Advisable Joseph
Well-Known Member
Could the the area around Dinoland be Bunnyburrow, and the train ride be the pre-show?
You seem certain of this. May I ask why?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Zootopia and Moana Blue Sky concepts for Disney's Animal Kingdom
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
Two reasons: 1) cost 2) space, below is a map of the area you mentioned, to the right side of Dinosaur is the berm between the park and the parking lot, can't really expand that way. To the left is some backstage facilities, I'm unsure of what these are, but I don't think they want this to be a high cost project (the Zootopia portion)
As many insiders have suggested, they're looking to do Zootopia cheap and quick.
Retrofitting a Zootopia attraction into the pre-existing Dinosaur makes the most logical sense (for Disney).
Think Malestrom to FEA, or Splash to TBA.
Last edited:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It is a retheme of Dinosaur.
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
Ah yes, the two things TWDC is specifically known for: building attractions quickly and without going over budget
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
Chris Beaty highlights the train ride and how that could be in the theme parks, Lee highlights the Bunny Burrow in the same context, where they discuss exploring the different biomes.
The most information they give is a "train station", they never explicitly say anything regarding what the attraction would be.
Beaty also says that "he wouldn't even call this a concept".
Link here:
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
At the very least you'd think they'd look and say "Let's MAKE a good Dinosaur movie" (though, obviously, not the "Good Dinosaur" movie).
Like . . . choosing to get rid of what is basically your only decent Dinosaur representation anywhere instead of just doubling down and investing in it properly borders on cosmically silly.
Bocabear
Well-Known Member
If they repurposed the existing train and completely revamped Conservation Station area, they could create the setting for the attraction back there... have the train ride as the sort of prologue, create the different biomes along the way and end it in the city center. As long as they don't go too high with the ride building it could be completely hidden back there. And while I don't believe animals that wear clothes and have jobs and operate machinery should be part of DAK, I would think that would be the best way to do it...Keeping the city out of the visible parts of DAK...
comics101
Well-Known Member
Idk man, $71.3b seems like an awful lot of money for 16 Academy Award nominations, Avatar, and The Simpsons…
FigmentFan82
Well-Known Member
My best guess based off of nothing would be that that'll try to mimic the ride story as much as possible while fitting it into the existing Dino layout. So while not a 1 for 1 clone of the new attraction being built, perhaps something closer to a cousin of it. Just my guess based on nothing but my brains.
FigmentFan82
Well-Known Member
a safe bet is that the ride system and track layout stays as is. this one is a retheme, so think Frozen and Splash. Things may change in there, but the bones of everything will mostly likely be what it always was. (So not a Engery/Guardians situation)
FigmentFan82
Well-Known Member
Marvel & Lucasfilm got Disney the boy market they desperately needed after being a predominantly Princess oriented company. Fox has always been the bigger question mark, yet it did allow them to not only regain some core Marvel IP but also full ownership of Avatar, and that IP speaks for itself.
comics101
Well-Known Member
Im sure there are many high-dollar Disney execs who agree with your assessment, and that is precisely the problem that Disney faces long term.
But hey, what do I know? Maybe $71.3b for Avatar, the Fantastic Four & the X-Men was totally worth it! (Never mind the fact that by the time X-Men and FF are incorporated into the MCU, the Marvel/Superhero-trend will have run its course…)
$40 Billion actually. And more than award winning content.Idk man, $71.3b seems like an awful lot of money for 16 Academy Award nominations, Avatar, and The Simpsons…
No wonder you look upon the Fox acquisition so negatively if you're so misinformed about it.
comics101
Well-Known Member
WSJ: Disney Closes $71.3 Billion Deal for 21st Century Fox Assets
Deal for $71.3 billion merges ‘Simpsons’ and ‘Star Wars,’ and it builds a bigger competitor to Netflix
Walt Disney Co. closed its $71.3 billion acquisition of the major entertainment assets of 21st Century Fox, the companies said, combining some of Hollywood’s best-known studios, characters and franchises as media companies look to get bigger to better compete in a world where shows and movies are increasingly streamed...
...Messrs. Iger and Murdoch began talking of a potential deal between their two companies in August 2017, according to regulatory filings. A $52.4 billion deal was announced that December.
The proposed tie-up was quickly complicated, though, when Comcast Corp. made a competing $65 billion offer for the Fox assets. The resulting bidding war culminated with Disney’s final $71.3 billion offer last June. Comcast ended up winning control of Fox’s stake in Sky PLC.
comics101
Well-Known Member
Oh, there's also Disney's press release announcing the acquisition...
Disney and 21st Century Fox Announce per Share Value in Connection with $71 Billion Acquisition
"Disney is also acquiring approximately $19.8 billion of cash and assuming approximately $19.2 billion of debt of 21st Century Fox in the acquisition. The acquisition price implies a total equity value of approximately $71 billion and a total transaction value of approximately $71 billion."
Disney *bought* a 39% stake in Sky with that $70B since it was part of Fox.
So, how did Comcast get a hold of it?
Oh, yeah, Comcast bought it from 21st Century Fox for $15B which went into Disney's pocket.
You aren't considering in that $70B figure all the stuff Disney sold off to lower what it did finally pay in the end for Fox.
thats also true, they sold sky and some foxsports stuff and more.
comics101
Well-Known Member
Disney selling off portions of Fox is evidence that the Fox merger was, by and large, an unnecessary purchase. It is not evidence that Disney paid less for the company.
That's the very definition of paying less when you don't cherry pick one slice of time to add up your ledger accounts in order to make things seem worse than they are.