DAK “Zootopia” is being created for the Tree of Life theater

[Castle Cake Apologist]

New Groove has one original song. Nemo has zero. I think that proves that an IP doesn't need to be a musical to have a stage musical version at the parks.

Even further, Groove was originally meant to be a musical. There are actually a few original songs on the OST that are leftover from when the film was retooled into a buddy comedy during development.

 

[lazyboy97o]

IF Zootopia was focused outside the city and the different "animals" took us to where they grew up and showed us the natural environment they grew up in... it could work

That’s not part of the movie. The city isn’t some weird unique place, it’s just a big city. The Hopps family lives on a farm in a rural area that even has high speed train service, not a natural environment.

 

[Castle Cake Apologist]

That is not what AK is. While Pandora and Beastly Kingdomme (as proposed) are fantasy, they still portray their inhabitant fantasy fauna as behaving in a way consistent with the animals that do exist in our world (essentially using cryptozoological standards), and they are juxtaposed with a human presence (RDA settlers in Pandora, presumably medieval humans in Beastly) to explore the relationship between them.

Zootopia is some weird parallel dimension where, for all intents and purposes, animals don't exist. Every species is sentient and believes in human ethics, morality, social constructs, business practices, politics, etc. despite humans never having existed. It doesn't tell us anything about our relationship to animals nor about our relationship to the environment. Your statement that they live in environmental harmony via "cityscape biomes" is true, but only because the story says it is so, not because there is any real suggestion as to how people might achieve something similar. It's just magitech.

It's insane to me how obvious and basic this is, and yet so many people are just like, "ZoOToPia hAVe aniMALS MeaNS GooD in DaK!!1!"

I truly don't get it.

 

[Agent H]

That’s not part of the movie. The city isn’t some weird unique place, it’s just a big city. The Hopps family lives on a farm in a rural area that even has high speed train service, not a natural environment.

While I don’t think Zootopia fits in animal kingdom I do think it’s a very interesting environment that has screamed theme park land to me since 2016. if anything I wish they would expand the Shanghai area with more of the different districts.

 

[Castle Cake Apologist]

As Beastly was never fully realized we don't know what it would have entailed. So it seemingly could have included the fantastical idea of sentient animals that walk and talk like humans do.

But again playing devil advocate here, humans are animals too.

The plans were completely finalized and have been (mostly) available to the public for many many years, what do you mean?

 

[TheMaxRebo]

While I don’t think Zootopia fits in animal kingdom I do think it’s a very interesting environment that has screamed theme park land to me since 2016 if anything I wish they would expand the Shanghai area with more of the different districts.

Oh it would make for a great theme park area - would love the main city area and then they have the train from the movie that takes you through the different biomes (maybe using a People Mover type system), a kids play are that looks like the little rodentia, etc.

just not in Animal Kingdom

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

Oh it would make for a great theme park area - would love the main city area and then they have the train from the movie that takes you through the different biomes (maybe using a People Mover type system), a kids play are that looks like the little rodentia, etc.

just not in Animal Kingdom

Agree completely. I just don't care about Zootopia as an IP. The movie wasn't a "classic" in any way to me.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Agree completely. I just don't care about Zootopia as an IP. The movie wasn't a "classic" in any way to me.

not a classic but I very much enjoyed it and it did good box office, especially over seas, so can understand why they want to leverage it

 

[Agent H]

not a classic but I very much enjoyed it and it did good box office, especially over seas, so can understand why they want to leverage it

It’s a classic in china.

 

[Disney Irish]

The plans were completely finalized and have been (mostly) available to the public for many many years, what do you mean?

I’ve already explained my take on things in subsequent posts. But let’s just say that I don’t see what was planned for Beastly as that far of a stretch from leaping to sentient animals akin to Zootopia being in future updates to this unbuilt land.

As I said I was playing devils advocate here, so of course your opinion is just as good as mine here since the land was never build and never got into any planning for any updates.

 

[communicorn96]

Calling it profit driven is very different than what you originally implied, though.

Of course they always existed to make money; there was never any intention to lose money running the parks.

The way the parks are run now (and have been run for the past 20 or so years) is very, very different than the way they were run for the first 40-50 years of operation, though. They still exist to make money, but the methods have changed dramatically.

They didn't exist solely to sell Disney media/merchandise (e.g., they actually ran shops that lost money for theming reasons; that would never happen now) -- it was just one element of many, and not even the main one. The parks were intended to be great experiences in and of themselves without needing guests to have any connection to Disney media.

Its not different.

Everything is created to cross promote each other so that consumers from a very young age see those 3 circles °O° and associate Disney with fun, joy, nostalgia, etc. And therefore drop $$$. So whether its davy crockett on tv or standing in awe underneath SSE... its all attached in the brain to the mouse.

Maybe the product use to be nicer, every company skimps and tries to get more with less, but the game plan never changed.

 

[James Alucobond]

But let’s just say that I don’t see what was planned for Beastly as that far of a stretch from leaping to sentient animals akin to Zootopia being in future updates to this unbuilt land.

It's not about it being a big leap in terms of how much fantasy is behind it. Sentient animals are indeed more or less the same amount of "reasonable" as dragons, yetis, and aliens. Rather, it's about it being such a dramatic thematic departure that it would be difficult to tackle the same topics or design the land such that it could fit in with the mission, storytelling, spatial design, and feel of the rest of the park.

 

[Disney Irish]

It's not about it being a big leap in terms of how much fantasy is behind it. Sentient animals are indeed more or less the same amount of "reasonable" as dragons, yetis, and aliens. Rather, it's about it being such a dramatic thematic departure that it would be difficult to tackle the same topics or design the land such that it could fit in with the mission, storytelling, spatial design, and feel of the rest of the park.

I don't feel it is though as if its more or less the same amount of "reasonable" as you say, then it can't be that far of a departure dramatically from a thematic sense to also include sentient talking animals akin to Zootopia in this potential future update to this land that never came to be. Again I was playing devils advocate here, so YMMV.

 

[James Alucobond]

I’m not sure how the difference isn’t clear. Exploring the implications of another sentient species coexisting with us could potentially be interesting (and partially happens in Pandora), but again, Zootopia does not do that because Zootopia is an alternate reality. Their cities are not built for man and animal to coexist; they are built for anthropomorphic animals only. In short:

• What does the world of Zootopia tell us about our relationship with animals? Nothing, because humans don't exist in their world.
• What does it tell us about animal behavior? Next to nothing, because the Zootopians generally behave, think, and reflect on themselves like humans (some behavioral quirks excepted) while also not being affected or influenced by humans.
• What does it tell us about our environment? Nothing, because human-like technology and nature are magically "balanced" with no explanation whatsoever. It's just a fact of life in Zootopia.

 

[Purduevian]

Funnily enough, I agree with this on essentially everything EXCEPT Zootopia. It seems counterintuitive because, looking superficially at things, Zootopia seems to have the most to do with animals, but of the IP listed, it actually leaves the least room for real animal stories. It’s certainly accurate to say that animals are not core to IJ or Encanto, but the characters at least can and do interface with animals and/or cryptozoological creatures that behave in animalian fashion. Even if you went to the outskirts of the Zootopia world as you suggest, the characters still act like humans, just rural ones. Anything “animal” is essentially reduced to a quirk. Oh, this character is slow, that one has poor eyesight, that one sleeps underground, etc. Again, they can kind of work as commentators within our world, but unlike IJ and Encanto, which mostly share “our” world with some supernatural touches, the world of Zootopia is completely divorced from the topics and issues AK tackles.

That’s not part of the movie. The city isn’t some weird unique place, it’s just a big city. The Hopps family lives on a farm in a rural area that even has high speed train service, not a natural environment.

Yeah I was probably being too generous... I guess the only way it really fits is if the characters are basically narrators about their real life counter parts... however something tells me this wouldn't be a super popular show (didn't Timon and Pumba basically do this in the land pavilion?)

 

[WaltWiz1901]

I'm sure many monocles would fall into dole whips as the artists faint and gasps since i'm the first person to ever comment its always been profit driven.

no, I'm fairly sure many of them would be fainting and gasping because of how condescending and generalizing you're being. weren't the numerous objections and at least one message made in jest not sign enough?

The park exists to sell bubble wands and plushies great! Let’s tear out the tree of life and replace it with the Zootopia cityscape! Let’s replace expedition Everest with oakan’s sliding sleighs! Let’s fill in the rivers of America and put in a cars ri- oh wait.

You serious? The parks were quite literally designed and built by artists.

Themed design is art is art is art.

That's really not accurate.

Of course there's always been an element of that, but the parks were also full of things completely disconnected from any Disney media IP. It wasn't the sole purpose.

What you're describing is accurate in terms of how the parks are run today, but that's not what they were like for the first 40-50 years of existence -- unless you think things like stores selling actual antiques, or a park that didn't include any Disney media properties, were somehow solely there for the purpose of promoting Disney IP.

Your post very much implied that you don't view the parks as art at all. It also seemed to completely ignore 50 years of history.

Which, aside from being insultingly dismissive of the artists' work, is also wildly untrue in regards to the vast majority of the parks' history.

I'm honestly not sure how you can even say "EPCOT created Disney media properties" and not realize how admitting that completely destroys the whole point you've been attempting to make. That's fundamentally opposed to how current Disney runs the parks, which is the problem.

You seem to be looking at it in binary terms; that if the parks promoted Disney IP in some areas then that was the only thing they ever did, as though the parks couldn't have possibly had multiple purposes. As I said in the post you quoted, of course that was always an element to the parks; I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise. The issue is that it was never the whole purpose until recent years. There's been a fundamental shift in how the parks are viewed/used -- that's why they're no longer allowed to build original attractions.

 

[communicorn96]

no, I'm fairly sure many of them would be fainting and gasping because of how condescending and generalizing you're being. weren't the numerous objections and at least one message made in jest not sign enough?

i think its just my nostalgia goggles broke sooner than most here. I just view the company as a whole how many posters view the Iger/Chapek era. There's a lot to enjoy, there's a lot that causes skepticism.

Ultimately i'm not gonna sweat it if the company puts Nick and Judy in AK.

Encanto has a bunch of Donkeys. Indiana Jones hates snakes. That's enough to earn their keep in the animal park as well.

 

[UNCgolf]

i think its just my nostalgia goggles broke sooner than most here. I just view the company as a whole how many posters view the Iger/Chapek era. There's a lot to enjoy, there's a lot that causes skepticism.

Ultimately i'm not gonna sweat it if the company puts Nick and Judy in AK.

Encanto has a bunch of Donkeys. Indiana Jones hates snakes. That's enough to earn their keep in the animal park as well.

Nostalgia is one of those fallbacks people often use when they don't have a rational argument, so they grasp for something to dismiss it outright.

Regardless, this particular issue has nothing to do with nostalgia -- it's based on demonstrable facts. If you want to dismiss someone saying "oh the parks were better back then" as nothing more than nostalgia you can (even though I think that's also a cop-out to avoid engagement and critical thinking), but this isn't about something subjective like "the parks were better".

The fact that they were run/managed differently doesn't make them inherently better (whether they were better is completely subjective to any individual), but it was absolutely different. It would be incredibly difficult to muster any kind of solid argument otherwise.

 

[Castle Cake Apologist]

Nostalgia is one of those fallbacks people often use when they don't have a rational argument, so they grasp for something to dismiss it outright.

Regardless, this particular issue has nothing to do with nostalgia -- it's based on demonstrable facts. If you want to dismiss someone saying "oh the parks were better back then" as nothing more than nostalgia you can (even though I think that's also a cop-out to avoid engagement and critical thinking), but this isn't about something subjective like "the parks were better".

The fact that they were run/managed differently doesn't make them inherently better (whether they were better is completely subjective to any individual), but it was absolutely different. It would be incredibly difficult to muster any kind of solid argument otherwise.

My favorite part of this discussion is how many times the goalposts have moved. We’ve gone from “glorified bubble wand strip malls” to “wholly profit-driven enterprise with no artistic merit or intent” to “art, yes, but completely commercial and only meant to instill brand loyalty for long-term gains.” Impressive flexibility. Honestly.

Now we’ve arrived at “People only think this because of nostalgia, despite the fact that they’re stating objectively true things that I'm completely ignoring."

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

The fact that they were run/managed differently doesn't make them inherently better (whether they were better is completely subjective to any individual), but it was absolutely different. It would be incredibly difficult to muster any kind of solid argument otherwise.

Does that really tell us anything of importance thought?

WDW is 50 years old.
Disney Land is 70 years old.

I would challenge anyone to name a successful national/global business that isn't run or managed differently since they were founded based on that time scale. Sure maybe small family owned mom/pop places could have potentially stayed stagnate as far as management practices or day to day SoP. But no national, let along publicly traded company is going to stay stagnant on operations or management strategy. The market changes, consumers change, society changes, so to will businesses