Disney Reveals New Zootopia: Better Zoogether! Marquee as Cast Member Previews Begin

flyerjab8 minutes ago

My wife and I had the “pleasure” of experiencing this show earlier this week. And I am on the record most times as being more positive than negative about the parks. But this was bad. It was truly bad, a once-and-done situation. I can’t even tell you what the plot was about. It is so hectic, overly fast-paced and loud…it is a mess from start to finish. When we walked out of the theater my wife said “I have no idea what just happened in there.” Is the animation good? Sure, but what dots that matter if the story is incoherent and clearly panders to the younger TikTok crowd? It is designed for people with short attention spans. One scene runs into the next, Nick and Judy are investigating something and then just ends with a lame song and dance number. Oh, and of course you need the sloth laughing super slowly because you can’t do anything with Zootopia and not include that bit. This is a move predicated on Iger’s IP mandate, could with his brand synergy. Zootopia 2 is coming out so we need this in the parks ahead of time to cross-promote. So this is the park version of jamming the square peg into the round hole. It makes zero sense why this is here. And to tie the Tree of Life into the Zootopia backstory is laughable, as well as dumbing down the significance of the park’s icon. Just a bad idea all around.

iamgroot6138 minutes ago

I don't think we are disagreeing here. My Tron example was of an IP that was NOT massively successful and still had an attraction based on it. I agree that rides themselves are judged based on their own merits regardless of the IP they are based on, if any.

jah495542 minutes ago

MK's Little Mermaid another example imo. In 1989 I thought it'd make a great Fantasyland dark ride, and now we have it. BUT it just doesn't have the heart of a Peter Pan or Toad. It's not bad, it has great effects (especially Scuttle) yet it still feels like a poorly-written book report, at least compared to every other Disney Fairy Tale dark ride I've been on.

Animaniac93-981 hour ago

So why build rides exclusively based on popular, franchise IP if that doesn't always matter? Theme park rides are judged on their own merits. A good movie does not automatically translate to a good ride A ride can be popular despite the IP (or lack of) it's based on, because consumers evaluate theme park rides based on other criteria besides name recognition of associated imagery. This whole thread is a about a Zootopia show that's lame and isn't saved by the success of the movie it's based on. At what point does the company and its fan base put two and two together and realize there's a disconnect between the strategy and the execution because the product is fundamentally different in how it's consumed than other media?

lazyboy97o1 hour ago

Claiming what is known is not known doesn’t help your point. We do know because it’s been publicly discussed. It’s how we get gems like “non-descript roller coaster themed like India or whatever”.

iamgroot611 hour ago

Throwing myself into the comment thread here without reading very far back into it. Lots of "IP" discussion but this thread was initially about the new Zootopia attraction that replaced It's a Bug's Life. I saw the new attraction on the last day of the AP preview and thought it was "just aiight." I liked the Bug's Life attraction better, but possibly because I'm not a huge Zootopia fan (don't hate it, don't love it). On the whole IP thing, none of us really knows what Disney is thinking when they come up with a new attraction. These days, it is typically associated with an IP, but Disney has always done this, from day one. Snow White, Peter Pan, Davey Crockett were all examples of early IPs Disney used. It has always merged people's love of Disney's stories with the parks and that is a huge reason for their success. No one has out-Disneyed Disney yet. With my limited knowledge, their closest competitor seems to be Universal, who sort of understands the success formula here. I'd also add that Disney is such a force that even their rides become IPs (POTC, for example). LOL! In some cases updating a ride based on an IP improves the ride. I'd classify The Incredicoaster at DCA in this way. I loved the original, California Screamin', but even though Incredicoaster is exactly the same ride, all of the Incredibles dressing definitely makes it more fun for me. Another example, even though I was very against it when the change was made, was the total IP switch from Hollywood ToT (also at DCA) to Guardians of the Galaxy, Mission Breakout. I was stunned when they announced the change. I thought Disney, who has more money than God, could have built an original attraction. They also seemed to rush the change to coincide with the release of GOTG, V2 to capitalize on the popularity of THAT IP (which was probably true). The exterior of that ride looks ridiculous. It's ToT dressed up with colorful piping to make it look alien and futuristic, but the structure is unchanged. The indoor queue theming was a home run, and the ride itself? Well, it's better, longer, more interesting than ToT (and I say this as a fan of the original ride who lives in FL now and enjoys it here). The ride has great visuals, multiple "experiences" (think Star Tours 2.0, sort of), and the lifts and drops are completely different (and maybe different depending on which elevator you ride, IDK). In hindsight, I understand why they changed this ride (it's now a part of Avenger's Campus which is finally, hopefully, getting its' due as an IP. Compare it to the Star Wars areas to see what I mean there.). As for success/failure of an IP associated ride based on the IP's popularity...Tron, I would say, is NOT a blockbuster IP. Disney wanted it to be, but while I love the movies, none of them were commercially successful. I haven't seen the new one yet, but my impression, based on what I've read on social media is that casting Jared Leto may have been a mistake, but I can't really judge the product until I see it for myself. My point about Tron is that despite not being a massively successful franchise, the ride itself is very popular. It's fast, it's short, but it's fun, especially if you're a fan of the second film.

Brer Panther1 hour ago

For now. I wouldn't put anything past Iger at this point.

lazyboy97o2 hours ago

The LEGO Discovery Centers have dark rides squeezed into incredibly tight footprints.

Touchdown2 hours ago

In a cramped spot that could otherwise never support an ADA compliant dark ride.

jah49552 hours ago

But Toad's alive and well at Disneyland 🤷‍♀️

Brer Panther2 hours ago

The Magic Kingdom's Winnie the Pooh ride is tremendously underrated. If it had been built elsewhere in Fantasyland as opposed to replacing Mr. Toad, it wouldn't get nearly as much hate. Honestly, though, if it HAD been built elsewhere in Fantasyland, I think Iger still would've replaced Mr. Toad with something else down the line. Maybe THAT'S where they would've put Frozen.

MisterPenguin3 hours ago

Are you referring to the queue meant to hold 2 hours of guests?

Animaniac93-983 hours ago

Functionally, Little Mermaid is like If You Had Wings or Dreamflight, a high capacity ride that gives people something to do when other lines are long. However, I'm not sure that's what Disney was hoping for when they built it.

Touchdown4 hours ago

Toad was cool, but people malign MK Pooh far too much, sure it’s not Hunny Hunt, but it is still extremely charming, the ride vehicle does some cute tricks, it narratively makes sense and follows blustery days plot (throwing shade at you DL Pooh.) It is a fine FL dark ride, and Pooh belongs in Fantasyland. Do I wish it was a new build, sure, but I enjoy the ride.