• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Rumor Brazil is the frontrunner for a new World Showcase Pavilion

Status
Not open for further replies.

EvilChameleon

Well-Known Member
Take it up with the Archdioceses of Rio. I'm sure they give special permission to use the likeness occasionally but still. I don't see the exclusion as being detrimental. It can create a "learning opportunity" that will let people learn more about Brazil. Kind of like the tropicalia movement in the 60s and 70s did.

So you think they gave permission for it to be included in the Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 map; Favela?
 

marni1971

WDW History nut
Premium Member
I was responding to another poster. In this case, Christ the Redeemer, probably the most familiar landmark in Brazil to a North American or European audience, won't be included (@marni1971 has already said as such) not because of religious iconography (which, I don't think you're correct there - there's a torii gate in the Japan pavilion and you know, the whole Candlelight Processional) but because the statue is a registered trademark and not up for reproduction the way a building might be
I’ve said one version has it omitted. Another version has it included (an earlier one) - I don’t know which has been chosen.
 
Last edited:

nickys

Premium Member
Future World has plenty of rides. They need updates. For some reason, however, they frequently decide to bulldoze perfectly fine FW rides that really just needed a renovation while WS stagnates and continues through its fourth decade under-utilized.

Surely you mean FW HAD plenty of rides. Or at least HAD plenty of attractions. All the stuff in Innoventions that was ripped out because they couldn't be *****ed to renovate it, for instance.

I spent 6 hours in WS last week without stepping foot on one ride. Thoroughly enjoyed myself. Attractions are a plus but not necessity for me!

We took in all the performances and meandered around each shop along the way. Great day

I agree. Except for me the attractions are the replicas, essentially, of actual building of every nation.

I know the pyramid in Mexico is not Mexican, but Norway has 4 towns represented, plus the Stave Church (pity they ruined that one though), Italy has both Rome and Venice (albeit reversed lol). Germany, China, UK, Canada all have actual buildings replicated. Morocco, Japan and France kind of representative buildings (I'm not counting the Eiffel Tower).

I also like chatting to the CMs in each country. I love my "me time" in WS, it's where I go to re-charge whilst DH and the boys are off doing their stuff.

However, all that said, it is great that finally they are adding something new. And I wish they could add the original rides that were supposed to be there.


This is refreshing to read.

That is what the WS is meant for, imo. Soaking up the atmosphere, good food, good cocktails, street performers. Talking about the countries that the pavilions represent.

We spent more than half our Epcot day in the WS when my son was 5. We didn’t go on one ride in that section of the park. He never got bored.

At age 6 we spent our entire evening there.. we did go on Three Caballeros. That’s not what he remembered about the day.. both of us could take or leave that ride. It’s the atmosphere that we enjoy.

I agree with you about loving WS for it's atmosphere, but it also needs to be updated to keep it fresh.


Although I never saw some of the original FW attractions, I remember when FW was so exciting that WS was a much needed anti-dote to FW. Now when we go to Epcot, I can quite happily do a couple of rides in FW and move onto WS. I want FW to be great again too!
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
You mean the last jedi that flatlined at the box office and the director is still...today...defending parts of the movie in twitter battles?

Don't mean to hijack this thread but I couldn't let this one slide.

Flatlined? Domestically its the #1 film at the box office in 2017. It's on track to become the 5th highest grossing film of all time, and to have a similar multiplier from opening weekend to total gross as The Avengers did. Globally, it's also the #1 movie of 2017, and is on track for a $1.6 billion global gross, making it the #4 film of all time. It will also likely make a $1.2 billion profit just on the film, not even taking merchandising and future Blu Ray sales into account.

The flatlining trope is a myth because of Christmas weekend. Because Christmas was on a Monday, and Christmas Eve is one of the weaker box office days, it was always going to have a steep decline that weekend. In fact, most box office analysts predicted the size drop. It rebounded after that and did quite well both domestically and internationally. So while you may not like the film (which is fine, it's your opinion and this stuff is subjective) to say it flatlined is just demonstrably false and doesn't stand up to any reasonable analysis of the numbers and historical trends.
 
Last edited:

ProfSavage

Well-Known Member
Don't mean to hijack this thread but I couldn't let this one slide.

Flatlined? Domestically its the #1 film at the box office in 2017. It's on track to become the 5th highest grossing film of all time, and to have a similar multiplier from opening weekend to total gross as The Avengers did. Globally, it's also the #1 movie of 2017, and is on track for a $1.6 billion global gross, making it the #4 film of all time. It will also likely make a $1.2 billion profit just on the film, not even taking merchandising and future Blu Ray sales into account.

The flatlining trope is a myth because of Christmas weekend. Because Christmas was on a Monday, and Christmas Eve is one of the weaker box office days, it was always going to have a steep decline that weekend. In fact, most box office analysts predicted the size drop. It rebounded after that and did quite well both domestically and internationally. So while you may not like the film (which is fine, it's your opinion and this stuff is subjective) to say it flatlined is just demonstrably false and doesn't stand up to any reasonable analysis of the numbers and historical trends.

Beat me to the punch.

Now back to our regularly scheduled complaint session on how Disney is already dropping the ball on a pavilion that hasn't even broken ground yet
 

ProfSavage

Well-Known Member
It turns out that a German priest once actually rode a train in Germany...therefore it is a religious symbol and can't be moved by Vatican decree.

In fact...they will be putting a holy water container out front in May...

qaVbA_s-200x150.gif


And I think you saying a gigantic statue of Jesus over a pavilion is the same as column replicas in Italy (funny how they used Venetian landmarks instead of those in Rome, isn't?)...or an architectural history of Notre dame with a fleur de lis in a queue...or some saints that I guarantee no one has a clue about in the German courtyard...defies reason.

There was planned Roman ruins in the never built Phase II of World Showcase. I know you're relatively new here, and maybe you're not aware of the entire build history of all the Disney Parks, but I would behoove you to not be so condescending when there are persons here with encyclopedic knowledge of why some things were and weren't built. Roman landmarks were not omitted for any religious reasons, as far as I can tell.

Sometimes things are in fact different...it's not that tough to know when.

And I don't have a "type"...becuse that's just silly. I'll agree or disagree depending on the historical perspective, business motivations, or appropriateness of the arguments presented. That fair...breaking news.

Yeah, I took Philosophy 101 too

By the way...the walt disney company has rejected stereotypes and prejudices more than practically any American business over the last 50 years...because it's good for business. Money is all green. So my stance on this has nothing to do with copyright laws. It's simply looking at it objectively, knowing who you're dealing with, and making an argument. In this case - still a purely theoretical one, in fact.

Gosh you're prickly. You're still using opinion as fact and gas lighting those who disagree.

Listen, Scooter, all I pointed out was that we may not see Christ the Redeemer because the image is copyrighted and not because of it being religious iconography. You said that there was no religious iconography in the parks, when that was pointed out that you were wrong, you got defensive and said it was "a matter of opinion." Besides, your strawman argument falls apart - having Christ the Redeemer would be the stereotype when there's other parts of Brazilian culture that can be explored.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
The train can be moved.

It can be, but will it be? If someone has reported that the train is moving to the other side of the Germany pavilion, I'd be happy to hear it.

But the impression I've gotten is that the train is going away to make room for the Brazil pavilion.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
You aren't the only one who talks about 'balancing' things around Showcase Lagoon with a certain sense of... 'anxiety?'... that there are more rides on one side than the other.

I don't get that at all. If World Showcase were to have four and only four rides and they were located in Mexico, Norway, China, and Germany... it wouldn't bother me at all. And I'd see no logistical reason to 'spread them out.'

Everyone is different and personally I wouldn't care much. But I travel with family with different ages and interests and it would be great to have each pavilion have a greater variety of "stuff" for different people to enjoy. It makes it a lot easier to "do" World Showcase when you can break up the monotony of shops and food with something different.

And besides it's a theme park. WS takes up a massive amount of space and having only two rides in that large an area for a theme park is criminal. Epcot is a wonder and unique concept and so I don't want it to just be like other theme parks -- but that doesn't mean it should get away with it's lack of attractions, just that the attractions that could and should be there are more fitting to the environment.

This means I can't get on board with some people saying that "Country X should get a ride because of... balance". I would think there are better criteria for deciding where rides go.

Well, I would make the argument that every pavilion should have a major attraction. Doesn't have to be a ride, but could be a show or even an elaborate walk through. So, to me, Disney should look at every pavilion that lacks such a draw and come up with and build something that should complement the existing space. Do that and all the space is filled in and there doesn't have to be any "anxiety" about what locations would be ideal for a ride or anything else.
 

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
If this does go through, do we have an approx completion date? I looked through the thread but didn’t see anything. Maybe I missed it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top Bottom