A Spirited 15 Rounds ...

Bairstow

Bairstow

Well-Known Member
cjkeating said:
But doesn't ITTBAB meet the three values of AK?
Click to expand...

Maybe? Does it matter?

The mission statement is not what has made Animal Kingdom special; it's been the park's unusually cohesive approach to certain aesthetic modes and themes: a steadfast dedication to contextualing the guests' presence in each area and utilization of each attraction, an exploration of the vanishing of culture in an increasingly shrinking world, and the admiration, if not fetishization, of the the architectural chaos which arises from adversity and/or poverty. The focus on animals is probably what lead the Rohde and his team to their approach, but in the long run has proved somewhat incidental.

This is why Dinoland is ultimately more useful to the park than the bug movie.
 
bjlc57

bjlc57

Well-Known Member
can I ask what has happened to the original poster of this thread.. I have found his posts deeply insightful and informative and entertaining.. what has happend to WDW1974?
 
MisterPenguin

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
FigmentJedi said:
I think it's more about the dissonance of having a silly bug cartoon inside this gigantic, elaborate tribute to nature as a whole.

It'd be like having a ride based on a low-budget TV show inside the Chinese Theater.
Click to expand...

How far away do you have to be from the Tree of Life before you can have a silly bug cartoon attraction?
 
peter11435

peter11435

Well-Known Member
FigmentJedi said:
I think it's more about the dissonance of having a silly bug cartoon inside this gigantic, elaborate tribute to nature as a whole.

It'd be like having a ride based on a low-budget TV show inside the Chinese Theater.
Click to expand...

That elaborate tribute to nature as a whole is a tree.

Bugs live in and under trees.

Insects are vital to nature. More important than nearly every other animal in the park.

Yes they are talking cartoons, this is Disney World. But those talking cartoons are making an important subject matter that many find repulsive somewhat palatable for the masses.
 
Mike S

Mike S

Well-Known Member
peter11435 said:
That elaborate tribute to nature as a whole is a tree.

Bugs live in and under trees.

Insects are vital to nature. More important than nearly every other animal in the park.

Yes they are talking cartoons, this is Disney World. But those talking cartoons are making an important subject matter that many find repulsive somewhat palatable for the masses.
Click to expand...
ITTBAB is probably one of the best uses of IP to help push the message of a park anywhere.
 
V

V_L_Raptor

Well-Known Member
Bairstow said:
Maybe? Does it matter?

The mission statement is not what has made Animal Kingdom special; it's been the park's unusually cohesive approach to certain aesthetic modes and themes: a steadfast dedication to contextualing the guests' presence in each area and utilization of each attraction, an exploration of the vanishing of culture in an increasingly shrinking world, and the admiration, if not fetishization, of the the architectural chaos which arises from adversity and/or poverty. The focus on animals is probably what lead the Rohde and his team to their approach, but in the long run has proved somewhat incidental.

This is why Dinoland is ultimately more useful to the park than the bug movie.
Click to expand...

Eeeehhhh... I like the idea, but.

Wildlife is not an incidental thing, and it really should never be treated as such. Vanishing of culture is indeed a clear and present issue, but it doesn't exist independently of vanishing of wildlife. As cultures and cultural spaces dwindle, habitat frequently does as well. The presentation of animals and adjacent human cultures isn't supposed to be a huge fork. It's "Animal Kingdom" for a reason.

Does this mean there aren't different things to appreciate, if "nahtazu" wildlife viewing isn't your thing? Of course not. The architecture and artwork are fascinating, and the development of those elements is an excellent presentation of theme development. While the park has such masterworks in store, though, it doesn't stop there. It can't.

As far as the bug movie goes, humanity has been interacting with bugs for ages upon ages, for good and ill. While you're not likely to see a theme park treatise on the damage neonicotinoids do to bee colonies, you can still see something that stands to teach that bugs are worth a second look instead of an immediate stomp. Far be it for me to let an IP attraction slide, but if there's a notion to teach that lesson, Bug's Life doesn't do a terrible job. Rafiki's Planet Watch works much the same way, though with a much more mature presentation on a much broader array of material. It's still using animated IP to teach something about wildlife, and if memory serves, it also teaches more than a little about human interactions with those species.

People who live in close proximity to wildlife aren't independent of said wildlife. Even hucksters trying to con a few bucks from passersby headed to a dinosaur dig aren't independent of the extinct wildlife that's getting excavated nearby. The wildlife will be reflected in the culture, and in turn, the people will have an impact on the wildlife. Making Animal Kingdom all about the cultural presentation loses half the story and takes away some of the deeply important lessons in conservation that yes, even a Disney park can take the time to impart.
 
Bairstow

Bairstow

Well-Known Member
V_L_Raptor said:
Eeeehhhh... I like the idea, but.

Wildlife is not an incidental thing, and it really should never be treated as such. Vanishing of culture is indeed a clear and present issue, but it doesn't exist independently of vanishing of wildlife. As cultures and cultural spaces dwindle, habitat frequently does as well. The presentation of animals and adjacent human cultures isn't supposed to be a huge fork. It's "Animal Kingdom" for a reason.

Does this mean there aren't different things to appreciate, if "nahtazu" wildlife viewing isn't your thing? Of course not. The architecture and artwork are fascinating, and the development of those elements is an excellent presentation of theme development. While the park has such masterworks in store, though, it doesn't stop there. It can't.

As far as the bug movie goes, humanity has been interacting with bugs for ages upon ages, for good and ill. While you're not likely to see a theme park treatise on the damage neonicotinoids do to bee colonies, you can still see something that stands to teach that bugs are worth a second look instead of an immediate stomp. Far be it for me to let an IP attraction slide, but if there's a notion to teach that lesson, Bug's Life doesn't do a terrible job. Rafiki's Planet Watch works much the same way, though with a much more mature presentation on a much broader array of material. It's still using animated IP to teach something about wildlife, and if memory serves, it also teaches more than a little about human interactions with those species.

People who live in close proximity to wildlife aren't independent of said wildlife. Even hucksters trying to con a few bucks from passersby headed to a dinosaur dig aren't independent of the extinct wildlife that's getting excavated nearby. The wildlife will be reflected in the culture, and in turn, the people will have an impact on the wildlife. Making Animal Kingdom all about the cultural presentation loses half the story and takes away some of the deeply important lessons in conservation that yes, even a Disney park can take the time to impart.
Click to expand...

I'm not telling you what the park should be, I'm just pointing out what it is, and that its highly specific approach to park design, not some aspirational idea about conservation or teaching children lessons about insects, as noble as that be, is why it has become the best of the four Florida parks.
 
V

V_L_Raptor

Well-Known Member
Bairstow said:
I'm not telling you what the park should be, I'm just pointing out what it is, and that its highly specific approach to park design, not some aspirational idea about conservation or teaching children lessons about insects, as noble as that be, is why it has become the best of the four Florida parks.
Click to expand...

So test it. If you took away all the animal-related everything, would it still be enough to be "the best of the four Florida parks?" Keep in mind, too, that the other three aren't necessarily the stiffest competition around. (Edited to add: At least, they aren't anymore...)
 
Last edited:
FigmentJedi

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
V_L_Raptor said:
People who live in close proximity to wildlife aren't independent of said wildlife. Even hucksters trying to con a few bucks from passersby headed to a dinosaur dig aren't independent of the extinct wildlife that's getting excavated nearby. The wildlife will be reflected in the culture, and in turn, the people will have an impact on the wildlife. Making Animal Kingdom all about the cultural presentation loses half the story and takes away some of the deeply important lessons in conservation that yes, even a Disney park can take the time to impart.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Every land at Animal Kingdom explores different themes in regards to how we relate to nature. Discovery Island is animals and art. Africa is focused on scientific research and is kind of the park's front lines when it comes to the fight for conservation. Asia is about the spirituality within nature (Everest and Rivers of Light) and nature pointing out the folly of man (Kali's flash floods unleashed by foolish loggers and nature reclaiming the old royal hunting lodge in the Jungle Trek). And DinoLand's a cheeky extinction memento mori that displays the full spectrum of how we feel about prehistoric animals.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom