News Zootopia and Moana Blue Sky concepts for Disney's Animal Kingdom

[MagicHappens1971]

Not even really it literally ties into all three. Several things exist currently in the park that honestly are no different than Zootopia other than the animal not wearing clothes and living in a city lol.

It literally does. However everyone will continue to argue on here that it doesn't. I don't feel Zootopia does, but Moana does based on several things.
Personal Call to Action & Physiological transformation through adventure: Moana's journey to return the heart of Teifiti
The Intrinsic Value of Nature is basically the basis of the story, "the island gives us what we need", we could all go on.

 

[Elijah Abrams]

I could say the same as yours. This is a discussion board. I don't see Alan Bergman & Dana Waldren being appointed Co-CEO's as you have suggested numerous times. Nor do I think that Disney is going to sell off their Fox assets, as you have suggest numerous times. Have I posted that your opinions are not worth making? No. I haven't.

The Wizarding World at Universal set this IP-based theme park attraction avalanche into motion. Opinon, no. This is a fact.

Disney & Universal have primarily built IP-based attractions since the Wizarding World opened. Opinion, no. Again, a fact.

Hollywood's intense infatuation with IPs has only grown since those two events occurred. Opinion, no. Again, this is a fact.

Disney, Universal, Paramount, etc all of the major movie studios are continuing to push and infuse the IP/Franchise craze. Yes, again this is true, but as I mentioned in my previous post, is because of money. These companies answer to their shareholders, who's only concern is money.

In 5, 10, maybe even 15 years, no matter who is at the helm of TWDC, will answer to the Board of Directors, who unless something changes in Hollywood, will continue to push the IP mandate.

Did I say Disney will never build an original attraction again? No. I didn't. Did I say they are continuing to push the IP mandate, and will continue to build IP attractions? Yes. Is this my opinion, in a way it is. But in another, it isn't. We have rumors/Blue Sky announcements of what is to come in the next 2-7 years, whether it be Disneyland Forward, or Beyond Big Thunder, those are all rooted in IP. Also on an unrelated note (IMO) they're not going to push "Walt Disney's" name back on to anything, Disney has spent the past decade removing it and simplifying it to just "Disney".

Then stop being so pessimistic. I am sick of this IP overuse Disney is making in their parks, and I think they need to get out of this corporate hellhole before the public gets worn out, and that should start with Iger's departure.

 

[BlakeW39]

I could say the same as yours. This is a discussion board. I don't see Alan Bergman & Dana Waldren being appointed Co-CEO's as you have suggested numerous times. Nor do I think that Disney is going to sell off their Fox assets, as you have suggest numerous times. Have I posted that your opinions are not worth making? No. I haven't.

The Wizarding World at Universal set this IP-based theme park attraction avalanche into motion. Opinon, no. This is a fact.

Disney & Universal have primarily built IP-based attractions since the Wizarding World opened. Opinion, no. Again, a fact.

Hollywood's intense infatuation with IPs has only grown since those two events occurred. Opinion, no. Again, this is a fact.

Disney, Universal, Paramount, etc all of the major movie studios are continuing to push and infuse the IP/Franchise craze. Yes, again this is true, but as I mentioned in my previous post, is because of money. These companies answer to their shareholders, who's only concern is money.

In 5, 10, maybe even 15 years, no matter who is at the helm of TWDC, will answer to the Board of Directors, who unless something changes in Hollywood, will continue to push the IP mandate.

Did I say Disney will never build an original attraction again? No. I didn't. Did I say they are continuing to push the IP mandate, and will continue to build IP attractions? Yes. Is this my opinion, in a way it is. But in another, it isn't. We have rumors/Blue Sky announcements of what is to come in the next 2-7 years, whether it be Disneyland Forward, or Beyond Big Thunder, those are all rooted in IP. Also on an unrelated note (IMO) they're not going to push "Walt Disney's" name back on to anything, Disney has spent the past decade removing it and simplifying it to just "Disney".

I agree with this but there is also a big if here, and that is "unless things change in Hollywood." Based on current trajectories you are correct that the IP mandate should continue for the parks. But if we look at the current trajectory of Disney's film divisions, and the diminishing returns of all these adaptation/spin-off films over the last couple years or so, I'd wager that Hollywood will see significant change sometime in the near future. And that could have unforeseen ramifications for the parks. Do I think the IP mandate will end any time soon, no I do not. But, it remains possible in my opinion if we're talking about the distant future, more than a decade out.

 

[KingMickey13]

Nothing, not even an original attraction, is impossible if they believe they can!

Your opinions are not worth making.

So saying what will almost certainly happen isnt worth saying? But presented what you hope will happen as concrete future is alright?

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Then stop being so pessimistic. I am sick of this IP overuse Disney is making in their parks, and I think they need to get out of this corporate hellhole before the public gets worn out, and that should start with Iger's departure.

I'm entitled to my opinions, the same as yours. Your opinion is IP "overuse". My opinion on that is that IP has been infused in the DNA of Disney Parks since Day 1. It's neither here nor there, we're never going to agree with each other, so I won't continue to argue with you.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

I agree with this but there is also a big if here, and that is "unless things change in Hollywood." Based on current trajectories you are correct that the IP mandate should continue for the parks. But if we look at the current trajectory of Disney's film divisions, and the diminishing returns of all these adaptation/spin-off films over the last couple years or so, I'd wager that Hollywood will see significant change sometime in the near future. And that could have unforeseen ramifications for the parks. Do I think the IP mandate will end any time soon, no I do not. But, it remains possible in my opinion if we're talking about the distant future, more than a decade out.

You're totally right. The next 1-2 years will be very interesting, especially with more reboots, spin-offs and the like announced from all the major studios. Time will definitely tell. I don't personally think we will see such major changes in Hollywood anytime soon unless more films bomb.

 

[BlakeW39]

Then stop being so pessimistic. I am sick of this IP overuse Disney is making in their parks, and I think they need to get out of this corporate hellhole before the public gets worn out, and that should start with Iger's departure.

I'm not a fan of the IP mandate either, but that's not really an excuse to be rude. :/

 

[Elijah Abrams]

I'm entitled to my opinions, the same as yours. Your opinion is IP "overuse". My opinion on that is that IP has been infused in the DNA of Disney Parks since Day 1. It's neither here nor there, we're never going to agree with each other, so I won't continue to argue with you.

Well, again, Disney needs to free themselves from this "more corporate, less creative" pit if they want to be as good as they were in the early days and in the 1990s again.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Well, again, Disney needs to free themselves from this "more corporate, less creative" pit if they want to be as good as they were in the early days and in the 1990s again.

How would you suggest they do that?

And while yes they do make sequels/remakes, they still make original movies, but so many on here choose to forget that.

 

[Brer Panther]

The central themes of Moana are a better fit for DAK than a bunch of other movies that are either already at the park or people always suggest for it (a Bug's Life, Up, Jungle Book)

View attachment 713499
I've posted this a few times, and so have others. Moana could really tie into any three of these things.

Personal Call to Action & Physiological transformation through adventure: Moana's journey to return the heart of Teifiti
The Intrinsic Value of Nature is basically the basis of the story, "the island gives us what we need", we could all go on.

So all this time Animal Kingdom wasn't about, y'know, ANIMALS, but rather about human beings and their connection with nature. Why isn't the park called "Disney's NATURE Kingdom" then?

Does WALL-E belong in Animal Kingdom too?

 

[MagicHappens1971]

So all this time Animal Kingdom wasn't about, y'know, ANIMALS, but rather about human beings and their connection with nature. Why isn't the park called "Disney's NATURE Kingdom" then?

Does WALL-E belong in Animal Kingdom too?

Are you arguing with us? Or the man who designed the park?

 

[Elijah Abrams]

How would you suggest they do that?

A new CEO or two, with intentions different from Iger.

Now let’s get the *bleep* back on topic, can we?

 

[MagicHappens1971]

A new CEO or two, with intentions different from Iger.

Now let’s get the *bleep* back on topic, can we?

It's really all the same topic. But as I mentioned, the CEO is not the problem. I don't love Iger, but let's stop pretending the IP mandate is solely Iger's fault.

 

[Suspirian]

It's really all the same topic. But as I mentioned, the CEO is not the problem. I don't love Iger, but let's stop pretending the IP mandate is solely Iger's fault.

Theres definitely a larger misunderstanding of what the parks are throughout the company considering the person that lead the discussion about Moana and Zootopia in DAK was from WDAS

 

[BlakeW39]

So all this time Animal Kingdom wasn't about, y'know, ANIMALS, but rather about human beings and their connection with nature. Why isn't the park called "Disney's NATURE Kingdom" then?

Does WALL-E belong in Animal Kingdom too?

I think this is a good time to make the distinction between theme and subject. A subject is what a story is about. The subject of DAK is primarily animals. Theme however is the "underlying predicate that holds together a creative act"— Joe Rohde's words. The THEMES of Animal Kingdom are the intrinsic value of nature (of which animals are the personification), psychological transformation through adventure, and a personal call to conservational action. Themes. Not subjects. The subject is animals, specifically those that are real, ancient, and imaginary.

Animals are a subject. Not a theme.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Theres definitely a larger misunderstanding of what the parks are throughout the company considering the person that lead the discussion about Moana and Zootopia in DAK was from WDAS

What do you mean by that? The presentation was from Jennifer Lee (CCO of WDAS) and Chris Beatty (Portfolio Exec from WDI). They were discussing the possibilities of what was to come. John Lasseter was an active participant of all of the Pixar expansions.

 

[Elijah Abrams]

For the record, what Disney Parks needs to do is to stop taking notes and strategies from Universal Parks, their competitor, and do their own thing in terms of attraction and land theme.

 

[Suspirian]

I think this is a good time to make the distinction between theme and subject. A subject is what a story is about. The subject of DAK is primarily animals. Theme however is the "underlying predicate that holds together a creative act"— Joe Rohde's words. The THEMES of Animal Kingdom are the intrinsic value of nature (of which animals are the personification), psychological transformation through adventure, and a personal call to conservational action. Themes. Not subjects. The subject is animals, specifically those that are real, ancient, and imaginary.

Animals are a subject. Not a theme.

ok then Zootopia is fine.

 

[BlakeW39]

ok then Zootopia is fine.

No? Zootopia doesn't fit any of those themes save for maybe one (psychological transformation through adventure). And in terms of subject matter it also differs.

 

[Brer Panther]

I think this is a good time to make the distinction between theme and subject. A subject is what a story is about. The subject of DAK is primarily animals. Theme however is the "underlying predicate that holds together a creative act"— Joe Rohde's words. The THEMES of Animal Kingdom are the intrinsic value of nature (of which animals are the personification), psychological transformation through adventure, and a personal call to conservational action. Themes. Not subjects. The subject is animals, specifically those that are real, ancient, and imaginary.

Animals are a subject. Not a theme.

So, again, by that logic would WALL-E fit in Animal Kingdom?

And I still don't think the Te Fiti plotline automatically means that Moana and Maui belong in Animal Kingdom. Surely there are other IPs that both focus on animals AND the "intrinsic value of nature, psychological transformation of nature, and a personal call to conservational action".