Was Moana placed in the right park?

[Tony the Tigger]

So basically...

Multiple users on this board: *fair criticism of Disney's treatment of IP*

You: *blatant insults*

If you take that as an insult, I don’t know what to tell you.

And no, I don’t go along with the established groupthink of “multiple users on this board.”

 

[BlakeW39]

If you take that as an insult, I don’t know what to tell you.

And no, I don’t go along with the established groupthink of “multiple users on this board.”

What would you call the terms, 'nerdy, snobby,' and 'frivolous?' Certainly, that isn't how I usually refer to other peoples' opinions.

 

[networkpro]

If you take that as an insult, I don’t know what to tell you.

And no, I don’t go along with the established groupthink of “multiple users on this board.”

Argumentum ad populum fallacy.

 

[BlakeW39]

Argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Incorrect— I didn't commit any logical fallacies in my response. I merely said "multiple users on this board" to avoid having to name every person individually. Nowhere did I say that the argument was valid merely because multiple users agreed with it.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

What would you call the terms, 'nerdy, snobby,' and 'frivolous?' Certainly, that isn't how I usually refer to other peoples' opinions.

Critical.

 

[BlakeW39]

Critical.

Lmao, critical of what? Being a nerd and a frivolous snob?? What an insightful "criticism."

 

[WondersOfLife]

I broadly agree with many points about placement and prioritization, but I am still not swayed by any of the arguments made about why Moana doesn’t fit when Nemo, Lion King, and others do. There’s just a vague assertion that she doesn’t “feel” right to you, with a subtle implication that the princesses need to stick to their niche in the Magic Kingdom.

Why is Moana locked to one location when the other examples you gave have appeared in multiple parks? What does she lack that prevents her from effectively hosting this attraction?

I don't believe princesses belong in front half of Epcot. I think they would be great in their respective countries in the back half, though.

Princesses don't work in the front half. Just my opinion though... Much like how I wouldn't expect a princess to fit in Tomorrowland.

 

[WondersOfLife]

It’s so obnoxious to think message board fanboys and fangirls have thought of these things as if they weren’t discussed during the planning stages? Obviously these thematic questions were all considered and the practical applications outweighed those considerations.

150 million dollars went into the off centered taco barges.... A 150 million dollar mistake... That Disney is currently dismantling.... A mistake.mm that message board fanboys called out before it was even constructed...

 

[James Alucobond]

I don't believe princesses belong in front half of Epcot. I think there would be great in their respective countries in the back half, though.

Princesses don't work in the front half. Just my opinion though... Much like how I wouldn't expect a princess to fit in Tomorrowland.

Princess Leia has been in Tomorrowland. It depends on the type of princess, her role, what she represents, etc. as to where she fits. Especially in modern Disney films, the scope of princessdom has widened significantly, to the point that I don’t think it always makes sense to insist they be confined to the Magic Kingdom. They’ve already gotten to a point where many of them make no sense whatsoever in Fantasyland.

 

[WondersOfLife]

Without having read all of the comments on thread, and having voted "I don't care," here are my thoughts on this...

EPCOT (the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow) has NEVER been what it was originally intended to be. I'm sure no one reading this needs to hear that, but the perspective of the OP appears to be that it once was. IMHO, EPCOT is utterly mis-named. As a theme park, it is a mish-mash of "stuff" that is largely good, but doesn't fit together. If I had my druthers, EPCOT would be called something different that is more aligned with the global "community" aspect of the international pavilions. It could be a more adult-focused park with appropriate attractions for that audience. Walt's EPCOT was virtually a lost cause from conception and what has happened with it has managed to work. There is tremendous potential for what I am suggesting. It could be argued that the Moana attraction "fits" as a Hawaiian (as yet unrepresented) cultural attraction (like Frozen). That's my .02. =]

Your claim about me thinking Epcot as a theme park used to be exactly Walt's vision is incorrect. Epcot, conceived as a theme park, had it's OWN vision, dignity, feeling, and concept.... All of which have been abandoned, destroyed, or replaced with nonsense.

Moana still doesn't fit in the front half of the park. The cultural section is in the back half.

 

[WondersOfLife]

It depends on the type of princess, her role, what she represents, etc. as to where she fits.

Correct.

Especially in modern Disney films, the scope of princessdom has widened significantly, to the point that I don’t think it always makes sense to insist they be confined to the Magic Kingdom.

I have never stated that princesses should be restricted to MK. Your first point is valid.

They’ve already gotten to a point where many of them make no sense whatsoever in Fantasyland.

Moana is Adventureland. Put her there.

Pocahontas is Animal Kingdom. Put here there (again).

Build a whole damn immersive Frozen land in Hollywood Studios. Or dedicated Frozen to Blizzard Beach. Put it there.

I can't think of any princesses that should be in the front half of Epcot except maybe... MAAAAAYBE ... Vanellope. And that's a stretch.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Lmao, critical of what? Being a nerd and a frivolous snob?? What an insightful "criticism."

Triggered?

 

[retr0gate]

A lot of the debate surrounding whether or not Moana fits has to do with what the overall direction of this "overhaul" is. What is the new overarching theme for EPCOT, specifically (the area formerly known as) Future World, and how does Moana fit into it? Disney didn't create some ridiculous riddle for us to follow - they've been fairly upfront that the new "theme" of EPCOT is humanity itself. It's a celebration of all forms of life, from the wonders of the natural world, to the people who inhabit it. It's no secret these plans have been watered (ha) down a LOT, but the message is clear when we consider those original plans, what's actually being built, and what's been there all along. We just feign ignorance because of Disney's "magic of possibility" corporate speak and many people (admittedly, including myself) use the addition of IP to justify the argument that the park no longer has a clear purpose.

Consider the new neighborhoods and what they supposedly represent, and compare that to how little the layout of the park itself has changed over the years. World Nature is a representation of the natural world, World Discovery is a tribute to our manmade achievements, and World Celebration is simply a melting pot of different cultures coming together to celebrate the former. The grouping of the original pavilions was intentional in that regard, and what we're seeing now is only giving a name to what has been there the whole time. The park continues to carry on that original legacy, only with more emphasis placed on humanity itself and less on what humanity is capable of. This is probably most evident in what we've seen of World Celebration, where the the theme of communication is still prevalent but has taken a less literal role, focusing more on the idea of coming together to celebrate each other than it is on the futuristic technologies that help us achieve that.

Within the context of this "new" vision, Journey of Water absolutely fits. Whether or not Moana the character does is up for debate, understandably so, but the "the attraction would be better without the IP" argument is, to me, proof that the IP itself is irrelevant. If this is a truly educational and entertaining experience, where the characters of the film take a backseat to the overarching theme, then I think it will feel right at home between the Land and the Seas (even if the placement is a bit awkward). It seems as though many people have less problems with the attraction conceptually and more on its visual identity for that reason, which is a fair criticism. Let me ask then, if this was an entirely enclosed experience built in the empty Innoventions buildings, same rockwork and all, would that somehow make it fit in better? If there's one thing that modern WDI excels at, it's landscaping, and I have no doubt that this has the potential to seamlessly blend in with the architecture of this newly green EPCOT. In fact, wishful thinking though it may be, I'd love to see a lush reimagining of World Nature as a whole. The unique visual identity of the park is evolving, and I think what we're seeing now is an EPCOT that takes a more immersive approach to edutainment. We're no longer just learning about topics like space travel, transportation, the water cycle, etc through observation only, but rather, experiencing them first hand. It's a take that very well could be hit or miss.

 

[networkpro]

Your claim about me thinking Epcot as a theme park used to be exactly Walt's vision is incorrect.
Moana still doesn't fit in the front half of the park. The cultural section is in the back half.

No what you're not coming to grips with is the current trajectory of Epcot's re-theming. Your nice historical divisions of what goes where have been discarded.

 

[James Alucobond]

Moana is Adventureland. Put her there.

Pocahontas is Animal Kingdom. Put here there (again).

Build a whole damn immersive Frozen land in Hollywood Studios. Or dedicated Frozen to Blizzard Beach. Put it there.

I can't think of any princesses that should be in the front half of Epcot except maybe... MAAAAAYBE ... Vanellope. And that's a stretch.

But this is wholly subjective and arbitrarily places limitations on how frequently characters should show up (as in, if there is a “more” correct place elsewhere, they shouldn’t show up outside of there), but that’s a limitation TWDC clearly has no interest in placing on themselves. I respect your right to your opinion, but I don’t think it’s terribly well-supported. Heck, you were okay with Lion King even though it’s partially Hamlet with an animalian coat of paint and its own set of king, queen, prince, and princess characters.

 

[WondersOfLife]

No what you're not coming to grips with is the current trajectory of Epcot's re-theming. Your nice historical divisions of what goes where have been discarded.

I disagree. For the hundredth time, soarin' test track and mission space are examples of a better direction. Along with the small vision put in place for space 220. Disney is more capable than people are giving them credit for in terms of what Epcot could and should have become.

 

[networkpro]

I disagree. For the hundredth time, soarin' test track and mission space are examples of a better direction. Along with the small vision put in place for space 220. Disney is more capable than people are giving them credit for in terms of what Epcot could and should have become.

In your opinion should be your caveat. The people that control the artistic direction and budget to implement that vision have decided otherwise.

 

[WondersOfLife]

But this is wholly subjective and arbitrarily places limitations on how frequently characters should show up (as in, if there is a “more” correct place elsewhere, they shouldn’t show up outside of there), but that’s a limitation TWDC clearly has no interest in placing on themselves. I respect your right to your opinion, but I don’t think it’s terribly well-supported. Heck, you were okay with Lion King even though it’s partially Hamlet with an animalian coat of paint and its own set of king, queen, prince, and princess characters.

I don't understand your lion King point. Lion King was put into The Land pavilion to specifically educate people about the land. Moana is just doing Moana things in a park Moana doesn't belong in.

There's nothing wrong with Star Wars characters being only available in Galaxy's Edge. Disney has soooooooooooooo many IPs to work with. Finding your favorite character at one park is, you'd think, would be a great business strategy to get people to go to every park.

"Oh, you saw Elsa in Hollywood Studios... We don't have to go to Epcot."

Why limit yourself to Moana in two parks she doesn't belong in, when you have dozens of different options that actually WOULD make sense in that park?

I really am not totally against IPs in multiple parks... As long as it makes SENSE. People just recently started defending Moana as a cultural representative.. but that's not even what that section of Epcot is about. If she was here for cultural purposes then why not put her in her own pavilion in world showcase?

Let me brainstorm for a second...... What if instead of Moana for Journey of Water....... We had just waited a little longer for Pixar's "Elemental" film to come out? Then we would having a pavilion dedicated to ALL the elements. My goodness, that would make so much more sense for Epcot. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to just think about what would work better.

 

[WondersOfLife]

In your opinion should be your caveat. The people that control the artistic direction and budget to implement that vision have decided otherwise.

Opinions are meant to be discussed. And discussions shouldn't end with "well this is what they're doing. Deal with it." That's you giving up.

 

[networkpro]

Opinions are meant to be discussed. And discussions shouldn't end with "well this is what they're doing. Deal with it." That's you giving up.

If you haven't figured it out The Walt Disney Company isn't a democracy. They do market research, observe customer feedback and then make plans to do things they want. I wish you well in your reconstruction of Epcot 82 , YesterCot.