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

[sWANNISAX]

I don't love the idea of Moana in Animal Kingdom but if its part of transformation of the area where Nemo is into a South Pacific thing with Koalas and a better home for the kangaroos I'm totally ok with it.

I love Zootopia I wouldn't mind if it was in the park. I don't really want to loose Dinosaur. I feel like the way Dinoland is set up the institute could survive on its own to preserve the dinosaurs presence in the park even in a smaller footprint and build zootopia at the end of the path infront of it that runs along the side of restuarantosarus. That area has such character it would be a shame to loose it. Hester and Chesters area should go though.

I see the triceratops spin becoming that kakamora looking thing and the primeval whirl area becoming the moana ride. I still think moana's ride belongs in adventure land which desparately needs new life.

One other thought on the coco/encanto. I'm wondering if they might move the mexican cuisine into the coco area and transform Pecos Bill into Tiana's Place and create a version of New Orleans Square to pull the new splash mountain into a new area altogether. They did mention dining was part of the plan for Tiana.

 

[DCLcruiser]

Minnie, Mickey, Donald, etc (classic characters) are excluded from that rule. It’s been like that since DAK opened

What if Juddy Hopps and Nick Wilde were walking around DAK...would that be ok?

 

[MagicHappens1971]

What if Juddy Hopps and Nick Wilde were walking around DAK...would that be ok?

According to the parks ethos & Joe Rhode, no.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Humans = Animals
Bugs = Animals
Dinosaurs = Animals

@pdude81 said if you don't consider humans to be animals, then what are bugs and dinosaurs? Which makes sense. If you don't count humans as animals, then perhaps other creatures are not animals either. The answer is they are all animals, therefore, humanoids are acceptable for DAK.

No, that really isn't the answer.

There's an old saying - "Knowledge is knowing Tomatoes are a fruit, Wisdom is knowing they don't belong in a Fruit Salad".

Humans are an acceptable presence within the park, but the park is not meant to highlight their stories. Joe Rohde spoke of a "No Pants" rule for the park, indicating that even animals that act as humans are not the intended focus (Exception was made for the Fab 5, who are expected to have a presence in every Disney park).

So the problem isn't whether or not Humans are technically Animals, the problem is that the ethos of Animal Kingdom clearly deliniates between our human animal-ness and the non-human animals the park is intended to highlight.

 

[DCLcruiser]

No, that really isn't the answer.

There's an old saying - "Knowledge is knowing Tomatoes are a fruit, Wisdom is knowing they don't belong in a Fruit Salad".

Humans are an acceptable presence within the park, but the park is not meant to highlight their stories. Joe Rohde spoke of a "No Pants" rule for the park, indicating that even animals that act as humans are not the intended focus (Exception was made for the Fab 5, who are expected to have a presence in every Disney park).

So the problem isn't whether or not Humans are technically Animals, the problem is that the ethos of Animal Kingdom clearly deliniates between our human animal-ness and the non-human animals the park is intended to highlight.

You are talking about the spirit of the park, which I 100% agree. Of course, the intention is for human guests to go to DAK and see non-human animals/aliens/myths in a somewhat natural habitat. I was discussing the technical aspects. Unfortunately, Bob is not thinking about the spirit, nor are millions of parents/kids. So, if the park is about non-human animals...Zootopia fits the definition (they are not homosapiens (had to combine, as the filter was deleting the prefix). Therefore, they can shoehorn it and money will roll in.

 

[mhochman]

but the Zootopia characters really have nothing to do with their real-life counterparts

sloth excepted.

 

[FigmentFan82]

i love how everest shows how roller-coasters help progress the conservation message of AK.
always hits home everytime i ride

 

[GhostHost1000]

I have to ask again, how is another seperate area - Encanto, Coco and Villians land(and we are not even addressing most of this won't happen....), being separated by a ride? Please tell me how this transition is any worse than Tomorrow land to Fantasy land? Folks have to get the idea out of their limited views that this will be considered part of Frontierland.

As for Tiana, yeah don't disagree there much.

Well are they going to do add 2 new lands to the MK? Is this an extension of Fantasyland or something else?

The villains should/could be a new park. Plenty on content there but they’ll never build a 5th I don’t think in my lifetime.

 

[lazyboy97o]

i love how everest shows how roller-coasters help progress the conservation message of AK.
always hits home everytime i ride

Maybe spend some time in the queue.

 

[JoeCamel]

Did the thought they did the old take the idea you really want and toss it out there along with a totally unworkable idea to focus the hate on the bad one making the chosen one look better by comparison?
Are they that savvy?

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

You are talking about the spirit of the park, which I 100% agree. Of course, the intention is for human guests to go to DAK and see non-human animals/aliens/myths in a somewhat natural habitat. I was discussing the technical aspects. Unfortunately, Bob is not thinking about the spirit, nor are millions of parents/kids. So, if the park is about non-human animals...Zootopia fits the definition (they are not homosapiens (had to combine, as the filter was deleting the prefix). Therefore, they can shoehorn it and money will roll in.

There's some nuance here you seem to be on the verge of getting:



It is true, of course, that Disney's gonna end up doing whatever it wants. Which is a shame, in this case. Until now the park has followed particular and well-considered guidance that's resulted in one of the most artistically whole theme park experiences in the world.

Adding Zootopia, while it may be fun, would detract from that wholeness.

 

[DCLcruiser]

There's some nuance here you seem to be on the verge of getting:



It is true, of course, that Disney's gonna end up doing whatever it wants. Which is a shame, in this case. Until now the park has followed particular and well-considered guidance that's resulted in one of the most artistically whole theme park experiences in the world.

Adding Zootopia, while it may be fun, would detract from that wholeness.

I don't disagree at all. I'm just playing devil's advocate, if you will.

 

[Phicinfan]

Well are they going to do add 2 new lands to the MK? Is this an extension of Fantasyland or something else?

The villains should/could be a new park. Plenty on content there but they’ll never build a 5th I don’t think in my lifetime.

Great questions. Quite frankly I will die of shock if any of them get built. But to assume they will be tied to Frontier land is faulty. Just because they are behind BTMRR.

Plus if it does slide over behind HM there could be a clean link to Fantasy land.

But to immediately assume its Frontier land to me is faulty.

 

[celluloid]

Some of the Fantasia characters come close (see my post above), but I do see your point. That said, a well-done, self-contained Zootopia ride/area wouldn’t bother me in the least. (Full disclosure: I would prefer Animal Kingdom to transition entirely away from keeping captive animals, so that also informs my thinking on these matters.)

Just wondering why do you feel that way? That would be a tragedy. AZA zoos and Aquariums have done more for animals in the wild than any other effort. That just shows why we need AZA more than ever. The word confined is not really a good use for AZA situations as the animals are provided with the space needed for health and safety. Confined implies by webster's definition cramped or restricted.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I don't disagree at all. I'm just playing devil's advocate, if you will.

. . . Is that really necessary?

 

[arich35]

One of the biggest problems with this blue sky spitballing is that it lessons the impact of an actual announcement, especially for these specific ideas, but partially for anything the company announces in the future. I’m sure I’m not alone in thinking that the better move would’ve been to greenlight and commit to one of the five things they mentioned and just announce that. Like, announce Moana (which seems to be the closest to happening) and nothing else. I think the fact that this didn’t happen speaks to the underlying organizational issues within the company that make them slow to adapt and prone to cost overruns.


Man, @arich35 really fails to comprehend themes in animated movies lol

I can comprehend them but it really isn't a big deal and the vast majority of people aren't going to think that Zootopia doesn't belong in Animal Kingdom. They see animals and rides and something new and that is it.

 

[DCLcruiser]

. . . Is that really necessary?

Again, I was explaining a previous poster's statement, and why technically they were correct. I was not expressing my opinion on the changes.

Bob is not looking at this the same way as others here. So, we can either be extremely upset and stick to the spirit of the park, or try to accept and understand why things are happening. Then we can attempt to enjoy what is, and what will be. It's going to happen no matter what we think, and frankly, it's not entirely outlandish. Is it my preference? No, but it won't prevent me from enjoying it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I can comprehend them but it really isn't a big deal and the vast majority of people aren't going to think that Zootopia doesn't belong in Animal Kingdom. They see animals and rides and something new and that is it.

What do those who don’t care lose if there’s a great new ride that fits the theme of the park?

 

[LittleBuford]

Just wondering why do you feel that way? That would be a tragedy. AZA zoos and Aquariums have done more for animals in the wild than any other effort. That just shows why we need AZA more than ever. The word confined is not really a good use for AZA situations as the animals are provided with the space needed for health and safety. Confined implies by webster's definition cramped or restricted.

Because the vast majority of zoo animals are neither endangered nor rescued; they are bred for human entertainment. I myself do not enjoy seeing animals in captivity (even if their enclosures are large and well themed) and wish Disney had never got involved in the zoo industry to begin with (and yes, Animal Kingdom is a zoo!). However, I realise I'm in the minority, and I am not looking to convert others here to my way of thinking.

ETA: I never used the word "confined" to describe the animals' captivity.

 

[kong1802]

I don't see how either concept fits, but it just again shows how "desperate" they are to take a few people out of MK and plunk them in AK.

As AK isn't my favorite park, I'm in no way a purist. I love Dinosaur and would be sad to see it go but if done well I think these two lands could be an improvement for the park, at least ride wise.

I still would be very surprised if either of these lands actually came to fruition.