Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
I feel like people on both sides of this are equally puzzled at why the other side isn't understanding their points.This.
I still can't wrap my head around the idea that the animals in The Lion King are too human-like to fit in Animal Kingdom, but movies that are actually about humans like Encanto and Indiana Jones are fine because the animals in them don't talk. What, does Tangled belong in Animal Kingdom just because of the chameleon and horse?
No-one is saying that Encanto or Indiana Jones are inherently great fits for Animal Kingdom just because they have animals in them that don't talk. What some of us are saying is that you can imagine attractions that focus on the relationship between people and animals/nature that would broadly fit within the park based on the way this relationship is portrayed in the films. If you had, for example, a book report ride of Encanto or a carbon copy of IJA from Disneyland, however, that also wouldn't fit the park well.
The Lion King is a film featuring animated lions and other animals standing in for human characters with human motivations. It is not a story about how animals live and relate to one another in the real world, however great Circle of Life may be. So, if you just basically put down a book report ride based on a human story performed by anthropormophized animals without any other element it sits weirdly amidst a park with a very realistic aesthetic, real animals, and attractions that have so far mostly avoided a Fantasyland-style portrayal of animals as being just like people.
Last edited: