peter11435
Well-Known Member
I think discussion about zootopia in Animal kingdom is relevant in a threat about zootopia in Animal kingdom.
-
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
SirLink
Well-Known Member
What I was discussing was off topic.
tl77
Well-Known Member
Since the success of the Pirates of the Caribbean films, Disney and Universal have been making movies that can be integrated into their different parks... like in Star Wars the Force Awakens there is an awful lot of talk about how you pilot a Millennium Falcon, and that it requires a co-pilot... to tie into that attraction. Kong Skull Island? AVATAR? Marvel...
There are zoos in southern California where Walt Disney Animation is located, and they people made an expedition in to Africa to study animals as well, but the people who made Zootopia when to Animal Kingdom mostly likely to study the Park as well as the Animals, and you can choose to not accept that if you want
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
Debatable.
The character was clearly designed so that he wouldn't look out of place next to Mickey Mouse and the rest of the classic Disney mascot characters.
That's why he's rendered with all solid colors instead of, say, textured scales or detailed eyes- this way his animatronic and puppet version look the same as hand-drawn depictions and logos.
The original attraction featured hand-animated animations of him presented without context, so they're as real and genuine as any other version.
Nothing against Figment, but he would be as out of place at Animal Kingdom as the Zootopia characters would be.
tl77
Well-Known Member
Theme Parks are not "art museums" they're "entertainment venues", and if "the average guest" is isn't entertained by the park then the parks get changed to something popular and entertaining ...like Zootopia
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Again.. I'm not saying zootopia won't come to DAK. I could easily see the company making the decision to add the IP to the park. But, that does not mean they should or that belongs there.
Disney doesn't own those zoos in Southern California. Filmmakers don't need to study the park, they won't be the ones designing an expansion if there was one.
Daveeeeed
Well-Known Member
I think the main reason EPCOT is dull is because everything is very outdated and lacks a headliner for the park. Rides like Living With The Land and The Universe of Energy are still good, but they need to be updated. Then secondary rides like FIgment and Nemo somehow are just awful, which is in stark difference to the C-tickets over in the Magic Kingdom. Slapping an IP on them won't fix that, but instead, it gives management a reason to want to update the rides. There's a difference.
Last edited:
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
IveBeenJack
Well-Known Member
In my video on Zootopia, I really felt that this was wildly off-base, definitely plausible if they relies a Zootopia 2. But as I emphasised in the video that it was far off in the future if ever. What I try and do with DSNY Newscast is take the rumours and prepare people and manage expectations for when something is coming, so you have Mickey Views or saying its confirmed, I try and throw as much doubt on the timor as possible to manage the expectations of the more casual Disney Fandom that don't check WDW Magic Forums on a regular basis.
shortstop
Well-Known Member
To be quite honest I feel embarrassed by my earlier post! I must have been feeling bitter that day or something. I have become a fan of you and your YT channel, and I appreciate the objective/thorough approach you take to discussing these rumors. Cheers mate
Again, apologies for my earlier comment! Nothing but respect now.
Amidala
Well-Known Member
I agree that Zootopia would feel very...off in Animal Kingdom, and I have a pretty open mind when it comes to IP placement in general. Like a lot of people have said, Zootopia is one big metaphor for human prejudice, it has next to nothing to do with the animals themselves. At least Avatar touches on conservation, human encroachment on other species' spaces etc. And while Avatar wouldn't exactly have been my first choice (I was very lukewarm about the movie and I'm not in a rush to see it a second time) I do like the idea of going back to DAK's roots RE: Beastly Kingdom.
I could make my peace with a Zootopia playland for children, but would be iffy on a land.
I could make my peace with a Zootopia playland for children, but would be iffy on a land.
Edward M
Active Member
Yaaaa, Zootopia would certainly feel off at Animal Kingdom with its mostly very realistic approach to the world and animals. However, if it ends up replacing the carnival area, then I am completely on board. I don't think Zootopia would ruin Animal Kingdom by any means, in fact it would fit relatively well. It's just that I want the money and resources of that park to go somewhere better. Beastly Kingdom is a very far away pipe dream, but I would surely love that. I just want an original, non-IP land to open at an American Disney park. Please? Pretty please?
That does bring up a question though. Was Mystic Manor Disney's last non-IP attraction? I guess Roaring Rapids in Shanghai would count, but that means one original idea in a huge new billion(s) dollar park. That's awful! I mean, it looks like it'll be a decade of almost completely IP related rides. That's just shouldn't be!! At least the late Eisner era didn't rely as heavily on IPs. They greenlit original rides like Expedition Everest. Oh dear lord, I actually kind of miss the late Eisner era! To be fair, the Iger era is creating some unbelievably amazing rides, arguably the best ever made. It's just that they aren't making any of them original. They all have to have an IP to hold them or to be worth the money. It's really a shame. We just know that original ideas in the parks can and have been very successful. Wouldn't Disney want to sell Star Wars merchandise but also merchandise for a cute new character? The fact I have a Chandu plush in my room proves my point that it can work. Well, sorry for the semi-rant, but it seemed to relate the subject.
That does bring up a question though. Was Mystic Manor Disney's last non-IP attraction? I guess Roaring Rapids in Shanghai would count, but that means one original idea in a huge new billion(s) dollar park. That's awful! I mean, it looks like it'll be a decade of almost completely IP related rides. That's just shouldn't be!! At least the late Eisner era didn't rely as heavily on IPs. They greenlit original rides like Expedition Everest. Oh dear lord, I actually kind of miss the late Eisner era! To be fair, the Iger era is creating some unbelievably amazing rides, arguably the best ever made. It's just that they aren't making any of them original. They all have to have an IP to hold them or to be worth the money. It's really a shame. We just know that original ideas in the parks can and have been very successful. Wouldn't Disney want to sell Star Wars merchandise but also merchandise for a cute new character? The fact I have a Chandu plush in my room proves my point that it can work. Well, sorry for the semi-rant, but it seemed to relate the subject.
No Name
Well-Known Member
Or, you create something new that fits the park AND is popular and entertaining. There's a successful ride called Expedition Everest that does exactly that. Another one called Soarin.' Someone actually had enough imagination and brain cells to approve a ride based not on movie characters! And those rides happen to be ever so slightly popular...
I find it sad that your imagination is so limited. Good thing you do not work at The Walt Disney Company... though I suppose many of today's execs are no worse.
Amidala
Well-Known Member
I agree! I'm wary of is the idea that a ride will succeed (regardless of quality) as long as it has an IP attached. Even one new, original dark ride for one of the four parks would have placated me, but it doesn't seem that this is on the horizon for WDW. There are a lot of underutilized IPs that I would love to see in use (BH6 and Inside Out for Epcot, Moana in Adventureland, etc.) but WDW's original rides are just as emblematic of the parks. And like you've already mentioned (RE: Chandu), if imagineers could come up with some compelling new characters, that's a super lucrative merchandising opportunity. Frozen dolls will sell whether there's an attraction or not, but people obviously wouldn't be clamoring for Haunted Mansion merchandise w/o the ride.
I don't think current imagineers are any lazier or any less imaginative than earlier generations of imagineers (far from it). They focus on IPs because this is the current direction WDW is taking as a whole. I understand that (esp. w/ Disney acquiring Star Wars and Marvel pretty recently), but don't see why we can't have an original ride or two thrown in along the way to keep things balanced.
999th Happy Haunt
Well-Known Member
The only thing AK and Zootopia have in common is that both have animals.
Kman101
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, the mass public would eat the land up and not give a crap that it doesn't fit. I wouldn't hate a Zootopia city presence ... at DHS. I'd imagine there's a plan somewhere that exists placing it in AK. I wouldn't hate if they had us take the train to it but I don't think that's really feasible. I'd rather they focus elsewhere and pick things that fit better for AK. They've done a pretty good job keeping the park "pure".
becca_
Well-Known Member
I would hope Joe Rohde would at least try and keep stuff like Zootopia out of AK, I really really think it would be an awful fit, like... ruin the park almost awful.
Biff215
Well-Known Member
Is he really flying Spirit? Then I fear Chapek might be trying to get rid of Joe so he can shove Zootopia into AK!
Amidala
Well-Known Member
I think the difficulty with choosing IPs for DAK (and the appeal of Zootopia for imagineers) is the depth of character in Zootopia's location. So many of the IPs that would really be a good fit for DAK (TLK, A Bug's Life, The Jungle Book, Pocahontas, Tarzan, etc.) take place in natural environments so it would be hard to build a distinctive "land" based on these IPs. I still don't think Zootopia is a great thematic fit, but Zootopia (the city) provides a solid template to build off. The same principle applies to Pandora (although I think it's a better fit overall). And since immersive experiences seem to be the goal (ever since WWOHP came on the scene), that's probably an important part of the decision-making process.
The only Disney IP I can think of that imagineers could replicate at DAK is Up. They already have the Wilderness Explorer points all around DAK, and actually building Paradise Falls would be a cool tie-in. There's plenty of plant and animal-life that could be copied over from the movie, and seeing Carl's house and all of its balloons perched on top of the falls would immediately click for guests.
That's super unlikely of course, but fun to think about!
The only Disney IP I can think of that imagineers could replicate at DAK is Up. They already have the Wilderness Explorer points all around DAK, and actually building Paradise Falls would be a cool tie-in. There's plenty of plant and animal-life that could be copied over from the movie, and seeing Carl's house and all of its balloons perched on top of the falls would immediately click for guests.
That's super unlikely of course, but fun to think about!
Daveeeeed
Well-Known Member
Here's a post I made recently on this topic in the Imagineering sub-forum:
Zootopia does not fit the mission statement of Animal Kingdom no matter how you slice or dice it. Its underlying themes are about racism, stereotypes, and at the face, it is sort of like a buddy comedy. I loved the film and would love a ride, but as epic as the world it occupies is, I'm skeptical it would translate well to a theme park. The biggest relation is animals which is a humongous problem as I'll explain below.
While Pandora proved an IP based land does not have to have anything to do with the film's story at all, just the message and the world which it resides in, the overall message of the film was still about conservation and an analogy for Earth which ties into the mission statement of Animal Kingdom. It also checks out a mystical land which was supposed to be added to the park from day one. A city doesn't seem like it would work if they focus on the place and ecosystems.
Plus while Zootopia sounds like an intriguing concept for a land especially at Hollywood Studios, part of the reason the film was so cool was that it showed animals living in cool boroughs. There will be only humans walking around the land, not animals, so that kind of messes with the land. Since Animal Kingdom is about nature, then how will modern buildings fit? They could make it fit, but they would have to drastically change the way they do it... it would have to be about different ecosystems which could work, but I worry that it won't happen that way. I know obviously that is not a dealbreaker, but it is something to consider since that is the only means of connection it would have to Animal Kingdom. It would very well clash with the nature dominance over man theme in Animal Kingdom. Cars Land, on the other hand, feels real as a place because it was inspired by Route 66. It's America occupied by Cars, so that's pretty easy to push past. Again I think it's possible it could work (mainly relating to the ecosystems), but it would be a lot harder than getting Pandora to fit, which it does as perfectly as any non-ip would have IMO.
Zootopia does not fit the mission statement of Animal Kingdom no matter how you slice or dice it. Its underlying themes are about racism, stereotypes, and at the face, it is sort of like a buddy comedy. I loved the film and would love a ride, but as epic as the world it occupies is, I'm skeptical it would translate well to a theme park. The biggest relation is animals which is a humongous problem as I'll explain below.
While Pandora proved an IP based land does not have to have anything to do with the film's story at all, just the message and the world which it resides in, the overall message of the film was still about conservation and an analogy for Earth which ties into the mission statement of Animal Kingdom. It also checks out a mystical land which was supposed to be added to the park from day one. A city doesn't seem like it would work if they focus on the place and ecosystems.
Plus while Zootopia sounds like an intriguing concept for a land especially at Hollywood Studios, part of the reason the film was so cool was that it showed animals living in cool boroughs. There will be only humans walking around the land, not animals, so that kind of messes with the land. Since Animal Kingdom is about nature, then how will modern buildings fit? They could make it fit, but they would have to drastically change the way they do it... it would have to be about different ecosystems which could work, but I worry that it won't happen that way. I know obviously that is not a dealbreaker, but it is something to consider since that is the only means of connection it would have to Animal Kingdom. It would very well clash with the nature dominance over man theme in Animal Kingdom. Cars Land, on the other hand, feels real as a place because it was inspired by Route 66. It's America occupied by Cars, so that's pretty easy to push past. Again I think it's possible it could work (mainly relating to the ecosystems), but it would be a lot harder than getting Pandora to fit, which it does as perfectly as any non-ip would have IMO.
Last edited: