Joe Rohde has talked about the fact that the original AK was meant to be based on the real world and real animals, even “photorealistic”, and not based in fantasy narratives the way the other parks often are. The idea being, I think, that this is the only way to truly represent nature for what it really is. Fantasy is created for human enjoyment, nature is discovered for what it is, whether we like what we see or not. Fantasy is a predictable safe space, nature happens on its own terms.
That said, I do think that AK has already migrated away from this original vision a bit. Some of the spirit is being maintained, especially aesthetically, but there’s no way one can say that Indy and Encanto embody a gritty, real world POV on the unpredictability of nature and the need for conservation. Maybe they speak to this topic metaphorically, or as one facet of many, but there’s clearly a “world built just for you” element there, in direct contrast to the original “see the world as it really is” message from early on.
I’m not opposed to compromise if that’s what’s needed to convey a message most effectively. I feel like you have to meet people where they’re at. That said, it does bug me when there’s this pretense that this was the original thinking all along. The criteria was never “somewhat more realistic looking cartoon animals vs. cartoon animals drinking lattes.”
