Rumor New ride coming to Animal Kingdom. D23 announcement expected.

[ChrisFL]

I think he's saying Disney is avoiding using them for a true "dino-land" because they don't want to look like copy-cats...which really would be silly of them.

I already feel like the Dinosaur/CTX building felt like "Let's make it Jurassic Park-ish, but not too much"

 

[lazyboy97o]

Whatever this new attraction is, I hope the creative and talented Imagineers definitely don’t give us an idea of their own.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I can only hope a new ride is announced so at least we can talk whine about something more substantial.

FTFY!

 

[BlakeW39]

On what planet did you pull THIS out of?

Obviously, but where's the monopoly on dinosaur attractions? Jurassic Park/World may be the most known but nobody is stopping Disney from developing a land based on such animals. You can't trademark a dinosaur but you can with the image you've given that creature.

He's implying that the Jurassic franchise has a monopoly over the use of dinosaurs in media and I'm asking where that came from.

jeez if you're going to criticize me, at least get it straight. I clearly stated Jurassic Park does NOT have a monopoly over dinosaurs, which were real animaks that roamed OUR planet millions of years ago. Jurassic Park cannot claim a monopoly over a species of animal, and contrary to what you implied (that they can claim a certain sort of representation), they cannot claim a relatively accurate JP T. rex or dinosaurs living in jungles because both are factual already.

My comment was in response to the fact that it has been stated Disney chose to base Dinoland on the paleontolgical digs out west because they didn't want to be cliche - as in they didn't want to seem as if they were copying Universal's JP which came out at a similar time a bit earlier. I was stating Disney should not fear this because Jurassic Park does not have a monopoly over a Mesozoic rainforest (as others tried to clarify for you).

Dinosaurs are popular with or without Jurassic Park and a land based upon them, if done well, would be as successful as Beastly Kingdom.

 

[FigmentJedi]

He's implying that the Jurassic franchise has a monopoly over the use of dinosaurs in media and I'm asking where that came from.

That's not how it read to me -- I read it as Jurassic Park DOESN'T have a monopoly and Disney should expand Dinoland and not worry about Universal/Jurassic Park.

There's this whole thing in all of Hollywood about hesitating to do big dinosaur movies because they don't want to be compared to Jurassic Park, and really the only big-budget live-action dinosaur movie we've had besides Jurassic Park sequels in the last 20 years is Peter Jackson's King Kong. We've had some animated movies and a bunch of TV documentaries, but nobody seems willing to challenge Jurassic Park as a "Humans and Dinosaurs together" thing now.
It's mostly been kind of a silent attitude, but I keep seeing director interviews for stuff like Kong Skull Island or the recent Godzilla where the directors admit they actively avoided additional dinosaurs or dinosaur-like kaiju because they didn't want to compete with Jurassic Park, as if dinosaur representation peaked there. But as any number of sticklers for accuracy can tell you, the Jurassic Park franchise isn't on the cutting edge of paleontology anymore and in some places, they've even regressed. There's a pent-up demand for dinosaur content there, but not a lot of delivery.

 

[jaxj21]

You can't trademark a dinosaur

Universal: Hold my beer.
(indominus rex, indoraptor)

 

[James J]

Universal: Hold my beer.
(indominus rex, indoraptor)

Slightly different scenario as they're fictional dinosaurs...

 

[jaxj21]

Slightly different scenario as they're fictional dinosaurs...

Yeah, that's the point

 

[rawisericho]

There's this whole thing in all of Hollywood about hesitating to do big dinosaur movies because they don't want to be compared to Jurassic Park, and really the only big-budget live-action dinosaur movie we've had besides Jurassic Park sequels in the last 20 years is Peter Jackson's King Kong. We've had some animated movies and a bunch of TV documentaries, but nobody seems willing to challenge Jurassic Park as a "Humans and Dinosaurs together" thing now.
It's mostly been kind of a silent attitude, but I keep seeing director interviews for stuff like Kong Skull Island or the recent Godzilla where the directors admit they actively avoided additional dinosaurs or dinosaur-like kaiju because they didn't want to compete with Jurassic Park, as if dinosaur representation peaked there. But as any number of sticklers for accuracy can tell you, the Jurassic Park franchise isn't on the cutting edge of paleontology anymore and in some places, they've even regressed. There's a pent-up demand for dinosaur content there, but not a lot of delivery.

Yeah it’s really weird. Tim Burton was originally going to make a Dinosaurs Attack! film based on the 80s trading cards but didn’t want to seem derivative of Jurassic Park. Instead he made Mars Attacks!........which came out four months after Independence Day.

 

[Ponderer]

I’m all for a full-on land of dinosaurs, and there’s an easy way to separate it out from Jurassic Park. Fantasia had the definitive cinematic expression of dinosaurs for decades. Lean into that to justify Disney dinos.

 

[britain]

Slightly different scenario as they're fictional dinosaurs...

“You think anything about this park is natural!?”

 

[Mike S]

I’m all for a full-on land of dinosaurs, and there’s an easy way to separate it out from Jurassic Park. Fantasia had the definitive cinematic expression of dinosaurs for decades. Lean into that to justify Disney dinos.

Or use the latest scientific facts and give them feathers.

 

[Ponderer]

Or use the latest scientific facts and give them feathers.

Oh sure. I’m not saying replicate the film. I mean, just use it to sell why lots of dinosaurs belong in Disney.

 

[BlakeW39]

Oh sure. I’m not saying replicate the film. I mean, just use it to sell why lots of dinosaurs belong in Disney.

I'm confused..? Why would they use am 80yo film to justify why dinosaurs belong in a park they were always intended to be and always have been a major part in?

 

[Ponderer]

I'm confused..? Why would they use am 80yo film to justify why dinosaurs belong in a park they were always intended to be and always have been a major part in?

I’m saying, if the thing keeping dinosaurs from having an even more major presence is “we don’t wanna compete with Jurassic Park,” use your own cinematic history as a rationale. “Dinosaurs have ALWAYS been part of Disney from almost day one, and we’re going to keep building on that.”

 

[rawisericho]

I’m saying, if the thing keeping dinosaurs from having an even more major presence is “we don’t wanna compete with Jurassic Park,” use your own cinematic history as a rationale. “Dinosaurs have ALWAYS been part of Disney from almost day one, and we’re going to keep building on that.”

I think the point is ‘everyone in Hollywood is stupid for not making more dinosaur based properties.”

 

[matt9112]

As I have said and explained thoroughly: there is no possible way to make Zootopia fit DAK. The world of Zootopia undermines nature and takes place in a world where it has become anthropic.

Indy could easily be skewed however. However not using dinosaurs... or poaching. Dinosaurs would obviously be out of place and feeds on the misconception that an aechaeologist is a paleontologist; they have nothing to do with one another and Indy could not care less about a dinosaur; not anymore than a doctor or a physicist would.

Instead, if you recall, DAK likes to examine man's relationship with nature. This is something that an archaeologist would study. Indy would be studying a relationship between a civilization (large or small) and an animal (real or fictional). Think almost E:E.

Mk

Thematically the execution of the land is flawless. Opinions on the rides not withstanding.

The rides count as part of the land....so if you build a land with no attractions but it looked so good is that success?

 

[Notes from Neverland]

Thread title: Nope.

 

[BlakeW39]

Well now that we know D23 was a major bust (drop a like for my restrain not using a curse word for emphasis), this thread should either be locked or renamed not to pertain to D23.

 

[Disney Maddux]

F