Whoopimecalit Forever? Thankfully no...

Touchdown

Well-Known Member
As I said on the first page of the other thread, it doesn’t matter. Black Panther cannot go into Epcot unless Disney either moves the park West of the Mississippi, pays to renavigate the river to drain east of Orlando, or pays Universal to tear up their agreement.

For all the purests out there it’s time to realize Burbank is not changing anytime soon, IP is required for at least the foreseeable future. If you want new experiences in Epcot it’s going to be IP related. Even after the construction is finished, Epcot is still going to be (along with DHS) the park most in need of refreshes. I was simply spitballing a way for an sub Saharan Africa Pavillion to be built. I didn’t pick a specific country because that part of the world is politically unstable, and countries change names and get taken over by dictatorships often. Disney is going to be leery about picking a specific country for that reason. I apologize for angering you.

Because again, it doesn’t matter because it won’t happen.

I can’t believe some fans have progressed from never change anything to don’t add anything. It’s a new low.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
I didn’t pick a specific country because that part of the world is politically unstable, and countries change names and get taken over by dictatorships often. Disney is going to be leery about picking a specific country for that reason. I apologize for angering you.
Wut
[EDIT: “That part of the world” is huge and diverse. And a partnership with Botswana or Mauritius would not be any more risky than with many other countries, and sympathetic representation of what makes those places distinct might be just what those countries need to help the world learn that.]
 
Last edited:

Disneyhead'71

Well-Known Member
Switzerland%2520Pavilion.jpg


l57bcib98bi31.jpg


epcot-fuji.png


Venezuela

zxo84xsjvkj31.jpg
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
Can I present to you the history of the Congo, Rwanda, Nigeria, I could name more. There is a reason Africa is one of the poorest continents, it’s political instability. Now why you think this instability exists depends on your political viewpoint, but you can’t deny it exists.
I edited my post to try to be more clear and less cheeky. Sorry.
Yes, there are parts of Sub-Saharan Africa that have great deal of instability, and those and neighboring countries have suffered as a result. Not arguing at all. But surely you’re aware that it’s a diverse place and that some countries are quite stable and would make good business partners with Disney for a WS pavilion.
 

Touchdown

Well-Known Member
I edited my post to try to be more clear and less cheeky. Sorry.
Yes, there are parts of Sub-Saharan Africa that have great deal of instability, and those and neighboring countries have suffered as a result. Not arguing at all. But surely you’re aware that it’s a diverse place and that some countries are quite stable and would make good business partners with Disney for a WS pavilion.
I edited my post to try to be more clear and less cheeky. Sorry.
Yes, there are parts of Sub-Saharan Africa that have great deal of instability, and those and neighboring countries have suffered as a result. Not arguing at all. But surely you’re aware that it’s a diverse place and that some countries are quite stable and would make good business partners with Disney for a WS pavilion.

You certainly gave some of the more stable countries but Mauritius isn’t what Disney is looking for is in making an African pavillion, it is an island off the coast of the continent. Botswana or maybe Tanzania could work, but of course would anyone finance it from those countries? Brazil hasn’t been greenlit despite its geographical wonders, stable economy and a guaranteed moneymaker in its resturant (Brazilian Steakhouse.) I just don’t see Disney ever green lighting another pavilion without IP.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
You certainly gave some of the more stable countries but Mauritius isn’t what Disney is looking for is in making an African pavillion, it is an island off the coast of the continent. Botswana or maybe Tanzania could work, but of course would anyone finance it from those countries? Brazil hasn’t been greenlit despite its geographical wonders, stable economy and a guaranteed moneymaker in its resturant (Brazilian Steakhouse.) I just don’t see Disney ever green lighting another pavilion without IP.
Seriously, a Botswana pavilion with a mini version of the new “Innovation Hub” in Gaborone would be just the future-oriented addition people are looking for in a Wakanda pavilion.
D7CB87B3-6421-4041-A366-144B231ECD33.jpeg
DC889EF8-423E-43B5-BCE8-8C81B9CFEB4F.jpeg
E7B49F1B-1ECF-47EC-AF9B-FD5FA538693C.jpeg
 

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
Well dang.

Was Countdown to Extinction meant to be reskinned? Or was it just meant to be made to work as-is with whatever came in to replace Dinoland?
CTX was and is independent of Dinoland USA. The latter just had a backstory written to better pair it with its neighbour. Dinoland was explained to me as being able to be removed in around two weeks. It was built with minimal buried utilities for example (power and I think data) to make it a quick and cheap removal. Virtually everything is just bolted to concrete as opposed to being a building with foundation.
 

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
CTX was and is independent of Dinoland USA. The latter just had a backstory written to better pair it with its neighbour.
So was the idea that Animal Kingdom would get a revised Dinosaur-themed land on that plot down the road, or that the land was just a placeholder for something totally different?

I always knew that the DinoRama Sub-land was meant to be temporary, but it shocks me to hear the whole land (outside of CTX) wasn't meant to last. I can't imagine an Animal Kingdom that doesn't somehow feature a land for the biggest, most legendary animals to walk the Earth.
 

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
So was the idea that Animal Kingdom would get a revised Dinosaur-themed land on that plot down the road, or that the land was just a placeholder for something totally different?

I always knew that the DinoRama Sub-land was meant to be temporary, but it shocks me to hear the whole land (outside of CTX) wasn't meant to last. I can't imagine an Animal Kingdom that doesn't somehow feature a land for the biggest, most legendary animals to walk the Earth.
Makes you wonder if Excavator was still envisaged in 1998.
 

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
So was the idea that Animal Kingdom would get a revised Dinosaur-themed land on that plot down the road, or that the land was just a placeholder for something totally different?

I always knew that the DinoRama Sub-land was meant to be temporary, but it shocks me to hear the whole land (outside of CTX) wasn't meant to last. I can't imagine an Animal Kingdom that doesn't somehow feature a land for the biggest, most legendary animals to walk the Earth.
Maybe thar be dragons thar.... Gone extinct now
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
Ironically it seems we might need that right now more than ever.
We will work to be an example of how we as brothers and sisters on this earth should treat each other. Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis, the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom