Rumor Brazil is the frontrunner for a new World Showcase Pavilion

Status
Not open for further replies.

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
Equatorial Africa was more than rumor, it was announced on national television as part of the opening festivities.
More than that. It was less than a month from groundbreaking when it was pulled.
The main argument is that Equatorial Africa is not a single country whereas the others are..
It's not an argument. It's a given, and was the plan.
 

Herbie

Well-Known Member
Nothing about Equatorial Africa strikes my interest. Personally I'd like Greece, Egypt, Spain, possibly India... I feel like Middle East and South America need representation as well... maybe Costa Rica... or dare I say, Israel (I loved the original plans) or the United Arab Emirates.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
It was announced, but that doesn't neccesarily make it right at the time, or especially now.

The main argument is that Equatorial Africa is not a single country whereas the others are. They didn't lump France and Spain together, so why should they lump countries in Africa together? You could argue that the differences are much much larger between the former than the latter, but is that true, or it it simply our inability to recognize them?

Is this racist?

That's a question we could argue for hours. I can certainly see how building an "Equatorial Africa" pavilion would cause a stir.

Norway was going to be originally Scandinavia, a regional grouping of countries, but, in the end, only Norwegian interests ponied up sponsorship money. As it is, Africa is already lumped together in the Outpost. So, regional pavilions shouldn't be a cause of controversy... except that you may not get the sponsorship money from sponsors of individual countries if they're sharing the pavilion with their regional neighbors.

Anyway... Brazil is coming because there are sponsors for Brazil (not necessarily the country... corporate and cultural sponsors). The two rumored likely pavilions after Brazil are Spain and India, and it's not because WDW wants them represented, but because there are probably sponsors lining up for them. Don't be fooled by Jim Hill connecting the movie Giant with Spain. Our insiders are clear that's not how national pavilions come about.

This thread has just become one of people expressing the nations they'd like to see or the ones they think would fit by rounding off the countries and continents represented at the World Showcase. And that is a futile exercise if it's just about what sponsors are willing to sponsor.
 

ohioguy

Well-Known Member
When was the last pavilion built? The late 1980's, if memory serves. It's high time for a new country to be represented, but I'm not holding my breath. Brazil, Australia, Spain, Russia, Ireland, Greece, Egypt, and India get my votes for the remaining 8 spots-- but I'll believe it when I see it. Switzerland would also be welcome, and finally bring the Matterhorn to Florida.
 

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
When was the last pavilion built? The late 1980's, if memory serves. It's high time for a new country to be represented, but I'm not holding my breath. Brazil, Australia, Spain, Russia, Ireland, Greece, Egypt, and India get my votes for the remaining 8 spots-- but I'll believe it when I see it. Switzerland would also be welcome, and finally bring the Matterhorn to Florida.
Real one? 1988.
 

No Name

Well-Known Member
It's not an argument. It's a given, and was the plan.

I meant peoples' argument against the idea.

I'm not really against it.

Norway was going to be originally Scandinavia, a regional grouping of countries, but, in the end, only Norwegian interests ponied up sponsorship money. As it is, Africa is already lumped together in the Outpost. So, regional pavilions shouldn't be a cause of controversy... except that you may not get the sponsorship money from sponsors of individual countries if they're sharing the pavilion with their regional neighbors.

Anyway... Brazil is coming because there are sponsors for Brazil (not necessarily the country... corporate and cultural sponsors). The two rumored likely pavilions after Brazil are Spain and India, and it's not because WDW wants them represented, but because there are probably sponsors lining up for them. Don't be fooled by Jim Hill connecting the movie Giant with Spain. Our insiders are clear that's not how national pavilions come about.

This thread has just become one of people expressing the nations they'd like to see or the ones they think would fit by rounding off the countries and continents represented at the World Showcase. And that is a futile exercise if it's just about what sponsors are willing to sponsor.

Those are both examples of the 1980s, when Disney was smaller and riskier, and when people didn't percieve as much to be racist. If tomorrow, they announce that they're building a regional pavilion among all other individual countries, especially a region that's been discriminated against, I'll bet my top dollar someone will complain. Disney doesn't want that, and so it won't happen.
I assume the second or third paragraphs aren't in reply to me.
 
Last edited:

Herbie

Well-Known Member
This thread has just become one of people expressing the nations they'd like to see or the ones they think would fit by rounding off the countries and continents represented at the World Showcase. And that is a futile exercise if it's just about what sponsors are willing to sponsor.

Yeah yeah yeah, I still want Greece, Spain, Egypt, India, Costa Rica, Israel and the UAE.
 

bunnyman

Well-Known Member
I've always felt they needed something from South America. Also, why not anything like Australia/Oceania, etc?
 

FerretAfros

Well-Known Member
It's just not the 1980's any more. The world is in such a hyper-political state right now - that shows no signs of slowing or changing whatsoever - that the choices of what to add are very, very limited. Not to mention, the concept of "cultural appropriation" itself is so controversial these days it's just shocking they are going to add a new country, at all. There is no way the current cultural shifts would allow Disney to get away with it.
Oh, please. Let's not pretend that the 1980's didn't have divisive politics or that sensitive issues were non-starters for Disney. Even global political alliances didn’t stand in the way of considering various locations.

When the park opened, Germany was represented by a single pavilion, despite there being two Germanys split by one of the world's most heavily militarized borders, complete with a very well-known border wall designed to keep people *in* (as controversial as our current border wall discussions are, consider the difference between the perceived need for a wall designed to keep people out and one designed to keep people in).

The China pavilion was designed and built on the heels of the devastating Cultural Revolution, which destroyed countless artifacts, traditions, and cultures, but pales in comparison to the Great Leap Forward just a few years prior to that, which led to widespread famine and the death of tens of millions of people. The Wonders of China filmmakers were the first westerners allowed to film at many of the sites, and were among the first westerners allowed in the country following the Cultural Revolution.

There were serious discussions about creating a Russia pavilion, despite the ongoing tensions of the Cold War between the US and USSR. While those two countries aren’t exactly the closest allies today, they also don’t pose an immediate existential threat to each other as they did when the pavilion was being considered.

Up in Future World, they created the Universe of Energy with Exxon, while the Energy Crisis of the early 70’s was still fresh in the collective memory, but didn’t shy away from creating a fossil fuel-focused presentation.

The difference is that in the 80's, Disney had the cajones to have a bold vision and execute it. Today’s Disney is too worried about the quarterly earnings reports and placating delicate snowflakes to try anything even remotely daring. But it’s okay, because Disney-branded characters will keep me from having to think too much about the incredible and diverse world around me
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Oh, please. Let's not pretend that the 1980's didn't have divisive politics or that sensitive issues were non-starters for Disney. Even global political alliances didn’t stand in the way of considering various locations.

Step back a moment. Breathe.

I am not endorsing or saying I agree with the stances. However, I do live in 2017 and understand the realities.

Your rant here misses one huge difference between 1980's and now: awareness. The Internet. Social Media.

Don't kid yourself for one second. If Disney said they were building Israel or Russia at World Showcase, there would be massive protests at WDW for the latter, and the former? As if Disney was not already a target for terrorism, that certainly would be then. Or a huge messy political boycott - you have heard of BDS, right?

The 80's had nothing to do with cajones - it was corporate whitewash of things, back before people had access to the information for themselves. The energy crisis in the 70's was a brief blip - people had long gas lines that then went away and gas became cheaper than ever - the original Universe of Energy was sponsored by Exxon and a propaganda piece to smooth it over. All of the original EPCOT was corporate sponsored. One can argue a lot about it the wonderful things about EPCOT, but to pretend it was somehow subversive would be a complete fiction.

I'm finding this a recurring theme where people seem to have lived in some stasis chamber for decades and do not recognize how the world is different today. It doesn't mean I like it or approve of it - far from it - but to deny how much the world has changed even in the last five or ten years, versus the last thirty plus. I may not like how the world has changed, but to deny that it has is just burying your head in the past.
 

JohnD

Well-Known Member
It was announced, but that doesn't neccesarily make it right at the time, or especially now.

The main argument is that Equatorial Africa is not a single country whereas the others are. They didn't lump France and Spain together, so why should they lump countries in Africa together? You could argue that the differences are much much larger between the former than the latter, but is that true, or it it simply our inability to recognize them?

Is this racist?

That's a question we could argue for hours. I can certainly see how building an "Equatorial Africa" pavilion would cause a stir.

It was a viable option before AK. No longer because it's now in AK.
 

JohnD

Well-Known Member
That's Africa in relation to animals. An Epcot pavilion would be about the history, arts and culture of the people of Equatorial Africa.

Um. They have African dancers, a market. a show, restaurant, ride, walking trails. Africa is on more space and has more representation in AK than Epcot could ever present. I think the CM dancers and singers and those with info about their counties on the Africa trail would dispute your assertion about history, arts, and culture.

I can't think of a more authentically accurate area in any park than AK's Africa. Remove that as an option for Epcot, and look to other geographical areas.
 
Last edited:

Robbiem

Well-Known Member
I think it's a shame that everything now comes down to dollars and politics. No matter what the history behind it Disney in the 70s managed to bring a diverse collection of nations from communist china to liberal European nations like Italy and France. Yes the collection isn't ideal but at least they tried and if things had panned out differently in the 80s we would probably have had a more diverse filled out showcase, probably at the expense of DHS and/or AK.

I realise everything at Disney is designed to be profitable but EPCOT also had high ideals which we never see anymore from big corporations.

Personally I'd like to see countries chosen for the diversity of their cultures around the lagoon rather than who is willing to pony up for some PR.

Personally I'd like to see areas not represented or underrepresented in WS my picks would be:

Brazil or another South American country
Polynesia (ideally a regional pavilion rather than somewhere like Fiji or tonga)
Thailand
The Caribbean (again another joint pavilion or if not Cuba or Jamaica as the,largest nations)
Russia
India
South Africa (but a different people focused side rather than animal kingdom style Africa).
 

No Name

Well-Known Member
Because equatorial Africa is now in Animal Kingdom. That would be a redundancy.

Does that mean the China pavillion is a redundancy of Asia in DAK?

Not only are the specific locations different (the land in DAK is east Africa, not equatorial Africa), but the themes are different. One would be more about human achievement while the other is about our human's relationship with nature. That's no more redundancy than there is between Future World and Tomorrowland, or Africa/Asia and Adventureland.
 
Last edited:

AEfx

Well-Known Member
I realise everything at Disney is designed to be profitable but EPCOT also had high ideals which we never see anymore from big corporations.

Personally I'd like to see countries chosen for the diversity of their cultures around the lagoon rather than who is willing to pony up for some PR.

They never were, though.

All of those original pavilions were financially sponsored either by the country themselves, or by companies/tourist organizations/etc. in said countries. Disney did a fabulous job of packaging the whole thing as some deep cultural exchange, and to many at the time who had never picked up a book or watched a documentary about those countries in a much different world, much less known anyone who ever went to them unless it was as a member of the military, it was effective.

That's why it's been stagnant for so long - countries and/or corporations within them no longer saw the value of paying Disney in order to be represented at a theme park that solely profited Disney and statistically didn't affect actual tourism to the country.

But this notion that it was some love-letter to the world, in spite of the superbly crafted PR at a much more innocent time, is just looking back with rose colored glasses.

Today, you can learn much more about a country and it's people by visiting a Wikipedia page or watching a documentary on it with our 500 channels and streaming, or actually going yourself for the price of a Disney vacation - which truly is authentic versus the "Disney-fied" version, which is why it largely looks and feels like a collection of well-themed shops and restaurants now.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Back
Top Bottom