Upcoming/Rumored Projects

Earl Sweatpants

Well-Known Member
Maybe so, but, wouldn't that imply that one has to control their anger because it didn't say that it was alright to break the lamp for whatever the reason. Just that it happened because of it. I don't see where it in anyway says that it's OK because you were angry. It, however, was why it happened because we weren't controlling those emotions. We still have to find a way to control our emotions. I see no give away in this story line. There is a saying that goes along with all that. It is... That may be the reason, but, it is not an excuse for it.
Eh, I don't know. For me, IO was a pretty flawed piece of work, and I've already written my complaints about it. For me, the movie was never really about Riley at all, but about the 5 emotions (well, mainly Joy and Sadness) that live in her brain and cause her to feel the way she does. In this sense, Riley is extremely passive and its not she who learns anything in the end, but rather Joy and Sadness do the "learning" for her.

And yes, we all have to control our emotions based on what we perceive to be right and wrong and good behavior, but you never saw Riley doing that.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, are you implying that emotions do not exist and if they do we all can control them 100% of the time? That would be a dead person in my opinion. Imagine that just when you find a way to control emotions you up and die. Isn't it better to understand, even in cartoon form, that emotions exist and therefore, perhaps, there is something that can be done to keep them in control then to just deny their existence and keep the old stiff upper lip even though we don't know why or what we are feeling?

Yup that's exactly what I said. Emotions do not exist...
 

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
I may be wrong, but I think that they are implying that the movie's premise is that we are "controlled" by our emotions, therefore we eliminate personal responsibility for our actions. "Why did you break that lamp?" "My anger made me do it." Obviously emotions exist and we sometimes have no control over when and how they express themselves. But I think the person took exception to the notion that its strictly independent emotions that control a person. Where is the presence of Riley's logic or reasoning?
Except its portrayed that these elements are technically YOU. Your control, your self.
not a magical outside presence.
 

brb1006

Well-Known Member
Inside Out was boring and absolutely lacked a reason to keep watching. Wasted movie ticket purchase.
CSIPVjFUsAIS5M8.jpg
 

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
Not sure how much traction this will get, but I am hearing to keep an eye on Dino-Rama at AK. . . Possibly the entire DinoLand area. Some heads seem to be saying that Pandora is sufficient to be AK's contribution to the 50th while others are thinking a bit bigger. Since this is the paramount thread for upcoming/rumored projects, I thought this was a good place to put this. On a scale of 1 to 10 for probability, I am being told 3-ish, but there is some movement.

Good riddance.

I wouldn't be suprised one bit if this was in the works as that's the one area of the park that's universally hated by everyone over the age of 7. That said this sounds like a project that will not happen until probably 2019 or so.
By all means replace Dinorama. It was a tone deaf, failed attempt at a Roadside Dinosaur inspired attraction. But leave the rest of Dinoland out of this.
 

SteamboatJoe

Well-Known Member
Meh, I don't hate DinoLand and Dinorama as much others do on these boards but I don't think I'd lose any sleep if they replaced it with something else as long as they keep the dark ride. The problem is unless they just change the theme to just a more serious take on dinosaurs, I'm not exactly sure if there is any other theme that you could go with that would match the dark ride. Prehistoric creatures or maybe dragons I guess but with Avatarland opening up, I would think they would not want to add another land of creatures that don't actually exist (dragons).

I actually would love to see them do a South America section at some point but I won't be surprised at all if there is a push for Zootopia. I don't think its right for Animal Kingdom, myself, but it will just be too tempting for them to pass up.
 

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
Meh, I don't hate DinoLand and Dinorama as much others do on these boards but I don't think I'd lose any sleep if they replaced it with something else as long as they keep the dark ride. The problem is unless they just change the theme to just a more serious take on dinosaurs, I'm not exactly sure if there is any other theme that you could go with that would match the dark ride. Prehistoric creatures or maybe dragons I guess but with Avatarland opening up, I would think they would not want to add another land of creatures that don't actually exist (dragons).

I actually would love to see them do a South America section at some point but I won't be surprised at all if there is a push for Zootopia. I don't think its right for Animal Kingdom, myself, but it will just be too tempting for them to pass up.
I honestly believe that if they take a more serious tone.. they might get confused by Jurassic World and Jurassic Park.
Unless they go full serious as in full scientific/investigator inspired stuff. (which for some can be quite boring)
 

KingOfEpicocity

Well-Known Member
I honestly believe that if they take a more serious tone.. they might get confused by Jurassic World and Jurassic Park.
Unless they go full serious as in full scientific/investigator inspired stuff. (which for some can be quite boring)

Well I don't think it's a coincidence that dinosaur opened one year before Jurassic park: the ride did... Personally I think some of Disney's best work is when it's trying to stunt competition. I.e. Star Wars land/avatar in response to potter, etc.
 

KingOfEpicocity

Well-Known Member
Which is kinda sad. They used to be innovators not playing catchup.

Well Disney has always been playing catch up. They just innovate out of a need to. I think it's safe to say Disney has always been innovating. Especially now with Star Wars land and avatar. (And IMO NFL but many disagree)
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Well Disney has always been playing catch up. They just innovate out of a need to. I think it's safe to say Disney has always been innovating. Especially now with Star Wars land and avatar. (And IMO NFL but many disagree)
The easiest way to answer that is that although they have, because they can, been innovating at a slower pace then they once did. They are not playing catch up... Uni is still playing catch up and even at the pace they are going now will take many more years to actually make it to the level of worlds most popular tourist attraction. We tend to think that because lately they have been building at a very fast pace, it cannot last forever. Money has to have a sufficient return to be deemed worthy of spending. Economics 101. And it still doesn't come close to offering the amounts of things to do at the resort that Disney has had for the past decade. Or even have the room to put the numbers of people that would make it a threat to Disney. Can you imagine what Uni would look like if on any given day they had as many people in Uni that Disney can and often does have in theirs?

They are still two theme parks, one water park (2 actually), thousands of hotel rooms and ability to move easily to bigger spaces away from catching up with WDW. (did I mention 3 golf courses) We are all upset because Disney hasn't been very active until recently. Honestly, they haven't needed to be and there is an argument that they still don't, but even if we think that what they are doing now is not enough, it will serve to push Uni back down a notch or so.
 
Last edited:

KingOfEpicocity

Well-Known Member
The easiest way to answer that is that although they have, because they can, been innovating at a slower pace then they once did. They are no playing catch up... Uni is still playing catch up and even at the pace they are going now will take many more years to actually make it to the level of worlds most popular tourist attraction. We tend to think that because lately they have been building at a very fast pace, it cannot last forever. Money has to have a sufficient return to be deemed worthy of spending. Economics 101. And it still doesn't come close to offering the amounts of things to do at the resort that Disney has had for the past decade. Or even have the room to put the numbers of people that would make it a threat to Disney. Can you imagine what Uni would look like if on any given day they had as many people in Uni that Disney can and often does have in theirs?

They are still two theme parks, one water park (2 actually), thousands of hotel rooms and ability to move easily to bigger spaces away from catching up with WDW. (did I mention 3 golf courses) We are all upset because Disney hasn't been very active until recently. Honestly, they haven't needed to be and there is an argument that they still don't, but even if we think that what they are doing now is not enough, it will serve to push Uni back down a notch or so.

Perfectly said. What I was really trying to say was Disney is playinh catch up as far as building rides. Excuse my vaugeness. I think one of the reasons why Disney doesn't innovate very fast is, like you said, because they have no need too. Universal is still way far behind, along with everyone else. But in recent years they are making more of an effort. That's all I mean by "catching up" on Disney's part. I don't think they'll ever switch places for a long time, and Star Wars land just helps support that...
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Perfectly said. What I was really trying to say was Disney is playinh catch up as far as building rides. Excuse my vaugeness. I think one of the reasons why Disney doesn't innovate very fast is, like you said, because they have no need too. Universal is still way far behind, along with everyone else. But in recent years they are making more of an effort. That's all I mean by "catching up" on Disney's part. I don't think they'll ever switch places for a long time, and Star Wars land just helps support that...
I understand, but, I would call that staying ahead by the same degree instead of catching up. But, I do understand what you are saying.
 

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
The easiest way to answer that is that although they have, because they can, been innovating at a slower pace then they once did. They are no playing catch up... Uni is still playing catch up and even at the pace they are going now will take many more years to actually make it to the level of worlds most popular tourist attraction. We tend to think that because lately they have been building at a very fast pace, it cannot last forever. Money has to have a sufficient return to be deemed worthy of spending. Economics 101. And it still doesn't come close to offering the amounts of things to do at the resort that Disney has had for the past decade. Or even have the room to put the numbers of people that would make it a threat to Disney. Can you imagine what Uni would look like if on any given day they had as many people in Uni that Disney can and often does have in theirs?

They are still two theme parks, one water park (2 actually), thousands of hotel rooms and ability to move easily to bigger spaces away from catching up with WDW. (did I mention 3 golf courses) We are all upset because Disney hasn't been very active until recently. Honestly, they haven't needed to be and there is an argument that they still don't, but even if we think that what they are doing now is not enough, it will serve to push Uni back down a notch or so.
Tripadvisor now disagrees with you. Its been a few months since Magic Kingdom and Disneyland been removed from spot#1 and #2 respectively.
Islands of Adventure (thanks to Harry Potter, Kong and Jurassic Park ) are now #1.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Tripadvisor now disagrees with you. Its been a few months since Magic Kingdom and Disneyland been removed from spot#1 and #2 respectively.
Islands of Adventure (thanks to Harry Potter, Kong and Jurassic Park ) are now #1.
Not a chance. Tripadvisor is not the measuring stick for this, it is all out attendance that measures this. And if any can convince me that IoA (Uni) will beat out WDW and/or DLR, then I might accept that. Otherwise... Tripadvisor is pushing IoA. Pure Marketing hype in my opinion. The resorts are the destination, not one individual park within the resort. I still don't see IoA beating the other two even one on one.
 

Gatorboy

Well-Known Member
Not a chance. Tripadvisor is not the measuring stick for this, it is all out attendance that measures this. And if any can convince me that IoA (Uni) will beat out WDW and/or DLR, then I might accept that. Otherwise... Tripadvisor is pushing IoA. Pure Marketing hype in my opinion. The resorts are the destination, not one individual park within the resort. I still don't see IoA beating the other two even one on one.
they don't even compare with Epcot, AK, or DHS for attendance
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom