actual CGI characters as they were rendered in the movies? No. Were they meant to be them? Yes.

Does that clearly answer the question of whether the 'characters' were in that vignette? No. It depends on how you define 'the characters.'

To bring this around to RoL: If a bear, a constrictor, and a panther show up sort of together in the panoply of animals in the RoL show... is that a use of an IP or a winky Easter Egg?...

The debate, and the rage, continues...

 

[FigmentJedi]

Indeed, it is very very clear that these are their IP animals. While not exactly looking like their cartoon versions, they look like their CGI realistic versions (like the Jungle Book live-action remake).

Only one of the four vignettes make reference to Disney IPs. So, we're talking about just that one vignette. If there was the intention of the Imagineers to simply show these IP animals in their naturalistic forms in that vignette, they failed in two dramatic ways:

1. The school of fish turn colors and form a supersized clownfish and then they swim in the form of an arrow. We have a high degree of certainty they don't do that in the wild.
2. The flock of birds form a large elephant head and shake back and forth in rhythm to the music. This time, it's pretty much an impossibility that they can hover without flapping their winds.

So... these then, are cartoon animals. Now, where does one find cartoon animals?

So, is that Bambi and Thumper? No, not the way their cartoon versions look. If they ever do a 'live' remake, then most certainly, that is exactly what Bambi and Thumper will look like.

Is that Balou?

Supposed Imagineer: No, it's the outline of a CGI bear while they play music from The Jungle Book, so, how could anyone ever make the connection that that's the CGI Balou from the recent movie?

Yeah... of course that's Balou.

A large Clownfish with a smaller one? Of course that's Nemo and Dad.

Not from their movies? Half the animals that show up are poor photoshopped images clipped from Disney documentaries.

This vignette does not a have a sly wink of referencing Disney IP animals, instead, it is very, very obviously referencing the Disney IPs. If that wasn't the intention of some Imagineer... they failed at subtlety.

Not to mention the part where the freaking Space Pterodactyls from James Cameron's Avatar flies in front of the tree.

 

[Luxe]

Walking by the RoL viewing area the other day was sad, such a beautiful area being unused. One day.... hopefully...

 

[Kman101]

Walking by the RoL viewing area the other day was sad, such a beautiful area being unused. One day.... hopefully...

Seeing those high def pictures posted just made me long for it even more than I already am

 

[Goofyernmost]

I disagree with the last part...I don't necessarily believe the audience wants IP...I think Disney Executives want IP for synergy and product sales...I think Audiences just want to be wowed by an engaging and beautiful show. injecting IP is not the only way to appeal to a younger audience...it's a lazy way.

I'll go one step further and say that the average audience doesn't even know what an IP is. We are the ones that throw that around so much that it really has changed it's meaning. IP = Intellectual Property! What possible thing ever created wasn't an IP. Disney is an IP producer and has been since Walt established his first business. Mickey Mouse is an IP. Imagination was an IP. Everything really was the brain of someone else, even Mickey Mouse. Walt may have thought up the concept but, Ub Iwerks created what MM actually ended up looking like so was that Ubs or Walts? Disney did not create the Muppets, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Toy Story, but, currently they own the IP and that makes it theirs. Everything ever created was an IP, whether originally Disneys or George Lucas. How many of the featured movies in the beloved GMR was a Disney creation? Why was that alright. Even things like Snow White, Cinderella, Peter Pan and Mary Poppins, was some one elses IP. Since places like World Showcase is a Disney IP, how can we say that it's wrong to change the structure of their own IP. If you think about it, just about everything that lasted from the original Disney/MGM park was an IP and not even owned by Disney at the time.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

To get back on topic, is it possible that this latest delay is just a cost cutting measure? They planned to keep AK open at night by including the night Safari, Tree of Life light show, nighttime party type thing and ROL from last April until Avatarland opens. Is there really enough to do at night to make it worth keeping open at night every day without Avatarland? The night Safari has gotten mixed reviews at best and the rest is just filler. I didn't visit this summer, but I read a lot of reviews that the place was pretty empty at night.

Maybe they just thought it was better to go back to the earlier closings and wait for Avatar officially opens to keep the park open at night. I'm sure there were problems with the show too, but it can't be so bad that they couldn't roll it out and based on how they staggered the opening of FLE they have no problem rolling things out half finished and finishing them up later. When Avatar opens the park will be swamped with visitors for a while so that's perfect timing to have the show open.

We were at Disney the first of December and went over to DAK a couple of times. The ROL area is stunning. The seating looked alittle smaller than the night time show over at DHS but members stated there will be most likely three shows per night. I hope they keep working on the show so it will be up to Disney (DAK) standards. The night time offerings we experienced that night were wonderful. Lots of street entertainment. Safari was great (we saw it at dusk - loved the painted dogs). EE was awesome at night. Dino-Rama took on a different life at night that was charming. Dinosaur was in tip top shape after the refurb. The Tree of Life was amazing with the new projector show. Pandora will fill in the void to round out the park.
Rivers of Light will be the type of show I have been waiting for Disney to bring to the parks. From what I've seen so far, love the music and mood of it all. I will have to make an official comment on the show after I see it in person. I hope I get to see it in the near future.

 

[Luxe]

We were at Disney the first of December and went over to DAK a couple of times. The ROL area is stunning. The seating looked alittle smaller than the night time show over at DHS but members stated there will be most likely three shows per night. I hope they keep working on the show so it will be up to Disney (DAK) standards. The night time offerings we experienced that night were wonderful. Lots of street entertainment. Safari was great (we saw it at dusk - loved the painted dogs). EE was awesome at night. Dino-Rama took on a different life at night that was charming. Dinosaur was in tip top shape after the refurb. The Tree of Life was amazing with the new projector show. Pandora will fill in the void to round out the park.
Rivers of Light will be the type of show I have been waiting for Disney to bring to the parks. From what I've seen so far, love the music and mood of it all. I will have to make an official comment on the show after I see it in person. I hope I get to see it in the near future.

It really is a beautiful area. It's an obvious sore at AK right now as it's a visual draw with nothing to actually do there yet. If RoL ever opens, I hope they use the space for some sort of day time show.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

It really is a beautiful area. It's an obvious sore at AK right now as it's a visual draw with nothing to actually do there yet. If RoL ever opens, I hope they use the space for some sort of day time show.

Day time show - lovely idea and I would welcome it. That's one of the things I love about DAK. They have great shows for families, couples or singles to enjoy.

 

[BrianLo]

X = Collective hope of RoL opening soon
Y = This thread's descent into insanity
Z = Bob Iger's current mood

 

[doctornick]

Day time show - lovely idea and I would welcome it. That's one of the things I love about DAK. They have great shows for families, couples or singles to enjoy.

I have contended that it would be great to use the theater for a daytime show in the vein of Legend of Mythica (themed to animals/nature, of course).

Side question: does DisneySea have a daytime water show any more?