Rumor Brazil is the frontrunner for a new World Showcase Pavilion

[JohnD]

Does that mean the China pavillion is a redundancy of Asia in DAK?

Not only are the specific locations different (the land in DAK is east Africa, not equatorial Africa), but the themes are different. One would be more about human achievement while the other is about our relationship with nature.

You're conflating. The Africa area in AK is the "Equatorial" Africa which was originally planned for Epcot. I should know. It's a microcosm of countries like Uganda (on the Equator BTW) which I visited on a mission trip in 2008. Right down to the animals, painted buildings, funny artwork and power lines everywhere. Creating another Equatorial Africa in Epcot would be duplicative.

China and Japan, OTOH, are countries in the vastness of Asia with different cultures. Likewise, I see no problem with Morocco, Egypt, or South Africa pavilions. While in the continent of Africa, they have different cultures. I just don't envision another Equatorial Africa when you already have it in AK.

 

[DisneyDodo]

That's no more redundancy than there is between Future World and Tomorrowland...

These are highly redundant

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Please. It'd have a Lion King ride with an (apparently) animatronic of Beyoncé.

It would be a Bae ticket!

Your dad humor is showing!

 

[AEfx]

That's no more redundancy than there is between Future World and Tomorrowland

These are highly redundant

Exactly.

In their inception, they were. In practice, when opened Future World was posed to be the more "realistic" view whereas Tomorrowland became the more "fantastic" view, but as time went on - in terms of "the future" - those both merged more into the fantastical view - the "Jetsons" view - of the future.

That's why out of all the traditional lands, Tomorrowland has always been the toughest nut to crack when it comes to updating, because it is very much based on a 1950's/60's view of the future, that we still believed well in the 1980's. Since then, reality has set in. House automation is real, but it's not about floating platters and rotating cabinets - just controlling the basic systems we already have. Flying cars are impractical, logistically would be a complete nightmare, and remain technologically impossible. No one alive today is going to be visiting a resort on the moon - no human being has even set foot on the moon in 45 years - since the year after MK's Tomorrowland opened.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

Greece has all the bases covered. Food, IP etc except for sponsor

 

[AEfx]

Greece has all the bases covered. Food, IP etc except for sponsor

And that's the rub there - given that they are still in the midst of a financial crisis, it's very doubtful.

 

[alias8703]

Greece has all the bases covered. Food, IP etc except for sponsor

Hercules The Ride, Y'all.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Hercules The Ride, Y'all.

Considering Greece refused to allow a premiere in Athens, I can't imagine it!

 

[ProfSavage]

Oh, please. Let's not pretend that the 1980's didn't have divisive politics or that sensitive issues were non-starters for Disney. Even global political alliances didn’t stand in the way of considering various locations.

When the park opened, Germany was represented by a single pavilion, despite there being two Germanys split by one of the world's most heavily militarized borders, complete with a very well-known border wall designed to keep people *in* (as controversial as our current border wall discussions are, consider the difference between the perceived need for a wall designed to keep people out and one designed to keep people in).

The China pavilion was designed and built on the heels of the devastating Cultural Revolution, which destroyed countless artifacts, traditions, and cultures, but pales in comparison to the Great Leap Forward just a few years prior to that, which led to widespread famine and the death of tens of millions of people. The Wonders of China filmmakers were the first westerners allowed to film at many of the sites, and were among the first westerners allowed in the country following the Cultural Revolution.

There were serious discussions about creating a Russia pavilion, despite the ongoing tensions of the Cold War between the US and USSR. While those two countries aren’t exactly the closest allies today, they also don’t pose an immediate existential threat to each other as they did when the pavilion was being considered.

Up in Future World, they created the Universe of Energy with Exxon, while the Energy Crisis of the early 70’s was still fresh in the collective memory, but didn’t shy away from creating a fossil fuel-focused presentation.

The difference is that in the 80's, Disney had the cajones to have a bold vision and execute it. Today’s Disney is too worried about the quarterly earnings reports and placating delicate snowflakes to try anything even remotely daring. But it’s okay, because Disney-branded characters will keep me from having to think too much about the incredible and diverse world around me

 

[Princess Leia]

Is there any possibility that Brazil will be announced this year? Or will this be announced in 2018 or 2019 instead?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Those are both examples of the 1980s, when Disney was smaller and riskier, and when people didn't percieve as much to be racist. If tomorrow, they announce that they're building a regional pavilion among all other individual countries, especially a region that's been discriminated against, I'll bet my top dollar someone will complain. Disney doesn't want that, and so it won't happen.
I assume the second or third paragraphs aren't in reply to me.

Yes, graphs 2 & 3 were directed at the thread.

But, with regard to taking criticism... Disney took a lot with retheming Anaheim's ToT, and Frozenstrom, an DHS's TGMR... I think they don't mind the criticism. They believe in their product, and their ability to sell it.

Considering Greece refused to allow a premiere in Athens, I can't imagine it!

Canada was resolute in not cooperating with the Canada Pavilion if it was going to be all lumberjacks.

Did you catch the lumberjack show?

If a country cares how it is presented in Epcot, it has got to pay the sponsorship to make Disney care, as what happens in Morocco, whose pavilion follows different rules (e.g., no popcorn lights for the same of IllumiNations) because Morocco says so. If the nation itself isn't paying, Disney isn't caring. You can almost hear a Disney rep telling a country's ambassador, "It'd be a real shame if something bad happened to your nation's cultural representation..."

 

[tl77]

They had plans for a Brazil pavilion back in the 70's, it got turned into the Mexico pavilion instead, and both were based on the 1968 version of "it's a small world" where you went through the (Pinocchio) restaurant to enter the ride, opposed to what they ended up with were the Pinocchio Restaurant just has a little window that peeks into "it's a small world"

 

[lazyboy97o]

If a country cares how it is presented in Epcot, it has got to pay the sponsorship to make Disney care, as what happens in Morocco, whose pavilion follows different rules (e.g., no popcorn lights for the same of IllumiNations) because Morocco says so. If the nation itself isn't paying, Disney isn't caring. You can almost hear a Disney rep telling a country's ambassador, "It'd be a real shame if something bad happened to your nation's cultural representation..."

Countries sponsoring pavilions is the exception, not the rule. Even the Brazil Pavilion has long been the desire of Embraer, not the government.

 

[AEfx]

I do not mean to offend anyone, but if Russia were built in World Showcase, it really wouldnt be that big of a deal.

Epcot is educational, no matter how you spin it Russia is an important world power. Unfortunately many people are stuck in the past and still fear Russia due to the cold war which is long over. And also, both the Republican nominee and Democrat nominee of last election have both funded and maintain close relations with Russia, so Russia should not be considered a "POLITICAL" topic.

That being said i do not agree with everything in Russia, but hope for the most amount of peace and unity that we come to agree upon.

That's a lovely notion and the idea of educational detachment is noble - but not reflected in current reality nor would the general public see it that way.

It would be a massive controversy. Just the name "Disney" and "Russia" in the same news story would set things ablaze on social media like Disney has never seen. And they would take it from all sides. From political, to humanitarian, to human rights organizations (I personally have an issue there - I'm gay, and given how gay people are treated in Russia (especially Chechnya) - I would have to think long and hard about visiting a "Disney-fied" version of it).

It goes so far beyond the Cold War memories at this point - some of it may be overblown, some may be downright ridiculous, but some is undeniable - but nonetheless, there is no way in hell Disney would touch that with the longest pole, it would be PR suicide.

This is the problem World Showcase has existing in the 21st century, and it's not going to get better - just worse from here on out.

 

[No Name]

China and Japan, OTOH, are countries in the vastness of Asia with different cultures. Likewise, I see no problem with Morocco, Egypt, or South Africa pavilions. While in the continent of Africa, they have different cultures.

This is exactly the view that would be panned as racist. Are Gabon and Uganda really any less culturally different than certain countries in the vastness of Asia, or than Morocco and Egypt? Or is that simply the way we've been molded to perceive them? That's a big question. Whatever you think, there's people who'd argue the opposite, hence the controversy.

As to your first part, not everyone considers Equatorial Africa to extend to Uganda, in fact most countries in the region aren't on the equator, but that's beside the point.

But, with regard to taking criticism... Disney took a lot with retheming Anaheim's ToT, and Frozenstrom, an DHS's TGMR... I think they don't mind the criticism. They believe in their product, and their ability to sell it.

That's a different kind of critisism because it doesn't extend much past theme park fans. Frozenstrom is the only example there that actually caused a minor stir in the political world. Of course Disney did that to get their studio IP in, so they percieved the motive vs. risk as being worth it.

I don't think today's Disney would see enough motive vs. risk to go ahead with an Equatorial Africa pavillion. Just my opinion.

 

[AEfx]

This is exactly the view that would be panned as racist. Are Gabon and Uganda really any less culturally different than certain countries in the vastness of Asia, or than Morocco and Egypt? Or is that simply the way we've been molded to perceive them? That's a big question. Whatever you think, there's people who'd argue the opposite, hence the controversy.

As to your first part, not everyone considers Equatorial Africa to extend to Uganda, in fact most countries in the region aren't on the equator, but that's beside the point.



That's a different kind of critisism because it doesn't extend much past theme park fans. Frozenstrom is the only example there that actually caused a minor stir in the political world. Of course Disney did that to get their studio IP in, so they percieved the motive vs. risk as being worth it.

I don't think today's Disney would see enough motive vs. risk to go ahead with an Equatorial Africa pavillion. Just my opinion.

Given the hyper-vigilance and hyper-sensitivity of media and social media, I don't see how they add any country at this point.

I'm honestly shocked that WS as it is hasn't been attacked for "American corporation profits off of cultural appropriation of other cultures".

 

[JohnD]

This is exactly the view that would be panned as racist. Are Gabon and Uganda really any less culturally different than certain countries in the vastness of Asia, or than Morocco and Egypt? Or is that simply the way we've been molded to perceive them? That's a big question. Whatever you think, there's people who'd argue the opposite, hence the controversy.

As to your first part, not everyone considers Equatorial Africa to extend to Uganda, in fact most countries in the region aren't on the equator, but that's beside the point.



That's a different kind of critisism because it doesn't extend much past theme park fans. Frozenstrom is the only example there that actually caused a minor stir in the political world. Of course Disney did that to get their studio IP in, so they percieved the motive vs. risk as being worth it.

I don't think today's Disney would see enough motive vs. risk to go ahead with an Equatorial Africa pavillion. Just my opinion.

You seem to be making the case yourself that Equatorial Africa shouldn't go in Epcot because it would be culturally insensitive to portray all the countries in that area as being the same. I guess you could make the same argument for the Africa area in AK but I digress. I have nothing more to add. You just made an argument for Equatorial Africa not being in Epcot.

 

[marni1971]

They had plans for a Brazil pavilion back in the 70's, it got turned into the Mexico pavilion instead

No, that image is from the 1975 World Showcase stand alone park. It had both Brazil and Mexico proposed.

 

[WildcatDen]

I am still pulling for a New Zealand pavilion and a Lord of the Rings attraction. . .

One can dream, right?

 

[bclane]

I am still pulling for a New Zealand pavilion and a Lord of the Rings attraction. . .

One can dream, right?

I wish that would happen so bad (!!!), but imo it never will unfortunately. I want a ride that takes me through places like Rivendell and Lothlorien and then under the mountain to fight a Balrog! It would be a better fit at Universal and less issues with Tolkien's estate though.