No the most ugliest shocking and crystal clear example of that would be be obliterating the castle for a roller coaster
Leaving aside my lack of personal connection to Animal Kingdom, I can't agree, but I understand your reasoning and respect it.
I’ve visited China but that doesn’t make me Chinese or a part of Chinese culture.
I mean, of course! We could all dream up worse things they might do! But before the announcement, the filling in of the Rivers of American would have seemed to me to be one of those dreamt-up things—an inconceivable move that could only occur in the realm of the hypothetical. Yet it's happening.
I took what I quoted to mean that Indy wouldn't reasonably interface with Mayan culture, but perhaps it actually meant that he wasn't culturally Mayan? If the latter, duh, but human characters in AK are not always ethnically or culturally part of the depicted region. The Australian trekker Bob is not Nepalese, and the humans in Pandora are not native Na'vi.
Meh. I think a coherent case has been given. You just don't agree. Which is fine. But that doesn't make it nonsense. We are talking about a highly subjective form of art and entertainment afterall.
I agree with this. From a purely legacy standpoint, removing the RoA and replacing it with Cars is much more detrimental because it is the first big CHANGE to the inherent geography of the park, and from a thematic standpoint it dilutes the theme of Frontierland. I would argue that Pandora functioned in a similar way for Animal Kingdom, diluting the theme in such a way that a Zootopia land there, while abhorrent, would not be all that different. "Oh, there are animals involved...that means it fits Animal Kingdom!"
There was no Zootopia land announced. This is the fundamental difference. There was a random Zootopia attraction and a random Moana attraction placed next to one another with no rhyme or reason. There was no organization planned. People were desperately trying to apply their own logic, saying, "Well, maybe it'll be Oceania with a Zootopia alley?" but that was all mental gymnastics. The thematic precedent that would have set was objectively worse than the thematic precedent Cars sets, where there is at least lip service to the existing organizational structure of the park. Now, if you want to talk about the value of what is being replaced instead of how fundamentally broken each concept was, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that Rivers of America are almost certainly more valuable than Dinoland, but that's a bit of a different discussion.
The only standalone IP land announced at D23 was for Monsters Inc., at the park where that has become the norm. IP-based attractions have always been part of the parks.
No matter what Joe Rohde said or says publicly, I will always believe he was forced into Avatar for AK. I think if he had the ability to refuse, he would have. Avatar being inserted into Animal Kingdom was the first thing I actively complained about with WDW. I was shocked and incensed when it was announced, and I still resent it taking the place of Beastly Kingdom. (The ultimate act of goodwill, or shall we say, "regruntling" to my fandom would be if they somehow built Beastly Kingdom somewhere in Animal Kingdom.)
Not true at all. Look at the original Epcot, little to no IP. Even MK has Pirate's, Haunted Mansion and Space Mountain that were not IP
Well, I meant that he got the victory in getting TA over Zootopia/Moana land, but it’s not for long. Disney at some point will want to shoehorn something there that doesn’t belong, and if they aren’t concerned about the other three parks thematically, no imagineer’s protest , existing or former, will be able to dissuade them.