JiminyandTink
Well-Known Member
I agree a Zootopia land is certainly not necessary.. a ride could be cute, but I'm afraid that it cant go in AK because it's "Nahtazu"
You, like many here, are associating the movies with the land. STOP. One has nothing to do with the other. The land and attractions stand on their own. I mean, if what you say is right, we wouldn't even have half the attractions at WDW at all.I am excited to check out Pandora, but I wonder if the Avatar franchise falls flat over the years and Pandora eventually becomes dated, if they would ever re-purpose the area for another theme like the old Beastly Kingdom idea or anything like that. The visuals are still very impressive and I suppose a lot of it could be re-themed.
That being said, I guess we should let it open officially before we close it down
You, like many here, are associating the movies with the land. STOP. One has nothing to do with the other. The land and attractions stand on their own. I mean, if what you say is right, we wouldn't even have half the attractions at WDW at all.
No, it's not. It's associated with the PLANET, not the movie. I do not understand why y'all don't get that. If they never release another movie, it won't matter one bit. I mean, they never released a second movie for Song of the South, yet Splash Mountain is one of the most visited attractions anywhere.I understand what you're saying for sure, but in fact the land is most definitely associated with the movie franchise.
No, it's not. It's associated with the PLANET, not the movie. I do not understand why y'all don't get that. If they never release another movie, it won't matter one bit. I mean, they never released a second movie for Song of the South, yet Splash Mountain is one of the most visited attractions anywhere.
You're still getting hung up on the "IP" thing. The land is based on a planet, and the flora/fauna/creatures that live on it. Nothing more than that.I really do understand what you are saying... but yes, it's the planet in the movie (as opposed to Saturn's moon Pandora which exists in reality). And again Splash Mountain is a ride and not an entire land devoted to an IP, and Frontierland as a whole has stood the test of time greatly, as have the characters from Song of the South (not the movie for obvious reasons) and hopefully Pandora will stand the test of time as well.
You're still getting hung up on the "IP" thing. The land is based on a planet, and the flora/fauna/creatures that live on it. Nothing more than that.
If the movie Avatar had never been released, we would be saying that this is one of the most amazing lands that Disney has ever done, and no one would ever be talking about it flopping. And we shouldn't be, as it simply is never going to "flop".
Not sure what you mean by "erode what we know of WDW". What erosion are you talking about?The "IP thing" is actually a very important discussion as it has the potential to slowly erode what we know of WDW.
Not sure what you mean by "erode what we know of WDW". What erosion are you talking about?
While I don't think "everything" will be changing over to IP based attractions, I have no issue with using IP to tell the correct story for that area. I know some tremble with rage at the thought of it, but me personally, as long as it's done right, I have no problems with it. Now, if it is done wrong, or doesn't fit at all, then I will be one of the first to call it out. If the GotG comes to EPCOT, but still includes edutainment appropriate for that area, then I don't see the big deal. If it's just to throw it there, with no purpose, then I do have a problem with it. To date, no one, not even Martin, has talked about the actual GotG attraction that might take over Ellen. We have no idea if it will fit, but people are up in arms over something that may be just fine for that area. For me, I have patience, and will wait and see what they do - and then tear it apart if done badly.By that I mean making everything in WDW IP related and changing what we know of WDW (ex. making all of EPCOT themed to things like Guardians of the Galaxy as opposed to attractions like Horizons).
Oh, I completely agree that it should never be everything. I'm just saying I'm OK with some of it, if done correctly.Yes, agreed GotG is not confirmed, it was just an example to clarify what you were asking about what I mean.
Let me say that I completely respect your opinion. But to me personally, even if done right, I do not want everything in WDW to be IP based (now, I'm certainly not saying nothing, or even much), but I do worry about it's impact on WDW. Just my opinion.
I'm getting increasingly tired of the whole "IP is baaaad" argument.By that I mean making everything in WDW IP related and changing what we know of WDW
^^^^ This!I'm getting increasingly tired of the whole "IP is baaaad" argument.
Virtually everything in WDW is, in some way, IP based. Either IP created for the parks, IP from movies, or IP from properties they've brought into the parks. Even old Epcot was arguably IP-based, given that every single pavilion was sponsored and went out of its way to talk about its corporate sponsor through existing properties or ideas.
The Disney parks have always been all about 'synergy' -- taking a popular film, story, or character and bringing it to life so that kids and adults can experience it in 'real life'. That's "IP". If you don't like that sort of thing, maybe WDW isn't the place for you.
I'm getting increasingly tired of the whole "IP is baaaad" argument.
Virtually everything in WDW is, in some way, IP based. Either IP created for the parks, IP from movies, or IP from properties they've brought into the parks. Even old Epcot was arguably IP-based, given that every single pavilion was sponsored and went out of its way to talk about its corporate sponsor through existing properties or ideas.
The Disney parks have always been all about 'synergy' -- taking a popular film, story, or character and bringing it to life so that kids and adults can experience it in 'real life'. That's "IP". If you don't like that sort of thing, maybe WDW isn't the place for you.
It's quite simple, really. Virtually every discussion of any new development at WDW on these boards inevitably digresses into people complaining that there's "too much IP" and that WDW is "eroding" because they keep developing their movies and characters into attractions.I actually don't understand the whole snippy "maybe WDW isn't the place for you", I honestly just thought this was a friendly discussion I was having with another WDW fan on a general discussion board. But if you're wound this tight, maybe you need a trip to WDW asap.
It's quite simple, really. Virtually every discussion of any new development at WDW on these boards inevitably digresses into people complaining that there's "too much IP" and that WDW is "eroding" because they keep developing their movies and characters into attractions.
Given that the entire park is, and has always been, based largely on attractions based on movies and characters, I think that if you feel that WDW is eroding because of that practice, it may not be the place for you.
But hey, nice insult stuck in there! Yes, I'm wound soooo tight. *cough*
And I disagree with all of them as well.If virtually every discussion goes that way, I think that just means that a lot of people have the same opinion as I do.
And I disagree with all of them as well.
I appreciate when the Imagineers are 'set free' to explore something truly unique -- I mean, take something like Expedition Everest; that's truly imaginative and wasn't based on an Everest/Yeti movie, and I appreciate that. But I also think that Disney films are a fantastic source of ideas for the parks, as they have been since WDW opened. I'd love to see Zootopia brought to life somehow, and given its popularity, I bet a lot of others would, too... though given the fact that they don't even want to sell t-shirts for it, I doubt a new land is on the way anytime soon.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.