Chester&Hester Enthusiast
Well-Known Member
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.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
DAK “Zootopia” is being created for the Tree of Life theater
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
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.
Purduevian
Well-Known Member
As far as which movie is a better fit, Avatar (the first one) vs Zootopia... it's tight
Avatar Pros: There is a strong story line about nature (mostly animals) rebelling against the humans ravishing the land for natural resources. The protagonist learns how the locals live with nature.
Avatar Cons: Animals aren't the focus of the film, but simply an force, the story really isn't about animals but 1 group of humans vs another humanoid group.
Zootopia Pros: The characters look like animals and say they are animals
Zootopia Cons: Nothing in the story is about anything natural, the characters deal with human problems and a urban area
They "fixed" avatar for AK by not making it about the movie at all, outside of the RDA references and decided to focus on the nature side/living with nature part of the story line.
They can "fix" zootopia, by having the zootopia characters talk about and act more like their real life counter parts.
If they were to put a zootopia land based on the movie into AK, it would stick out just as bad as C&H's did.
communicorn96
Member
Disneyland didn't just sell antiques in 1955.
Epcot created Disney media properties. Few are still successful today like Figment.
A lot of folks posting here are rightfully critical of Disney's current managment, but at some point people have to take off the nostalgia glasses and realize it's always been this way.
communicorn96
Member
You quoted this line from my comment in your reply.
"A lot of talent and creativity has gone into the parks"
I believe that.
Streetway Again
Well-Known Member
Looking at everything in the world as a potential ”franchise” or “media oppurtunity” for profit is such a joyless way to look at the world
Not even getting into the Epcot comment
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
Do you think I’m going to get a list from him?
My wife demanded that I produce a list of 5 things I did around the house this week. I don’t think she approved.
1. Sat
2. Laid
3. Napped
4. Ate
5. Relaxed
I may or may not have just borrowed from my cat’s list. Work smarter, not harder.
Chester&Hester Enthusiast
Well-Known Member
Yes, directly followed by:
Which, aside from being insultingly dismissive of the artists' work, is also wildly untrue in regards to the vast majority of the parks' history.
Chester&Hester Enthusiast
Well-Known Member
You're getting DoGE'd for sure bruv.
Disgruntled Walt
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
No. This is not the same thing at all. These are alien dragon-looking things FROM ANOTHER PLANET! Beastly Kingdom wasn't transporting you to another planet—it was still Earth, just the mythological side of the earthly animal spectrum. Avatar did not and DOES NOT fit, and I will die on this hill.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
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.
As for Zootopia -- it makes as much sense in Animal Kingdom as Robin Hood would. Just because the humans are wearing animal costumes doesn't make them actual animals.
Last edited:
Chester&Hester Enthusiast
Well-Known Member
Pandora absolutely fits, but not because of the mythical creatures tenet.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
On my list I would add -
Zootopia is a Disney Animation Theatrical Release - so it would naturally fit in a “Disney” park better than Avatar.
When we talk about the mythical “average visitor” - quiz anybody on what movie would you expect to see represented at Disneys Animal Kingdom - Avatar, Indiana Jones, Zootopia - everyone is going to pick zootopia.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
The average visitor would also probably pick to replace Spaceship Earth with a Moana ride; that doesn't mean they're right.
As I said above, Zootopia makes as much sense at Animal Kingdom as Robin Hood would.
EDIT: I like using Robin Hood as an example of why Zootopia isn't a good fit, but Sing is an even better example (if only it were a Disney IP). Sing would fit in Animal Kingdom about as well as Zootopia (i.e., not at all); they're very similar.
Last edited:
TheMaxRebo
Well-Known Member
To be Avatar fits waaaaay better into Animal Kingdom than Zootopia
Animal Kingdom is about conservation and gaining a better understanding for man's relationship with and impact on nature. To understand the habitats of animals and man's impact on those habitats
Avatar is very much about that - it is about conservation and how many impact on Pandora was ruining it but nature is now reclaiming it. It is about observing and experience the Navi and the Banshees in their natural habitat - that is where they actually live in nature (a fictional nature to be fair)
Zootopia is nothing about that - it is using animals figures as fill in for humans and dealing with what humans deal with (largely racism) - the animals presented do not really ride trains in their natural habitat or work as police officers or go through habitrails to get to their office jobs. It has nothing to do with conservation and nothing to do with observing creatures in their natural habitats
Animal Kingdom is about conservation and gaining a better understanding for man's relationship with and impact on nature. To understand the habitats of animals and man's impact on those habitats
Avatar is very much about that - it is about conservation and how many impact on Pandora was ruining it but nature is now reclaiming it. It is about observing and experience the Navi and the Banshees in their natural habitat - that is where they actually live in nature (a fictional nature to be fair)
Zootopia is nothing about that - it is using animals figures as fill in for humans and dealing with what humans deal with (largely racism) - the animals presented do not really ride trains in their natural habitat or work as police officers or go through habitrails to get to their office jobs. It has nothing to do with conservation and nothing to do with observing creatures in their natural habitats
communicorn96
Member
I apologize for saying the department store with fun rides was always a department store with fun rides.
I've been a glass half empty guy ever since Stallone cut SICO out of Rocky IV.
I've been a glass half empty guy ever since Stallone cut SICO out of Rocky IV.
Purduevian
Well-Known Member
The Franchise bombed and Disney doesn't have the rights... but a ride or show stepping into Newt Scamander's briefcase and learning about all the magic creatures inside would have been awesome and actually could have fit in AK.
Disgruntled Walt
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Neither one of them fits. I agree with everything you said about Zootopia.
If Disney had bought the theme park rights to Lord of the Rings, would a Middle-Earth area be appropriate? Saruman shows a huge disregard for nature in the way he cuts down the forests surrounding Isengard to fuel his army and evil schemes. The Ents (tree-like creatures) attack in retaliation, standing up for the beauty of nature.
To me, as cool as it would be, it doesn't fit in Animal Kingdom for the SAME REASON Avatar doesn't. Animal Kingdom was meant to be focused on the animals of our dear Mother Earth: real, imagined, and extinct. The "imaginary" label is another way of describing folklore, which Expedition Everest leans into nicely. Avatar is not folklore; it's film. Middle-Earth is not folklore; it's fantasy literature. People believed in dragons and sea serpents and unicorns—they weren't real, but they BECAME part of the cultures they existed in. This hasn't happened with either Lord of the Rings or Avatar, especially since neither one of them is supposed to take place on Earth as we know it.
Purduevian
Well-Known Member
You can't just add words or meanings to the dedication... the word imagined was used... not folklore
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
Better than Turning Red? Nah, won't get an agreement from me. And this is coming from someone who enjoyed Zootopia and didn't want to see Turning Red.
And Avatar fits the concept of humans and animals co-existing whereas Zootopia has animals being humans in a world where all animals live in cities and are vegetarian but return to primal state of uncontrollable murder when given drugs as a part of a plan to spread racism amongst the citizens. Not sure that's a good fit for learning about animals and how we can co-exist with them.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I think the biggest issue with Zootopia is there literally aren't any animals in the setting. Like, not a single one. All of the "animals" drive cars etc. and live in modern human society; there's no indication that there is a single animal as we think of them anywhere in that world.