1. 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.
    Dismiss Notice

Where should Zootopia Land go?

Discussion in 'WDW Parks General Discussion' started by Doug Means, May 17, 2017.

?

In what park would a Zootpoia Land go (and post why in the comments)?

  1. AK

    64 vote(s)
    66.0%
  2. MK

    4 vote(s)
    4.1%
  3. HS

    27 vote(s)
    27.8%
  4. EPCOT

    2 vote(s)
    2.1%
  1. JiminyandTink

    JiminyandTink Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    1,001
    I agree a Zootopia land is certainly not necessary.. a ride could be cute, but I'm afraid that it cant go in AK because it's "Nahtazu"
     
  2. LuvtheGoof

    LuvtheGoof Proud DVC Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,686
    Likes Received:
    11,870
    You, like many here, are associating the movies with the land. STOP. One has nothing to do with the other. The land and attractions stand on their own. I mean, if what you say is right, we wouldn't even have half the attractions at WDW at all.
     
    RoyWalley likes this.
  3. JiminyandTink

    JiminyandTink Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    1,001
    I understand what you're saying for sure, but in fact the land is most definitely associated with the movie franchise. Just like while Star Wars Land will be completely separate from any of those movies, it is certainly associated with that franchise. If the remaining movies were to be complete flops, it does become a bit of embarrassment in my opinion, especially if Universal keeps making smart moves with their IP deals. As far as the rest of the WDW attractions, we are talking about an entire land being devoted to an IP, and I would argue that none of the other themed lands have gone stale, that being said we don't have a lot of experience with entire lands being devoted to an IP over a long period of time to draw comparison from. But I think that all of the current lands have actually stood the test of time quite well.
     
  4. LuvtheGoof

    LuvtheGoof Proud DVC Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,686
    Likes Received:
    11,870
    No, it's not. It's associated with the PLANET, not the movie. I do not understand why y'all don't get that. If they never release another movie, it won't matter one bit. I mean, they never released a second movie for Song of the South, yet Splash Mountain is one of the most visited attractions anywhere.
     
    RoyWalley likes this.
  5. JiminyandTink

    JiminyandTink Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    1,001
    I really do understand what you are saying... but yes, it's the planet in the movie (as opposed to Saturn's moon Pandora which exists in reality). And again Splash Mountain is a ride and not an entire land devoted to an IP, and Frontierland as a whole has stood the test of time greatly, as have the characters from Song of the South (not the movie for obvious reasons) and hopefully Pandora will stand the test of time as well.
     
  6. LuvtheGoof

    LuvtheGoof Proud DVC Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,686
    Likes Received:
    11,870
    You're still getting hung up on the "IP" thing. The land is based on a planet, and the flora/fauna/creatures that live on it. Nothing more than that.

    If the movie Avatar had never been released, we would be saying that this is one of the most amazing lands that Disney has ever done, and no one would ever be talking about it flopping. And we shouldn't be, as it simply is never going to "flop".
     
    RoyWalley likes this.
  7. JiminyandTink

    JiminyandTink Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    1,001

    The "IP thing" is actually a very important discussion as it has the potential to slowly erode what we know of WDW.

    And my original point was that I do think that what they have done with the flora/fauna is strong enough without the link to Avatar and if they would ever remove that link if necessary in the distant future without starting from scratch. That being said I hope it is hugely successful.
     
  8. LuvtheGoof

    LuvtheGoof Proud DVC Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,686
    Likes Received:
    11,870
    Not sure what you mean by "erode what we know of WDW". What erosion are you talking about?
     
  9. JiminyandTink

    JiminyandTink Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    1,001
    By that I mean making everything in WDW IP related and changing what we know of WDW (ex. making all of EPCOT themed to things like Guardians of the Galaxy as opposed to attractions like Horizons).
     
  10. LuvtheGoof

    LuvtheGoof Proud DVC Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,686
    Likes Received:
    11,870
    While I don't think "everything" will be changing over to IP based attractions, I have no issue with using IP to tell the correct story for that area. I know some tremble with rage at the thought of it, but me personally, as long as it's done right, I have no problems with it. Now, if it is done wrong, or doesn't fit at all, then I will be one of the first to call it out. If the GotG comes to EPCOT, but still includes edutainment appropriate for that area, then I don't see the big deal. If it's just to throw it there, with no purpose, then I do have a problem with it. To date, no one, not even Martin, has talked about the actual GotG attraction that might take over Ellen. We have no idea if it will fit, but people are up in arms over something that may be just fine for that area. For me, I have patience, and will wait and see what they do - and then tear it apart if done badly.
     
  11. JiminyandTink

    JiminyandTink Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    1,001
    Yes, agreed GotG is not confirmed, it was just an example to clarify what you were asking about what I mean.

    Let me say that I completely respect your opinion. But to me personally, even if done right, I do not want everything in WDW to be IP based (now, I'm certainly not saying nothing, or even much), but I do worry about it's impact on WDW. Just my opinion.
     
    LuvtheGoof likes this.
  12. LuvtheGoof

    LuvtheGoof Proud DVC Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,686
    Likes Received:
    11,870
    Oh, I completely agree that it should never be everything. I'm just saying I'm OK with some of it, if done correctly.
     
    JiminyandTink likes this.
  13. Otterhead

    Otterhead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    2,972
    I'm getting increasingly tired of the whole "IP is baaaad" argument.
    Virtually everything in WDW is, in some way, IP based. Either IP created for the parks, IP from movies, or IP from properties they've brought into the parks. Even old Epcot was arguably IP-based, given that every single pavilion was sponsored and went out of its way to talk about its corporate sponsor through existing properties or ideas.
    The Disney parks have always been all about 'synergy' -- taking a popular film, story, or character and bringing it to life so that kids and adults can experience it in 'real life'. That's "IP". If you don't like that sort of thing, maybe WDW isn't the place for you.
     
  14. LuvtheGoof

    LuvtheGoof Proud DVC Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,686
    Likes Received:
    11,870
    ^^^^ This!
     
  15. JiminyandTink

    JiminyandTink Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    1,001
    Absolutely, at the end of the day everything they created is their IP (ex. Haunted, Mansion, Pirates, SSE, etc) I just meant movie/TV IP's being turned into attractions/lands, I thought about clarifying that earlier, probably should have. I love the IP's they've created in the parks and just don't want to see that go away for 100% the other direction for only movie/TV related IPs (like SGE replacing AE type of thing everywhere). I think that the IPs created in the parks are some of the strongest they have.

    I actually don't understand the whole snippy "maybe WDW isn't the place for you", I honestly just thought this was a friendly discussion I was having with another WDW fan on a general discussion board. But if you're wound this tight, maybe you need a trip to WDW asap.
     
  16. DisneyBound2017

    DisneyBound2017 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    Messages:
    789
    Likes Received:
    2,798
    Zootopia had/has extremely limited licensed products. My daughter is two and loves the movie, but aside from three plushies and a figure play set, there's nothing really for her to have that connects to that movie. When you look at a movie like Frozen or Moana where the characters are featured on toothbrushes, and diapers, and bubble bath, and bathing suits, and night gowns, and costumes, and bike helmets, and shoes, etc. and *they* don't have their own lands.... there's no way Disney is going to create a land for a movie they don't even bother marketing with goods.

    That said, I vote AK
     
    Otterhead likes this.
  17. Otterhead

    Otterhead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    2,972
    It's quite simple, really. Virtually every discussion of any new development at WDW on these boards inevitably digresses into people complaining that there's "too much IP" and that WDW is "eroding" because they keep developing their movies and characters into attractions.
    Given that the entire park is, and has always been, based largely on attractions based on movies and characters, I think that if you feel that WDW is eroding because of that practice, it may not be the place for you.
    But hey, nice insult stuck in there! Yes, I'm wound soooo tight. *cough*
     
  18. JiminyandTink

    JiminyandTink Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    1,001
    If virtually every discussion goes that way, I think that just means that a lot of people have the same opinion as I do.
     
  19. Otterhead

    Otterhead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    2,972
    And I disagree with all of them as well.

    I appreciate when the Imagineers are 'set free' to explore something truly unique -- I mean, take something like Expedition Everest; that's truly imaginative and wasn't based on an Everest/Yeti movie, and I appreciate that. But I also think that Disney films are a fantastic source of ideas for the parks, as they have been since WDW opened. I'd love to see Zootopia brought to life somehow, and given its popularity, I bet a lot of others would, too... though given the fact that they don't even want to sell t-shirts for it, I doubt a new land is on the way anytime soon.
     
    Doug Means likes this.
  20. JiminyandTink

    JiminyandTink Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    1,001
    Of course, and that's completely fair to disagree and all still love WDW as a place for all of us.

    And I agree completely with what you said here 100%. As I said earlier, I'm ok with much of the attractions being based on Disney films, just not every inch of it as they do such a tremendous job with original concepts that are fabulously immersive.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2017

Share This Page