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

[marni1971]

Really?!?

Yes, really.

There's still the stage outside for the kiddies.

 

[21stamps]

Yes, really.

There's still the stage outside.

But to the rest of my comment..the way Jack is integrated into more than the ride..it all flows together doesn't it?

 

[Tony the Tigger]

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?

Ok so we just have different points of view and different sets of expectations.

I liked Maelstrom, but it was not a big deal. I like Frozen much better, and because it's set in a fictional town in Norway, does not mean it's not set in Norway. It's more entertaining. I don't come to Disney World for an education. It does not seem out of place. I want more rides in more pavilions. Ratatouille is a perfect example, and I just watched that movie again yesterday LOL.

And to reveal my own two minds about things, I get the idea of world showcase having fewer children and appreciating it more because of that. But it's not all about me. It's Disney World, and there are kids, and there is a company trying to make money. And if you aren't looking for the frozen ride, you won't find it. So if you just want to stroll from Mexico to Norway, because that's so realistic LOL, you can do so without any frozen invasion.

To me, if animal kingdom is "all about nature" as you keep saying, then I think it's pointless. I can get nature anywhere. I've been to better aquariums. Can't say they themed that better than the Atlanta aquarium, or sea world for that matter.

The last thing I want from Disney is a zoo. Or a glorified zoo. Or a nicely themed zoo. Why take peoples' money from Kansas or Illinois or whatever when they can go to their own zoo at home? Oh, it has theming. So? Nature isn't about the theming. It's about the animals, front and center, which are either not visible or not treated the best if they are more visible in plain cages (elsewhere.)

You know what you would see more of in your example about Simba animatronics in the Safari? You would see more lions. (Half kidding.)

 

[marni1971]

But to the rest of my comment..the way Jack is integrated into more than the ride..it all flows together doesn't it?

Grief no. But that's another story.

 

[21stamps]

Ok so we just have different points of view and different sets of expectations.

I liked Maelstrom, but it was not a big deal. I like Frozen much better, and because it's set in a fictional town in Norway, does not mean it's not set in Norway. It's more entertaining. I don't come to Disney World for an education. It does not seem out of place. I want more rides in more pavilions. Ratatouille is a perfect example, and I just watched that movie again yesterday LOL.

And to reveal my own two minds about things, I get the idea of world showcase having fewer children and appreciating it more because of that. But it's not all about me. It's Disney World, and there are kids, and there is a company trying to make money. And if you aren't looking for the frozen ride, you won't find it. So if you just want to stroll from Mexico to Norway, because that's so realistic LOL, you can do so without any frozen invasion.

To me, if animal kingdom is "all about nature" as you keep saying, then I think it's pointless. I can get nature anywhere. I've been to better aquariums. Can't say they themed that better than the Atlanta aquarium, or sea world for that matter.

The last thing I want from Disney is a zoo. Or a glorified zoo. Or a nicely themed zoo. Why take peoples' money from Kansas or Illinois or whatever when they can go to their own zoo at home? Oh, it has theming. So? Nature isn't about the theming. It's about the animals, front and center, which are either not visible or not treated the best if they are more visible in plain cages (elsewhere.)

You know what you would see more of in your example about Simba animatronics in the Safari? You would see more lions. (Half kidding.)

I'm really starting to believe that a good portion of people on this site would like to see all children removed from Disney World.
Adults love WDW because it brings out the child in us...it reminds us and places us back to the innocence of our youth.

WDW has never, ever, never been a place that did not cater to children. I've given plenty of examples of educational and fun experiences that exist all over the US..you just gave examples as well .. WDW must be different than any of these places. Why else would people spend so much money visiting?
I can get better accommodations and better food, along with plenty of wonderful Animal, marine life, or educational experiences, for the same or less money elsewhere. Children like Disney characters, plenty of adults still like Disney characters.

 

[freediverdude]

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?

So is that part of World Showcase still considered Norway, or is it now Arendelle? Or is Arendelle supposed to be a fictional sub-kingdom inside the real Norway.

 

[21stamps]

So is that part of World Showcase still considered Norway, or is it now Arendelle? Or is Arendelle supposed to be a fictional sub-kingdom inside the real Norway.

I'd say it's probably the same as having Donald Duck in Mexico. For some reason people don't have a problem with that.

 

[BriEcho3194]

Is this thread even about Rivers of Light anymore?

 

[Andrew C]

I'd say it's probably the same as having Donald Duck in Mexico. For some reason people don't have a problem with that.

I think people will point out the difference that Donald Duck made a couple movies that featured cultures of Mexico as well as South America.

And others will agree that Donald Duck being added to the Mexico pavilion was silly.

 

[21stamps]

I think people will point out the difference that Donald Duck made a couple movies that featured cultures of Mexico as well as South America.

And others will agree that Donald Duck being added to the Mexico pavilion was silly.

I think that gets more to the heart of what myself and another poster have been saying- Disney movie characters in Animal Kingdom..ones such as the lion king and the jungle book would not be out of line in a nighttime show such as RoL. I don't have a problem with Donald Duck in Mexico..he fits bc of the movies. I think Elsa and Anna fit in Norway, bc of the movie.

I'm ok with or without character images in Rivers of Light..I'll trust disney to come up with something that most will enjoy..regardless of what they decide.

Disney World is a world of Fantasy...at least it is to me, and that's why I love it.

 

[MatthewWho13]

Is this thread even about Rivers of Light anymore?

This went off topic wayyyyy back

 

[Tony the Tigger]

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

They wouldn't have a great argument.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

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


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.

General consensus of whom?

Getting wet is the issue with the ride, not whether animatronics match closely enough.

Would I mind if Mickey popped up on the globe projection? Maybe, if I wasn't at WDW.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

But to the rest of my comment..the way Jack is integrated into more than the ride..it all flows together doesn't it?

Yes, unless you're Monk.

 

[marni1971]

General consensus of whom?
.

Possibly the thousands who discussed it worldwide, on all fan message boards, when it happened. It was quite the topic.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I'm really starting to believe that a good portion of people on this site would like to see all children removed from Disney World.
Adults love WDW because it brings out the child in us...it reminds us and places us back to the innocence of our youth.

WDW has never, ever, never been a place that did not cater to children. I've given plenty of examples of educational and fun experiences that exist all over the US..you just gave examples as well .. WDW must be different than any of these places. Why else would people spend so much money visiting?
I can get better accommodations and better food, along with plenty of wonderful Animal, marine life, or educational experiences, for the same or less money elsewhere. Children like Disney characters, plenty of adults still like Disney characters.

There is nitpicking about theming. At this point, Disney itself is it's own theme IMO.

 

[marni1971]

Is this thread even about Rivers of Light anymore?

Rivers of what?

 

[marni1971]

Yes, unless you're Monk.

Don't call me a Monk.

 

[21stamps]

Rivers of what?

This made me laugh out loud. Thank you.
Best comment on the thread.

 

[21stamps]

General consensus of whom?

Getting wet is the issue with the ride, not whether animatronics match closely enough.

Would I mind if Mickey popped up on the globe projection? Maybe, if I wasn't at WDW.

Like I said, in the Disney of my youth I think Pirates was better, but I can't say for certain if that's actually true or because I was a child at that time and am an adult now. I also think that since Jack Sparrow came on the scene it was the perfect fit, and Adventureland as a whole is better for it. So does it matter what the ride used to be? Not really, not to me, and also not to the millions of people who never experienced the original.

I also think all amusement parks were a better experience before the new safety restraints became the norm, that doesn't mean that I don't enjoy or that I stopped going to amusement parks..or that I don't think new generations will enjoy them as much as I did as a child. Things change.

To bring this back to RoL--the show has never opened..so will it make it less enjoyable if any characters are included? I don't see how that's possible.