Plenty for everyone
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Zootopia at Animal Kingdom?
- Thread starter wdwgreek
- Start date
Brer Oswald
Well-Known Member
Thatās a good question. I feel like more of the āflavor of the monthā is yet to come. You can argue Ratatouille and Moana certainly are. The potential of Inside Out and Zootopia.
While relevant currently, I donāt see Guardians of the Galaxy having the immense staying power of Spider-Man and Avengers. But I understand why the decision was made.
Which brings me to my next point. The reliance of a popular franchise to carry the weight of an attraction, as opposed to the attractionās quality. Frozen was mediocre. Toy Story Land was mediocre. Little Mermaid was mediocre. Mickey looks mediocre. Spider-Man looks mediocre. Yeah yeah, the characters and music are there, but the experience doesnāt blow anyoneās minds.
āNot everything needs to be an out of this world E-Ticket.ā Well no, but they kind of have to if these are supposed to be Disneyās most significant franchises. The only thing theyāve seemingly knocked out of the park is Rise of the Resistance, a ride barely anyone gets to go on.
You can continue to deny it, but weāre going to get to a point in time in which many of these 2010s additions, and possibly some 2020s additions, are going to be looked at in the same fashion we currently look at many of the Magic Kingdom and Epcot rides we want to get replaced.
Making attractions based on popular franchises is fine, but they should be built to greatly satisfy guests for a long time.
Brer Panther
Well-Known Member
Regardless as to whether or not Zootopia fits in Disney's Animal Kingdom, I wouldn't put it past Disney to shove it in there. I'm cringing at the thought of hearing that Shakira song blaring throughout the park...
What's the exact definition of "flavor of the month"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it mean "it's popular at the moment"? I dunno about Star Wars, and the new Mickey shorts, while well-liked, have never been popular enough to warrant a theme park attraction. But Frozen WAS popular when Frozen Ever After was announced in 2014... less so when the attraction actually OPENED in 2016, but I'm not sure if it's still popular at the moment (how much money did Frozen II make again?)... And I know nothing about Marvel, so I can't comment on that either.
Ratatouille was released in 2007. It made money, but I don't recall it ever being as popular as, say, Finding Nemo or Monsters Inc. I don't think it quite qualifies as a "flavor of the month" IP. I could be wrong, though.
Personally, I'm ALREADY looking at the Little Mermaid ride that way.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
Frozen 2 made something like $1.5 billion; I think it's the highest grossing animated film of all time. Frozen Ever After is not good (at all), but they were clearly right about staying power for the franchise (at least in the short-term).
Little Mermaid ride deserved to be looked at like that the moment it opened. Wonderful movie, awful ride.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It was a few times, which is how a $100 million attraction became a $150 million attraction.
Is water leaking from the queue's roof still?
Last edited:
sedati
Well-Known Member
IP may not be the right term, but I don't consider the original Epcot Pavilions or even Countries to be "pure."
The Universe of Energy was very much Exxon's Universe of Energy. It wasn't just a name or paid sponsorship, they heavily influenced the attraction's content once on board as did the other Corporate partners.
So whether Exxon or Wakandan, the imagineers will still have to work with what those paying for the project insist upon. Hopefully, they can keep to some ideals of real discovery, but that's a different discussion.
The Universe of Energy was very much Exxon's Universe of Energy. It wasn't just a name or paid sponsorship, they heavily influenced the attraction's content once on board as did the other Corporate partners.
So whether Exxon or Wakandan, the imagineers will still have to work with what those paying for the project insist upon. Hopefully, they can keep to some ideals of real discovery, but that's a different discussion.
The Visionary Soul
Well-Known Member
Make no mistake, there are many people on this site whose opinions absolutely do matter. If anything, your opinion doesn't matter. Zootopia doesn't fit the ethos of the park. Zootopia doesn't resonate as well with Americans as it does Asians. That's why you're seeing it over there. It's just like how Tiana doesn't resonate with the Japanese so you won't see Princess and the Frog taking over Splash Mountain in Tokyo anytime soon. If it doesn't resonate, it won't sell. That's the game you're playing here.
Indiana Jones is more likely to come to Animal Kingdom than Zootopia, just because the Indy stories are about respecting supernatural balances that exist in the world and not trying to use those supernatural things to take over the world. Animal Kingdom is all about balances. And besides that, there's a huge love of Indiana Jones out there, and it fits the corporate strategy right now with a fifth film coming out soon.
If you want to play some kind of crazy mental gymnastics to make Zootopia try and fit in the park, be my guest. But it won't change a thing.
There are other types of rides and attractions that Indy can be added to, such as an excavation site coaster.
Also, WDW spreads its IPs among the parks. There's a Nemo ride in one park and a Nemo musical in another. There's a Toy Story Buzz ride in one park, and a Toy Story Land in another. There's a Frozen ride in one park and a Frozen show in another.
There are zero reasons why Indy can't be in more than one WDW park.
You're lack of knowledge of such things puts you at a distinct disadvantage when arguing with people who not only know more, but have inside information (and not mere rumors and assumptions). Several people we know to be actual insiders have said that real consideration has been given to putting Indy in DAK (and not by just converting Dinosaur to an Indy version).
You should read the thread below to know the kind of stuff our insiders have revealed...
WDW Rumor Tracker, Version 3
This is a collection of rumors from trusted insiders (not wild speculation or assumptions). They don't come from me. The information had been originally posted to the various threads of the forum and are just repeated and collated here. There is a link as to where they came from. If you want to...
SpoiledBlueMilk
Well-Known Member
I'm still waiting on the refresh of the Fallon ride - The Jimmy Fallon AA experience sponsored by Kettle One.No I am pretty sure he was talking about Barney, Woody Woodpecker and Dudley Do-Right.
Fox&Hound
Well-Known Member
Interesting, while I do not necessarily agree with you that all of the rides you listed were mediocre, you do bring up an interesting point: how does WDW easily redo some of their current offerings down the road when many are in themed lands (Toy Story) or themed buildings (Little Mermaid) that in no way lend themselves to an easy redo? I guess they can always enhance or plus the attraction but inserting a brand new IP or going in a vastly different direction seems off the table when the price to do so would be so exorbitant.
OG Runner
Well-Known Member
That is a special effect they paid extra for, just appreciate it.
Brer Oswald
Well-Known Member
Itās an interesting question. Thereās only so much you can do to plus an attraction. Many issues are with utilization of space, and that isnāt usually a cheap endeavour. When an attraction is built, a minimum life of 10 years can be expected, even if it is a flop. Only colossal disasters are expected to be replaced sooner.
I think the cases of Frozen, Toy Story Land, and the Epcot Expansion are the most concerning, all for different reasons.
If Frozenās popularity fizzles to the degree of every major Classic Disney film before it, which it probably will, it will be of no real concern. However, if it remains the top dog, elements of that attraction will stick out more in a way that isnāt kind, including but not limited to: the reused rough boat system, the human projected faces on the animatronics, and the overall āwarehouseā feel after the first lift hill.
Toy Story was a sizeable land expansion that added a kids coaster and a flat ride. DHS is the park to keep an eye on as it has the most potential for future expansion. However, using this land to add so little doesnāt seem like a well thought out idea for the future of the park. There was little more you could do with the Toy Story concert beyond Mania. The coaster is neat, but the land doesnāt excel in creating outstanding experiences, taking in and holding high capacity, and providing easy to purchase merchandise (seriously, where is the toy store???).
Epcot is worrying because they now have a financial reason to put in less effort, and whatever they create is the version of the park we will live with for 20-30 years. After that, they will have to spend more money to undo any mistakes made from rush work now, as well as any mistakes from the current Epcot that arenāt fixed in this update. Thereās still time, we donāt know their full revised plans, and they could proceed mindfully. But from what Iāve noticed the past decade or so, they manage the parks in a fashion that is reckless and not considerably thought out for the future. That isnāt to say there havenāt been smart future thinking moves, but it seems to alternate between the two in a 50-50 split.
networkpro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Oh do tell.
Nothing to see here. Move along and take your popcorn with you.
OG Runner
Well-Known Member
Magical Security.
Still waiting