News New 'Ice Age' sand sculpture being built at Disney's Animal Kingdom celebrating new Disney+ original

[Club Cooloholic]

No. This is a wdw discussion board. We are discussing the choice to feature Ice Age at the entrance of a WDW Park.

Sure it’s “Disney IP” now, but a sand sculpture of the Simpsons at DHS would seem odd as well.

Yeah, it jumped out at me as odd too but no odder than them now producing a show for it featured on dis+. It's actually a great way for them to get out there that they own it now. I wouldn't be shocked if we see merch in stores tied to it soon.

 

[JohnD]

Yeah, it jumped out at me as odd too but no odder than them now producing a show for it featured on dis+. It's actually a great way for them to get out there that they own it now. I wouldn't be shocked if we see merch in stores tied to it soon.

Exactly. Also I'd be okay with an Ice Age land inside AK. No different than Dino land. Just another period in the past of extinct real animals. Unlike Zootopia, a Disney property, with animals that live in the city and have nothing to do with the theme of AK (real or fictional habitats, past, present, or future that have an impact on the environment and ecosystem).

 

[Casper Gutman]

Exactly. Also I'd be okay with an Ice Age land inside AK. No different than Dino land. Just another period in the past of extinct real animals. Unlike Zootopia, a Disney property, with animals that live in the city and have nothing to do with the theme of AK (real or fictional habitats, past, present, or future that have an impact on the environment and ecosystem).

Yeah, people keep saying this. But is misses the key point that Zootopia is GOOD and INTERESTING while Ice Age is not. Yes, Ice Age might “fit” a little better, but I’d sacrifice that for a good and interesting IP.

Or they could build a land that actually belongs in AK without relying on shoehorned in IPs.

 

[Andrew C]

No. This is a wdw discussion board. We are discussing the choice to feature Ice Age at the entrance of a WDW Park.

Sure it’s “Disney IP” now, but a sand sculpture of the Simpsons at DHS would seem odd as well.

I personally miss Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles being at DHS.

 

[Andrew C]

Yeah, people keep saying this. But is misses the key point that Zootopia is GOOD and INTERESTING while Ice Age is not. Yes, Ice Age might “fit” a little better, but I’d sacrifice that for a good and interesting IP.

Or they could build a land that actually belongs in AK without relying on shoehorned in IPs.

There is no new Zootopia being released right now, so they went with a sandcastle to show something that is up and coming on Disney+ that relates to animals...is this really so controversial?

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I personally miss Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles being at DHS.

And Ace Ventura, and Doug.

 

[EagleScout610]

I don't like this sculpture. It's coarse and it's going to get everywhere. Wait wrong park

 

[Brad Bishop]

While we're talking about "what would fit": They own Anastasia now.

Is she a princess? Should she be a princess? Should she be in the parades and at meet & greets?

It was a first rate movie (and they created a few suck-sequels, based on the bat, I believe). Should the Bartok (the bat) be a meet and greet character at the Magic Kingdom?

My thoughts are: This is the one the really feels the most "Disney"

The animation style is very Disney-like (Don Bluth, former Disney animator).

If Disney had made the movie she'd be a princess and you'd be meeting Bartok at the park.

I know it's odd but I think this is one that actually "fits".

 

[Brad Bishop]

There is no new Zootopia being released right now, so they went with a sandcastle to show something that is up and coming on Disney+ that relates to animals...is this really so controversial?

I don't think the sand sculpture itself is controversial nor is anyone really getting uptight about any of it. The discussion is swirling around the notion of: What belongs in the parks? What doesn't? What would be weird to see in the parks?

Going back to something I mentioned earlier: If Disney bought Hanna Barbera would you find it odd to see Fred Flintstone walking out of the castle with Wilma? Would you find it odd to see the Peanuts characters or Garfield wandering about? (assuming Disney had decided to buy them).

 

[Casper Gutman]

There is no new Zootopia being released right now, so they went with a sandcastle to show something that is up and coming on Disney+ that relates to animals...is this really so controversial?

This was in reference to a LAND not a sand sculpture.

The sculpture is no big deal. But it is worth pointing out that there is a significant amount of content Disney releases that doesn't get heavily promoted in the parks - where are the Dogie Kamealoha or Benedict Society sculptures? They are treating Ice Age differently, clearly trying to integrate it, at least to some extent, into the broader Disney identity, and that bodes ill.

 

[raymusiccity]

But it’s so fetch!

At least it's not pink!

 

[Brad Bishop]

But it’s so fetch!

Stop trying to make that a thing, @castlecake2.0, it's not catching on.

 

[disneygeek90]

Yeah, people keep saying this. But is misses the key point that Zootopia is GOOD and INTERESTING while Ice Age is not. Yes, Ice Age might “fit” a little better, but I’d sacrifice that for a good and interesting IP.

Or they could build a land that actually belongs in AK without relying on shoehorned in IPs.

AK has never leaned on IP's alone to create good and interesting lands.

The Avatar movie did well... in 2009. The non existent/always in development sequels have been a serious trainwreck. But luckily the land is immersive and quality no matter what the original inspiration is.

Not saying I want an Ice Age land, but there would be a ton they could work with if they wanted and would be a nice complement to contrasting temperatures (Africa) and other pre-historic creatures.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

I don't think the sand sculpture itself is controversial nor is anyone really getting uptight about any of it. The discussion is swirling around the notion of: What belongs in the parks? What doesn't? What would be weird to see in the parks?

Have you read the comments?

 

[Brer Panther]

(and they created a few suck-sequels, based on the bat, I believe).

Actually, they only did ONE sequel (or maybe it was a prequel) focusing on Bartok.

 

[TikibirdLand]

I personally miss Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles being at DHS.

My oldest still talks about meeting the Power Rangers on The Streets of New York!

 

[TikibirdLand]

AK has never leaned on IP's alone to create good and interesting lands.

The Avatar movie did well... in 2009. The non existent/always in development sequels have been a serious trainwreck. But luckily the land is immersive and quality no matter what the original inspiration is.

Not saying I want an Ice Age land, but there would be a ton they could work with if they wanted and would be a nice complement to contrasting temperatures (Africa) and other pre-historic creatures.

Neither did EPCoT. And yet, here we are...

 

[DisneyGentlemanV2.0]

Jim Hill would probably take this as vindication that Ice Age is replacing Dinoland.

A pile of junk being replaced by a pile of sand -- sounds about even to me.

 

[disneygeek90]

Neither did EPCoT. And yet, here we are...

The IP's in Epcot work well when there's thought put into it. Rat is a perfect thematic addition.

Guardians... not so much.

 

[Club Cooloholic]

The IP's in Epcot work well when there's thought put into it. Rat is a perfect thematic addition.

Guardians... not so much.

IMO as a previously avid comic reader, it's amazing Guardians was parlayed into a block buster franchise, as they were never that popular in print. It's a testament to Disney's will to work around the limitations of Uni's marvel rights and prop up these characters which fall outside Unis park rights and free to roam WDW parks unlike Spider-Man and the X-Men.