D
Deleted member 107043
I love your city!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Wookies, & Rebels, & Droids... OH WHY?! The Anti-SWL in Disneyland Thread
- Thread starter Californian Elitist
- Start date
spacemt354
Chili's
Mike S
Well-Known Member
There's actually people who think there could be life in the oceans of Europa.Oh, Mike, Mike, Mike how you do judge me based on one jokey park suggestion.Look, Mike, I'm a die-hard Carl Sagan fan who *absolutely* believes in life off-Earth. I also, based on what we know so far, do not believe we've been visited by aliens or will likely encounter them simply because the universe *is* so vast and the requirements for life to develop are so rare and we're located in such a relatively backwater section of our galaxy.
You know what I'd like? A section of AK based on Cosmos. That would freaking rock *and* fit into AK in an appealing and fascinating way.
http://www.space.com/26905-jupiter-moon-europa-alien-life.html
Also, I did say *if* you think that
Cosmos would definitely be Epcot's territory though.
It's actually one guy and all the other people who helped him realize his vision's movie. Kind of like the one group of people's vision of what a mythical creatures land would look like. It was mostly European and included a Fantasia boat ride.
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
Magic Kingdom is certainly the jewel if you are judging on in terms of which park makes the most money. But artistically, Disneyland and Animal Kingdom are the jewels of their resorts because they are the best executed parks at each complex and the most detailed and intricate. Parks to discover and explore that yield rewards if you examine them beyond surface level.
Magic Kingdom certainly isn't the Jewel in Florida for me. It's just the place I go if I'm already there that has decent replications of rides I like. Or if I really want to go to a castle park but can't get to California, Tokyo, or Paris.
Last edited:
flynnibus
Premium Member
So by that logic why limit the stories to just these beasts? Would it not include stories about the Neanderthal and how they lived?
Pandora is simply using a fictional place to tell the same stories about conservation, consequence, awareness, etc. just like a Disney movie itself with talking mice is not real... you can use the story to learn and think about the real world.
Rich T
Well-Known Member
Nearly all good Disney movies take place on Earth (I can think of two exceptions) and connect to one or more of Earth's human cultural interpretations of animal life, be it fanciful or realistic. Pandora is not Earth. It's creatures are not of Earth. AK has plenty of conservation messages. It doesn't need an entire alien environment to repeat the same message yet again.
Of course, I probably wouldn't be pressing that point if I actually liked Avatar. I don't. I could go on & on about why, but it doesn't matter--it's my personal opinion, others like the film and Pandora in AK is a real thing. Now, if this land was based on Treasure Planet--a flawed film I personally love--I'd be happy as could be and I'd completely ignore all logical arguments against a sci-fi world in AK. Because when it comes to theme parks, that's the kind of hypocrite I am.
And I agree Pandora will probably be fun.
spacemt354
Chili's
Liking or disliking the film doesn't equate to a good theme park attraction or land.Nearly all good Disney movies take place on Earth (I can think of two exceptions) and connect to one or more of Earth's human cultural interpretations of animal life, be it fanciful or realistic. Pandora is not Earth. It's creatures are not of Earth. AK has plenty of conservation messages. It doesn't need an entire alien environment to repeat the same message yet again.
Of course, I probably wouldn't be pressing that point if I actually liked Avatar. I don't. I could go on & on about why, but it doesn't matter--it's my personal opinion, others like the film and Pandora in AK is a real thing. Now, if this land was based on Treasure Planet--a flawed film I personally love--I'd be happy as could be and I'd completely ignore all logical arguments against a sci-fi world in AK. Because when it comes to theme parks, that's the kind of hypocrite I am.
Cars is one of the least favorable Pixar films, yet Cars Land is fantastic.
I love Lilo and Stitch - but I loathe Stitch's Great Escape.
So the argument against the film itself therefore making the land bad is not a cause and effect situation.
Countdown to Extinction/Dinosaur is a science-fiction concept - traveling through time. So if the other issue with Avatar is that it is sci-fi and doesn't fit in Animal Kingdom, then where is the outrage for Dinosaur?
Earl Sweatpants
Well-Known Member
There probably isn't as much outrage because unlike Avatar creatures, dinosaurs actually did once roam the earth.Countdown to Extinction/Dinosaur is a science-fiction concept - traveling through time. So if the other issue with Avatar is that it is sci-fi and doesn't fit in Animal Kingdom, then where is the outrage for Dinosaur?
Rich T
Well-Known Member
@spacemnt354: Agree with just about everything. I personally love the movie Cars, but in my family I'm in the minority--but we all love Cars Land. Like I said, it's a personal opinion re the film, but--aside from that--I simply don't think a whole land based on fictional alien life from Cameron's crew fits AK as well as a land based on Earth legends would.
And stop that about CtE/Dinosaur: I'm only objecting to fictional alien-related sci-fi. Time travel, cloning, mutating, growing, shrinking-- all that fits perfectly in AK as long as it's based on this planet's life, history and culture.
Instead of Pandora, I'd rather see Jungle Book (NOT the recent river show), Rescuers Down Under...Heck I'd rather have a land based on SNOW DOGS (okay, maybe not). Even Pete's Dragon or a Loch Ness Monster attraction. Zootopia would seem an obvious choice, but that should go in a castle park. The juxtaposition of a Wild Life Park and the world of Zootopia would just be kind of unsettling...as would non-veggie and non-seafood restaurants...
And stop that about CtE/Dinosaur
: I'm only objecting to fictional alien-related sci-fi. Time travel, cloning, mutating, growing, shrinking-- all that fits perfectly in AK as long as it's based on this planet's life, history and culture.Instead of Pandora, I'd rather see Jungle Book (NOT the recent river show), Rescuers Down Under...Heck I'd rather have a land based on SNOW DOGS (okay, maybe not). Even Pete's Dragon or a Loch Ness Monster attraction. Zootopia would seem an obvious choice, but that should go in a castle park. The juxtaposition of a Wild Life Park and the world of Zootopia would just be kind of unsettling...as would non-veggie and non-seafood restaurants...
Last edited:
DDLand
Well-Known Member
Let me throw something else into the discussion applicable to both Disneyland and Disney's Animal Kingdom.
Both these jewels are designed to be almost cinematic experiences or works of literature. There is clear story told that is reinforced throughout the entire narrative. All the stories within both parks reinforce the grander message.
With any IPs in Disneyland, they remain subservient to larger areas, namely Fantasyland. They're simply there to back up an areas grander message. With these lands they're upending the balance.
It's always been the respective parks first, never an IP dominating and telling it's story over the theme park. When you look at a theme park as a movie or book, adding other people's creations and characters and even places over your own work is a clear sign of disrespect for their creations.
This is especially true of Disney's Animal Kingdom where IPs have long been almost non existent and most that do exist are entertainment offerings. Any compromises have always been small though. Pandora is different.
The inferiority of these to lands from a theme perspective is maddening.
Both these jewels are designed to be almost cinematic experiences or works of literature. There is clear story told that is reinforced throughout the entire narrative. All the stories within both parks reinforce the grander message.
With any IPs in Disneyland, they remain subservient to larger areas, namely Fantasyland. They're simply there to back up an areas grander message. With these lands they're upending the balance.
It's always been the respective parks first, never an IP dominating and telling it's story over the theme park. When you look at a theme park as a movie or book, adding other people's creations and characters and even places over your own work is a clear sign of disrespect for their creations.
This is especially true of Disney's Animal Kingdom where IPs have long been almost non existent and most that do exist are entertainment offerings. Any compromises have always been small though. Pandora is different.
The inferiority of these to lands from a theme perspective is maddening.
Earl Sweatpants
Well-Known Member
Interesting take. In my own opinion I think remaking Norway as Frozen-land accomplished the theme up-end too. I understand why they felt they had to do it...but at its core, it flies in the face of everything Epcot stands for and makes the overall park less cohesive to the point where it now runs the risk of being seen as, "the place that has the Frozen ride".
spacemt354
Chili's
You're focused on the upended balance of your own perspective of the theme park, not cognizant that theme parks are meant to be open ended. There is no one narrative of Disney's Animal Kingdom that must remain for eternity. The beauty of exploration theme parks is that you create your own narratives. While there are external stories being told that blend together through various forms of overarching themes, your internal perspective of those themes can be varied.
Your opinion on the jewel theme park is not fact, even though your diction leans in that direction. Nor is my opinion. While I can't force you to give it a chance, your negativity surrounding a project that hasn't happened yet, I feel is very close-minded. I can see some of your assertions, mainly that lands typically did not focus on one IP exclusively in the past, but I'm hard-pressed to see this doomsday scenario where the park's themed narravtive will be ruined forever.
DDLand
Well-Known Member
I don't disagree with your point. It's clearly against the ideas that EPCOT Center were built on. It too is a further rejection of the ideals that EPCOT Center espoused.
Yet EPCOT Center is already dead. The damage of years of lack of vision have already taken its toll. Contrast that with Disney's Animal Kingdom and Disneyland. Both those parks are alive and well. In my view, we have much much more to lose at Disney's Animal Kingdom and Disneyland vs. the already dead and clearly getting worse EPCOT Center or now simply Epcot.
Earl Sweatpants
Well-Known Member
Oh I have no arguments about Epcot's current state being dead. But the inclusion of Frozen just proved that they truly don't have anyone in place who knows how to fix Epcot while still adhering to overall theme...which could very well explain why we're getting Avatar and SWL.
spacemt354
Chili's
The difficultly that Disney has always had with futuristic areas is that they can date quickly, so with lack of attention, Future World has had a long slow decline. World Showcase on the other hand, had lasting potential. The inclusion of Frozen to essentially overtake the country of Norway, opened up a new era and new doors to create Magic Kingdom 2.0 in Epcot. While a nice little ride in the end, that was the tipping point that completely ruined any chance of going back to the old days. And we didn't even get an E-ticket out of it.
With Pandora and Star Wars Land, I think both respective parks will continue to live on. Neither tips the scales to the extent of Frozen did for Epcot, I feel.
spacemt354
Chili's
I do wonder, to the people who don't think Avatar fits in Disney's Animal Kingdom, all I've heard is it isn't earth-based, James Cameron, movie stinks, and IP.@spacemnt354: Agree with just about everything. I personally love the movie Cars, but in my family I'm in the minority--but we all love Cars Land. Like I said, it's a personal opinion re the film, but--aside from that--I simply don't think a whole land based on fictional alien life from Cameron's crew fits AK as well as a land based on Earth legends would.
And stop that about CtE/Dinosaur
Instead of Pandora, I'd rather see Jungle Book (NOT the recent river show), Rescuers Down Under...Heck I'd rather have a land based on SNOW DOGS (okay, maybe not). Even Pete's Dragon or a Loch Ness Monster attraction. Zootopia would seem an obvious choice, but that should go in a castle park. The juxtaposition of a Wild Life Park and the world of Zootopia would just be kind of unsettling...as would non-veggie and non-seafood restaurants...
Take away those above the shoulder complaints, and what really about the land of Pandora itself - from concept art, renderings, and scenery/themes from the film, doesn't blend in naturally with the theme park? Pandora is about exploration and discovery, our relationship with both the creatures and their environment. That sounds like DAK to me.
Earl Sweatpants
Well-Known Member
But Epcot shouldn't become Magic Kingdom 2.0. That's not its intent. Frozen was added because they needed a quick way to up park attendance (people can only handle so much food and wine...I think...)
I'm one of those rare people that think FW could easily have lived on with some updates periodically, but I think they were ultimately let down because of their sponsorships pulling out and thus, Disney decided it didn't want to foot the whole bill to maintain and update what was originally created. And as I've said on other threads on here, Horizons is still not outdated thematically. We're a FAR way from colonies in space, undersea cities, etc. The ride technology on the other hand, yes, it dated itself quickly, BUT could have been updated rather than scrapped altogether.
But Iger and co just seem to think a hot ticket IP-bandaid can fix everything. It actually is a little insulting to the imagineers. "Surely you couldn't conceive of a better original idea for this, so here's a movie franchise you're going to make work for this area."
Rich T
Well-Known Member
Earth-based sums it all up for me. No one was thinking "alien worlds" when this park was designed. It's a Wild Animal Park.
Earl Sweatpants
Well-Known Member
But that's just it. I don't know that you can detach it from the movie/IP. If Disney imagineers created a world of "Pandora" with mystical creatures, a bioluminescent environment, and a conservational message all on their own, then sure, it could fit.
To me though, it sounds like trying to financially piggyback off the highest grossing movie of all time and well, it has animals in it, so let's put it in Animal Kingdom cause that park needs some love.
D
Deleted member 107043
I think you're grossly underestimating Disney's long-term business strategy with this statement. I used to bemoan the shoehorning of brands into every conceivable nook and corner of Disney parks until it became obvious that it is driving attendance and revenue. Guests love it....
Maybe a hot ticket IP can't fix everything, but from all indications it can fix the bottom line. Disney just broke box office records becoming the first film studio to hit $7 billion in global sales in a single year. The Studio is on a roll, so expect this to translate into even more IP based experiences at the parks well into the future.