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

Advisable Joseph

Well-Known Member
So according to the article you linked to little red was backstage for years and was removed in 2022 to be taken to the jungle cruise (which is very cool by the way. I didn’t know that.) but again that scene hasn’t existed for 13 years. So i still don’t see why this is a problem.
The students' conversation I was talking about was circa 2001.

But that was just a nuance. Re-read my post for the main idea: Animal Kingdom did not fit Walt Disney World, and many nowadays who do like it want cute animals.
 

Agent H

Well-Known Member
But that was just a nuance. Re-read my post for the main idea: Animal Kingdom did not fit Walt Disney World, and many nowadays who do like it want cute animals.
1. This is perhaps the strangest example I’ve ever seen of someone saying “x doesn’t fit in x location” What exactly is the overarching theme of Disney world? 2. Yes I do like cute animals. I also appreciate the fact that this park tells a story about conversation and protecting the natural world and its resources. If that’s not your thing that’s fine but saying that people who like the park just want cute animals is oversimplifying it.
 

Advisable Joseph

Well-Known Member
What exactly is the overarching theme of Disney world?
Fantasy, including sci-fi. Sometimes touching on reality, but fantasy.

but saying that people who like the park just want cute animals
Not "just" cute animals, but they definitely should be there unless you want the park to die. This is why a Beastly Kingdom, such as the version which could include Narnia IIRC, would help.

EDIT
If that’s not your thing that’s fine ..
I'm referring to the poll.
 
Last edited:

Agent H

Well-Known Member
Fantasy, including sci-fi. Sometimes touching on reality, but fantasy.


Not "just" cute animals, but they definitely should be there unless you want the park to die. This is why a Beastly Kingdom, such as the version which could include Narnia IIRC, would help.
1. That’s half a fair assessment but why can’t it include conversation and other such topics? There’s a Walt Disney quote I’m thinking of here. I can’t remember it exactly though. 2. Agreed. Beastly kingdom would be awesome. I’m not sure I like narnia being a part of it though.
 

BlakeW39

Well-Known Member
The Tree of Life is the centerpiece of Animal Kingdom. The attraction that goes inside of it deserves to be one that sums up the overall themes and narrative of Animal Kingdom. To me, ITTBAB was never worthy of being in the Tree of Life. But at the very least, it explored insects as members of the animal kingdom and was a much better fit than...Zootopia.
 

BlakeW39

Well-Known Member
In today's episode of "well akshully", technically Kevin from Up is still an animal of the past, and he'll be there in two forms (walk-around character and carving in the new carousel). Also, while unlikely, they could go the route of making the focus of Indy some sort of relictual animal rather than a cryptid.

Kevin is not an animal of the past. Being that he did not exist in the past. He is a fictional creature from a 2009 animated film. And even within that film he is an extant animal, not an extinct one, so in-universe he isn't from the past any more than any other endangered animal species. Not that this matters because again, an animal from the past is an animal that actually existed in the past.

With Indy... we know the ride is about a mythological serpent. Quite frankly I'd prefer if they kept it to that and did not try to explain it as some long lost snake species.
 

brb1006

Well-Known Member
That stupid cheetah is like a wasps' nest, ensuring I never get anywhere near the Tree of Life again.

Most obnoxious Disney character ever, I swear.
At least Clawhauser has moments of being emotionally vulnerable and actually contributes to the plot. Not just a walking fat joke (looking at you Runt of the Litter). Now of you want really obnoxious Disney Characters on the other hand.
Gurgi.jpg
images.jpeg


And Olaf (specially his role in Frozen 2)
frozen_screenshot_1_b1e3e0e3.jpeg
 
Last edited:

brb1006

Well-Known Member
There's a part in there where he was telling Judy they told him to go work in the basement because they didn't want a predator greeting people, and I know that the movie wanted me to be upset at the injustice of it, but all I could think was "GOOD, get down there and don't come back up".
When was the last time you've seen Chicken Little? As someone who seen the film a few times in the past. Be thankful Clawhauser didn't end up like Runt of the Littler from Chicken Little. Besides being Chicken Little's friend Runt hardly contributed to the plot and only existed for fat jokes.
Runt_of_the_Litter_1.png
 
Last edited:

WorldExplorer

Well-Known Member
I would rather be stuck in a room with Olaf, Runt, and Glurgi for two hours than have to listen to Clawhauser for bits of a twelve minute show.

I am devoted in my hate on this one.

(And the gargoyles were hilarious, just not right for that movie.)
 

DisneyHead123

Well-Known Member
It rose to creepiness due to animatronics mixed with wild animals on the safari.

I mean, I can't say I feel strongly about it, but I just find this odd. Culturally, animals are a big thing in the US. According to Google we do in fact have more zoos than any other country. When I was a kid, not long before the time AK opened (80s), when the zoo circus came to town you could watch the elephants walk through town to the civic center. You could get your picture taken with lion cubs at the mall. Heck, years later in my 20s I went to a small rinky circus and you could ride an elephant around the parking lot. We're a country where you have kids going to alligator swimming pool parties. Being weirded out by an animal near a couple of animatronics in an environment that's clearly meant for animals seems, again, unlikely to me in a culture where you can see animals all over the place. (I mean I get it if you were on Carousel of Progress and they, I dunno, replaced the dad with a lion who's just staring at you, lol. But on a safari? Whatever.)

Again, they're entitled to their feelings, just not really understanding that one.

But the tone of the park is strange for Disney World. By means of illustration of how the students thought, from an early review in the Orlando Weekly:
Yet it's still the broccoli on Disney's plate; you know it's supposed to be good for you, but it's nowhere near as fun as downing a whipped-cream cake. Kids -- and parents -- expecting to be plopped into the world of "The Jungle Book" will be let down; here there are real lions, not a meet-and-greet with Simba from "The Lion King."
Magic Kingdom is a playground, and Epcot an international bazaar, and Disney-MGM a peek behind movie and TV screens...
The audience [for Animal Kingdom] would seem to be the post-yuppie, post- hippie generation among whom the environment is a cause that reverberates. But the enlightened will see the corporate muscle behind the message and charge the other way. Grandparents will turn out -- it reflects their pace -- but kids can find more fun and stimulation in a science museum, and for a lot less than the $44.52 adult admission charged for anyone over age 9.
To bring this back on topic, an AllEars poll:

So, if cute animals shouldn't fit, Animal Kingdom would have major thematic problems already: the theme you want isn't coming across.

If you want to say that they should change the theme, that's a different topic than insisting that cute cartoon animals were always the theme. The theme probably will shift at least somewhat to Disney IP because that's the way everything is going with the parks these days.
 
Last edited:

BlakeW39

Well-Known Member
It's more that Animal Kingdom excludes too much to be in Disney World, the way this forums wants it.

I might have more to say tomorrow.

No, it doesn't. Animal Kingdom never excluded IP like EPCOT did. It has always had IP. The difference is that DAK had themes and narrative direction and there were IPs in it, but its purpose was not simply to advertise as many IPs as possible. The entire park wasn't simply a regurgitation of TWDC's most marketable brands. That was never a problem with the park. It's just a problem for current management (and fans that have been indoctrinated by them) which seems to think the only way for a park to be successful IS to solely make decisions based on the popularity of random movie IPs.
 

HauntedPirate

Park nostalgist
Premium Member
No, it doesn't. Animal Kingdom never excluded IP like EPCOT did. It has always had IP. The difference is that DAK had themes and narrative direction and there were IPs in it, but its purpose was not simply to advertise as many IPs as possible. The entire park wasn't simply a regurgitation of TWDC's most marketable brands. That was never a problem with the park. It's just a problem for current management (and fans that have been indoctrinated by them) which seems to think the only way for a park to be successful IS to solely make decisions based on the popularity of random movie IPs.
👆 This. 👆

"I have a fever, and the only treatment is... more movie IP in the parks" - Bob Iger (while wearing a leather jacket he tried on for a photo op while touring a Disney recording studio)
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom