Why isn't there a Jungle Book attraction?

[Cmdr_Crimson]

They "Had" 2 shows in Animal Kingdom....

Journey Into The Jungle Book in Theater in the Wild at AK (Where Finding Nemo is now)


And the Nightime show Jungle Book: alive with Magic before Rivers of light took over..

 

[SteamboatJoe]

Ideally, an IP needs to not just fit the general theme of an area but it needs to fit the story of said area as well. At least, that should be the theory.

That said, Jungle Book would make for an excellent dark ride experience in the right location.

 

[zengoth]

There never seemed to be much love for any Disney IP from the late 50s thru the early 80s represented in the parks. Maybe they were all too "new" and untested when Disneyland and then Disney World opened. As a kid I always remember seeing Balloo in the parks (back when meet n' greets were mobile). But then again, MK only had movie IPs (mostly in) Fantasyland back then, so seeing characters walking around in the other lands was a treat.

 

[Bairstow]

I don't think that the Jungle Book and Adventureland have incompatible themes. In a sense, Mowgli is the ultimate adventurer. And while I know what you mean about shoving franchises down guests' throats, I think there was an opportunity to do a really great attraction that would have fit seamlessly into Adventureland, while also incorporating popular music and characters.

Incompatible in terms of aesthetic and "rules."

Adventureland isn't just fixated on jungles generally, but is specially focused on celebrating the architecture and fiction of the colonial period of world history. While the time period differs depending on where you stand, the groundrules are that the animals don't talk or sing (except for parrots, which of course, do both). More importantly, a Jungle Book ride would be redundant in the face of the Jungle Cruise.

Animal Kingdom is even more rigid in its unified thematic rules. With the exception of Avatar and Bug's Life, everything there not only exists in the modern day, but in the "real world", like an issue of National Geographic come to life. Avatar was a wonky fit, but a Jungle Book ride with singing animals would be much worse.

 

[ppete1975]

Lady and the Tramp June 22, 1955
One Hundred and One Dalmatians January 25, 1961
The Jungle Book October 18, 1967
The Aristocats December 24, 1970
Robin Hood November 8, 1973
The Rescuers June 22, 1977
The Fox and the Hound July 10, 1981
you could honestly add in sword in the stone even though it has the sword that pulls out of the stone.
and a little bit older.....
Bambi August 13, 1942

seems that older and newer movies got the love when it came to rides

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

ike an issue of National Geographic come to life. Avatar was a wonky fit

Not if they weren't just Bought out and to be owned by Disney...

 

[Bairstow]

Not if they weren't just Bought out and to be owned by Disney...

Oh yeah! I still haven't wrapped my mind around all the stuff Disney acquired when they gobbled up Fox.
Did Fox own all the rights to Avatar or did Cameron/Lightstorm retain some percentage of control?

 

[Baldy]

What do you mean there is no Bambi attraction???

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

Oh yeah! I still haven't wrapped my mind around all the stuff Disney acquired when they gobbled up Fox.
Did Fox own all the rights to Avatar or did Cameron/Lightstorm retain some percentage of control?

I think Cameron still retains the percentage of it since it's his but, with it coming through Disney I'm sure there will be a good balance between Disney/Cameron and the Parks promotion of the film at AK..

 

[Walt Disney1955]

There was a lovely opportunity when Animal Kingdom opened to do it. I think it is a movie that would make an excellent dark ride at the very least. Bambi would too. But perhaps the best is the Lion King for a ride. All these three fit in either Adventureland or Animal Kingdom. Or even a dark ride in Fantasyland. I understand Lion King has representation from a show perspective and even Jungle Book is featured in the nighttime fireworks "Happily Ever After" but I guess when you have as many classics as Disney there is only so much you can use.

 

[Amidala]

There was a lovely opportunity when Animal Kingdom opened to do it. I think it is a movie that would make an excellent dark ride at the very least. Bambi would too. But perhaps the best is the Lion King for a ride. All these three fit in either Adventureland or Animal Kingdom. Or even a dark ride in Fantasyland. I understand Lion King has representation from a show perspective and even Jungle Book is featured in the nighttime fireworks "Happily Ever After" but I guess when you have as many classics as Disney there is only so much you can use.

I totally agree. Pandora is a step in the right direction (in terms of adding more "traditional" theme park rides to diversify the parks' attractions – obviously Pandora as a concept is still up for debate) but I still think DAK could use more dark rides or thrill rides. A Jungle Book or Lion King dark ride would be phenomenal...Or even a completely original dark ride (along the lines of Sinbad or Mystic Manor) with themes of wildlife conservation...but obviously I won't hold my breath for that one.

The Lion King is still EXTREMELY recognizable, and even Jungle Book should be pretty familiar to most. I don't think recognizability is even the issue at this point, it's that any IP presence in the park MUST be tied to some recent or upcoming release because...synergy. It's getting exhausting, especially when it means shoehorning new IPs into places they don't belong when older, underutilized IPs are the more obvious fit. Brother Bear is another possible fit, but that movie didn't exactly stick in peoples' memory, so...definitely out of the question.

(RE: Bambi, it definitely deals with the impact humans can have on animals and their habitats, but the setting of the movie wouldn't really fit in any of DAK's existing lands IMO).

 

[J_Carioca]

Incompatible in terms of aesthetic and "rules."

Adventureland isn't just fixated on jungles generally, but is specially focused on celebrating the architecture and fiction of the colonial period of world history. While the time period differs depending on where you stand, the groundrules are that the animals don't talk or sing (except for parrots, which of course, do both). More importantly, a Jungle Book ride would be redundant in the face of the Jungle Cruise.

Animal Kingdom is even more rigid in its unified thematic rules. With the exception of Avatar and Bug's Life, everything there not only exists in the modern day, but in the "real world", like an issue of National Geographic come to life. Avatar was a wonky fit, but a Jungle Book ride with singing animals would be much worse.

Well, a movie based on a Rudyard Kipling book fits in terms of the colonial theme.

And I'm not sure I agree that anything could be a worse fit for AK than Pandora/Avatar. In and of itself it's fine, but it does NOT fit in AK, which, as you point out, is meant to celebrate animals that actually exist on this planet. Don't get me started!

 

[J_Carioca]

Lady and the Tramp June 22, 1955
One Hundred and One Dalmatians January 25, 1961
The Jungle Book October 18, 1967
The Aristocats December 24, 1970
Robin Hood November 8, 1973
The Rescuers June 22, 1977
The Fox and the Hound July 10, 1981
you could honestly add in sword in the stone even though it has the sword that pulls out of the stone.
and a little bit older.....
Bambi August 13, 1942

seems that older and newer movies got the love when it came to rides

It's like you just listed all my favorite Disney movies

Robin Hood could easily fit in Fantasyland, given the setting and era.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Disney's animated Jungle Book is a series of vaudeville acts, mostly slapstick banter and musical numbers. It doesn't really suggest any action based scenario for guests to live through.

Peter Pan flys to Never Land

Mr. Toad drives a motorcar around the countryside

Snow White runs through a scary forest

Mowgli and Baloo don't really want to do anything besides eat and sleep all day. It just lends itself better to a stage show, because that's kind of what the movie was to begin with.

The old Disney Imagineers clearly knew that, and newer management forgets the company made anything before 1989 without Princesses.

Only now with JB becoming a billion dollar franchise is the title now fitting the new corporate standards for what makes a good ride.

 

[NelleBelle]

There never seemed to be much love for any Disney IP from the late 50s thru the early 80s represented in the parks. Maybe they were all too "new" and untested when Disneyland and then Disney World opened. As a kid I always remember seeing Balloo in the parks (back when meet n' greets were mobile). But then again, MK only had movie IPs (mostly in) Fantasyland back then, so seeing characters walking around in the other lands was a treat.

Will never forget taking my oldest DS to DAK for his first visit when he was about 15-months. King Louie was outside the park as we exited, all by himself, no lines, etc. He squatted down and spent a good time "talking" to my DS using sign language, which DS knew a lot of at the time. Have never seen anything like that since that visit.