DAK 'Encanto' and 'Indiana Jones'-themed experiences at Animal Kingdom

[HMF]

By the way, how many people know the infra structure of the Tree of Life in Animal Kingdom is an oil rig?

Your point being?

 

[HMF]

I also think there's a bit of commentary on the movement to eliminate "Star Imagineers".
We don't want you to think of this as a Marc Davis attraction, and this as a Ken Anderson attraction, or this as a Tony Baxter attraction. We only want you to think of these as DISNEY attractions.

That's pretty much exactly what they think.

 

[HMF]

Love logging in here to see what a 19 year old who has never drawn a stick figure thinks famous imagineer Joe Rohde should and shouldn't have done in his career

WDWMagic never disappoints

I honestly do wish I was 19 again.

 

[Tom Morrow]

By the way, how many people know the infra structure of the Tree of Life in Animal Kingdom is an oil rig?

All of us, I think

 

[mysto]

By the way, how many people know the infra structure of the Tree of Life in Animal Kingdom is an oil rig?

Are there working drill bits in there? Could be useful....

 

[sedati]

Second, he posted this yesterday I think, mildly critical or at least thoughtful about too much IP in the parks:

Theme parks, are not just commercial mechanisms, nor are they simply stories built into a physical environment…They form a link between the creators of the entertainment and the audience.

A story, a work of art, a narrative place, connects with us partially because of what us called Agency… The idea that somebody made it. We are evolutionarily biased to detect agency, and to care very much whether it is benign, negative, or highly positive.

The more lavish, the more exultant and beautiful a creation is, the better we feel about the person who made it, the “agent” …and that it was made for us. The agency becomes kind of bountiful gesture, a peacock tail. Art is a non-essential commodity. Its’ appeal is neither rational, nor transactional, but biological… Like a peacock’s reaction to another peacock’s tail. But we want a peacock, not a decoy.

So parks and attractions are people to people communications.

Disney’s Animal Kingdom fans like the park partly because it is lavish in detail, (peacock) and because communication seems very real and unrehearsed, (not decoy.) The burden of IP is somewhat less in the park… and intellectual property restrains performers within the strictly defined canon of the intellectual property, instead of people acting towards each other in a more open-ended improvisational and natural way. This natural relationship is more possible when the entertainment venue lacks such rigid rules of engagement.

Theater presents what Aristotle called mimesis, that is: to enjoy the illusion while at the same time enjoying the fact that the illusion was created by someone. Without an “agent” creator, mimesis becomes deception, a very different emotion.

For this reason, I am wary of technological interventions, like AI, robotics, and generative computational design… Because to some degree, they remove the perception of Agency.… That there is actually someone behind the curtain. Theme parks are saturated with emotion. And people want that emotional connection to be genuine. In order to be genuine, those emotions need to be connected, through the art, to some person on the other side… Not to a machine. To a peacock, not a decoy.

I don't entirely agree with him here but I think this is a thought provoking framework. I don't entirely agree because I am a hopeless spiritual type, and I would say that art and pretty much any worthwhile experience is always - yes, always - about some form of transcendence, expansion, and finding something bigger than oneself. (That is kinda boilerplate modern day spiritual-think but I think sometimes oft repeated truths take hold because they are, well, true.)

I would say true connection with anyone is one way to step outside of self-concern for a moment. Connection with someone who is in their own way plugged in to more expansive truths (i.e., an artist and their work) is another way to accomplish this. But I would also say that IP and AI have a place here as well. Artists can be great, terrible, or anything in between. IP, likewise, can represent universal truths (I believe Rohde has talked about universal themes in theme parks elsewhere), trite pop culture junk, and anything in between. (AI, to my mind, doesn't need agency to be a wonderful thing in the same way that you can be an atheist and enjoy the beauty of nature. Nature is physics just being physics, AI is information being information - I think human agency is one path towards expansion but not the only path.)

At any rate, no matter what you think, interesting that he's leaning a little bit away from IP here. Not sure if there's anything to read in the tea leaves here or if he's just having fun musing.

He leaned so far from IP that he named his book after something from an IP he worked on.

 

[DisneyHead123]

He leaned so far from IP that he named his book after something from an IP he worked on.

No one said he leaned far away from IP.

 

[HMF]

No one said he leaned far away from IP.

Most of Animal Kingdom as it was originally designed was mostly original. I don't think he wanted to do Avatar but to his credit he made it blend into the park aesthetically even if the property does not really fit the theme of the park. He did do the god-awful Guardians Tower in DCA but to be fair most of the 2nd Gen Imagineers had awful ideas or attractions on their resume. Tom Fitzgerald wrote the script for Horizons and the Cronkite version of SSE then went on to advocate for the heavy usage of screens in lieu of AA's. Eric Jacobson Show Produced the Great Movie Ride and went on to supervise the 2006 POTC refurb where they shoved in Johny Depp and made every other word in the attraction script "Captain Jack Sparrow". Kevin Rafferty wrote the scripts for a lot of great attractions and also wrote Enchanted Tiki Room: Under New Management and Stitch's Great Mistake. Even Tony Baxter oversaw the development of the disastrous 1998 Tomorrowland at Disneyland and the inserting of advertisements into Disneyland's It's a small world in 2009.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

Most of Animal Kingdom as it was originally designed was mostly original. I don't think he wanted to do Avatar but to his credit he made it blend into the park aesthetically even if the property does not really fit the theme of the park. He did do the god-awful Guardians Tower in DCA but to be fair most of the 2nd Gen Imagineers had awful ideas or attractions on their resume. Tom Fitzgerald wrote the script for Horizons and the Cronkite version of SSE then went on to advocate for the heavy usage of screens in lieu of AA's. Eric Jacobson Show Produced the Great Movie Ride and went on to supervise the 2006 POTC refurb where they shoved in Johny Depp and made every other word in the attraction script "Captain Jack Sparrow". Kevin Rafferty wrote the scripts for a lot of great attractions and also wrote Enchanted Tiki Room: Under New Management and Stitch's Great Mistake. Even Tony Baxter oversaw the development of the disastrous 1998 Tomorrowland at Disneyland and the inserting of advertisements into Disneyland's It's a small world in 2009.

Can you please explain why it did not fit the theme of the park?

 

[Bocabear]

Maybe because Animal Kingdom was based on living animals...or animals that went extinct (Dinosaurs)...not based on a movie that took place in outer space on another planet...with completely imaginary non-earth based creatures... Even the planned but never built Beastly Kingdom section was based on earth-based creatures....
So to jump the park from being eco-centric, real world animals to another planet and completely imaginary life forms would make it not really fit in the park... Yes he did a great job shoehorning it in... and to largely works because of how green it is...
Which is pretty much an argument for Indiana Jones since it will be a temple in a jungle and be very green...lol. Still trying to figure out what the heck Encanto has to do with the park....yeah yeah one of the family members has a connection to Animals....So really I guess any IP could work...Snow White had animal Friends....as did Cinderella, Moana, Aurora, Merida etc...

 

[Moth]

Animal Kingdom was based on living animals, animals that no longer exist, and animals of fantasy.

I'm pretty sure Avatar fills that last point pretty well.

 

[osian]

Animal Kingdom was based on living animals, animals that no longer exist, and animals of fantasy.

I'm pretty sure Avatar fills that last point pretty well.

The exact words are "real, ancient and imagined". You can construe "imagined" to mean anything that's not real, but to my mind the intention was animals that exist in peoples' minds due to folklore, legend etc, rather than fictional, invented deliberately by film makers for entertainment. Created in the imaginations of the people and handed down through generations, also based on things they have experienced that they believe is real or believe they have found an explanation for, not in the imaginations of the script writers. In other words, "imagined" is more aligned to "mythical" than "fictional" and also "fantasy" (it's a bit disrespectful to call the Yeti a fantasy??). But maybe it was made deliberately ambiguous to mean both things, considering the company that Disney is.

A quick dicitonary definition: "Imagined: (of something unreal or untrue) believed to exist or be so". That definitely rules out fictional.

I think Avatar fits not because it's about fictional animals, but because the message fits the conservation and environmental message.

 

[Movielover]

A quick dicitonary definition: "Imagined: (of something unreal or untrue) believed to exist or be so". That definitely rules out fictional.

Clearly you are not familiar with the shockingly large group of people who claimed to have been Navi in their pasts lives and are trying to get back to Pandora...

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

Maybe because Animal Kingdom was based on living animals...or animals that went extinct (Dinosaurs)...not based on a movie that took place in outer space on another planet...with completely imaginary non-earth based creatures... Even the planned but never built Beastly Kingdom section was based on earth-based creatures....
So to jump the park from being eco-centric, real world animals to another planet and completely imaginary life forms would make it not really fit in the park... Yes he did a great job shoehorning it in... and to largely works because of how green it is...
Which is pretty much an argument for Indiana Jones since it will be a temple in a jungle and be very green...lol. Still trying to figure out what the heck Encanto has to do with the park....yeah yeah one of the family members has a connection to Animals....So really I guess any IP could work...Snow White had animal Friends....as did Cinderella, Moana, Aurora, Merida etc...

1. The Beastly Kingdom section never opened. The park never had "earth-based creatures" for its main land. The only earth-based mythical creature actually featured in the park in its entirety would be the Yeti. 1 instance does not make a rule.

2. The park has never claimed to be centered only around Earth. That is something you made up which you used confirmation bias to make the argument. Just because something didn't OPEN with the park or wasn't in the original plans doesn't mean it doesn't fit the park. That would mean that Beastly Kingdom did not fit the park because it didn't open and I'm sure its original plans would change.

3. Animal Kingdom had actual themes as described by Joe Rohde, but you won't listen to him now because he doesn't fit your clear narrative. His word was gospel 20 years ago but when it disagrees with you now, it's suddenly questionable.
"All of Disney’s Animal Kingdom is based on three themes. The intrinsic value of nature. Psychological transformation through adventure. And a personal call to action. Avatar matched these neatly with no effort. Avatar and DAK are essentially about the same thing."

The truth is, your interpretation of the park does not matter. It is flawed and does not match the standards behind the actual person who designed it.

4. Encanto fits. Full stop. It fits all the criteria as mentioned by Joe Rohde and fits into the broader connection of humans connection to animals. The surrounding natural world of the town in Casita quite literally provides the peoples protection from the conquistadors plus Antonio's connection to animals given the interesting "what if" human and animal could speak to each other. How could we cooperate to do things together? This will 100% atleast be in the attraciton. Psychological transformation through an adventure? Absolutely fits Encantos playbook, Mirabel travels through the old abandoned tower, multiple room of the house, and outside the town to finally undergo her transformation and the rest of the families. And I'm sure I don't have to explain a personal call to action to you.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

The exact words are "real, ancient and imagined". You can construe "imagined" to mean anything that's not real, but to my mind the intention was animals that exist in peoples' minds due to folklore, legend etc, rather than fictional, invented deliberately by film makers for entertainment. Created in the imaginations of the people and handed down through generations, also based on things they have experienced that they believe is real or believe they have found an explanation for, not in the imaginations of the script writers. In other words, "imagined" is more aligned to "mythical" than "fictional" and also "fantasy" (it's a bit disrespectful to call the Yeti a fantasy??). But maybe it was made deliberately ambiguous to mean both things, considering the company that Disney is.

A quick dicitonary definition: "Imagined: (of something unreal or untrue) believed to exist or be so". That definitely rules out fictional.

I think Avatar fits not because it's about fictional animals, but because the message fits the conservation and environmental message.

"to form or have a mental picture or idea of something:"

"To form a mental picture or image of: imagined a better life abroad."

imagined (not comparable)

1. Conceived or envisioned in the mind.
   Never return evil for evil that's either real or imagined.
2. (rare) Only conceivable in one's mind.

Just as many sources saying it is only in the mind as sources saying "it was believed to exist"

 

[osian]

"to form or have a mental picture or idea of something:"

"To form a mental picture or image of: imagined a better life abroad."

imagined (not comparable)

1. Conceived or envisioned in the mind.
   Never return evil for evil that's either real or imagined.
2. (rare) Only conceivable in one's mind.

Just as many sources saying it is only in the mind as sources saying "it was believed to exist"

I repeat...

"animals that exist in peoples' minds due to folklore, legend etc, rather than fictional, invented deliberately by film makers for entertainment"

The quote you have above..."never return evil for evil that's either real or imagined"...is about an imagined evil that is believed to be real, you've envisaged and conjured up the threat in your own mind. You're not going to act on a threat if you don't believe it's real.

You know, the human imagination is amazing. We should have an attraction about that.

As I say though, it's ambiguous given the company that Disney is, and we do have Imagineering.

[EDIT I just asked ChatGPT to explain the quote! It says:

Simple example

If someone doesn’t text you back:
You might think they’re ignoring you (imagined harm).
You respond coldly or sarcastically (returning “evil”).
The situation escalates — even though there may have been no bad intent.
The quote says: pause before reacting.
]

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

I repeat...

"animals that exist in peoples' minds due to folklore, legend etc, rather than fictional, invented deliberately by film makers for entertainment"

The quote you have above..."never return evil for evil that's either real or imagined"...is about an imagined evil that is believed to be real, you've envisaged and conjured up the threat in your own mind. You're not going to act on a threat if you don't believe it's real.

You know, the human imagination is amazing. We should have an attraction about that.

As I say though, it's ambiguous given the company that Disney is, and we do have Imagineering.

[EDIT I just asked ChatGPT to explain the quote! It says:

Simple example

If someone doesn’t text you back:
You might think they’re ignoring you (imagined harm).
You respond coldly or sarcastically (returning “evil”).
The situation escalates — even though there may have been no bad intent.
The quote says: pause before reacting.
]

Thats how you know an argument is good! The use of ChatGPT!

 

[osian]

Thats how you know an argument is good! The use of ChatGPT!

OK, ignore that then. But it's an accurate explanation of the quote and you'll find the same meaning wherever you look for the explanation. It's as I said, it refers to an evil you've imagined in your own mind that you believe to be real.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

OK, ignore that then. But it's an accurate explanation of the quote and you'll find the same meaning wherever you look for the explanation. It's as I said, it refers to an evil you've imagined in your own mind that you believe to be real.

Okay so you ignored all of the other definitions to hyperfocus on one EXAMPLE quote that gives one example to how you can use the word imagined.

I fear you might be engaging in "cherry-picking" as you ignored all the other information given to you to focus on only something you could exploit which was designed to serve as an example.


It is an acceptable phrase to say an author "imagined" up a story. That does not imply that the author believes that the story actually happened.

At this point, we're arguing semantics when the truth is, the person ultimately responsible for the creative decisions at the park at this time considers it clearly as part of the theme of the park. Your opinion onto exact wording (by Eisner at the time, not Rohde) is completely irrelevant.

Also the park was planned on having a Fantasia Gardens attraction... are you suggesting that people also think that Fantasia happened IRL?

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

Huh what do you know, here's some old concept art for the Fantasia Gardens boat ride? I suppose people might believe in dancing hippos and Mickey Mouse but I'm not too confident on that take.