FettFan
Well-Known Member
And it’s a problem, especially when dealing with first-timers.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Zootopia and Moana Blue Sky concepts for Disney's Animal Kingdom
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
And it’s a problem, especially when dealing with first-timers.
DCLcruiser
Well-Known Member
Where is this in relation to other current attractions?
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
Pretty sure that’s Splash shown just above it. So, basically across the tracks on the opposite side of Splash from Big Thunder Mountain.
Surferboy567
Well-Known Member
I’m a huge Indy fan and agree with you Indy would be great as a land.
I know it’s inevitable, that Muppet Vision will go the way of the dodo. The muppets are excellent though, and I really hope they find a permanent more stable area within DHS. That muppet movie ride would have been great. They should be adding muppet things not removing.
Timothy_Q
Well-Known Member
Path between Pirates and Jungle Cruise leading to empty pad SW of Pirates
DCLcruiser
Well-Known Member
That makes more sense. Thank you.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the correction.
Rich Brownn
Well-Known Member
Thats Pirates above it. The entrance would have been next to Pirates.
Rosso11
Well-Known Member
I always thought they should build Marion Ravenwood’s bar from Raiders just off of the base of Everest in AK.
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
First they kill Splash and now DAK Furryland, I'm beginning to think Disney might have something personal against me.
That aside, Moana I'm a little iffy on. On one hand, as far as IP goes it's about as good a fit as you can get. On the other, the simplified art style of its animation doesn't fit aesthetically with the detailed and realistic environments found elsewhere in the park. It could work really well as a conduit for marine life to be brought to the park, but the issue is, are they reeaallllyyy gonna do that?
That aside, Moana I'm a little iffy on. On one hand, as far as IP goes it's about as good a fit as you can get. On the other, the simplified art style of its animation doesn't fit aesthetically with the detailed and realistic environments found elsewhere in the park. It could work really well as a conduit for marine life to be brought to the park, but the issue is, are they reeaallllyyy gonna do that?
Last edited:
Stupido
Well-Known Member
From the way this group of older women behind us were talking about the tumble monkeys the last time I saw FotLK, AK has been Furryland for a while now.
Last edited:
Elijah Abrams
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Are you saying that they killed the Zootopia idea for AK?
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
I think they meant, first they closed Splash and now they’re planning to build Zootopia at DAK
Elijah Abrams
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
TBF, Disney didn't really have anything planned when they revealed the concept art for the new MK and DAK stuff. Besides Bruce Vaughn is back at Disney as co-leader of Imagineering. Zootopia at AK is most likely to not get the green light for construction.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
I don’t see the relevance of Bruce Vaughn returning, WDI doesn’t greenlight projects. They do what they’re told in simple terms. While the quality of what we may receive may vary based on who is at the helm of WDI.
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
Of course, but does that matter to Iger?
'Sides, I'd think we should worry about one thing at a time. Moana would be coming first, so what would that look like? I know someone said live animals would be included in the land, but the better question is, what kind? While I think dinosaurs/prehistoric life has an important place at DAK, I think the same is true for aquatic life, which thus far-- despite comprising many of the animal species on earth --has received minimal representation. If some kind of "Moana land" could bring, say, sharks and rays and whatnot to DAK, then I say it's a win.
On the other hand, I think the IP-mandate is really limiting the creative scope of what imagineering can do with the park. There are tons of great ideas they could come up with, but because they aren't allowed to create anything new, they're really limited to a kind of pitiful library of already existing movie and film franchises. Which are all gonna be less fitting than something designed specifically with the park in mind.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
This is what I've said ad nauseum.
Of course IP helps with marketing, and it can also prop up a mediocre attraction busy because of connection to the IP (see Frozen Ever After, although there are limits -- the Nemo IP hasn't really helped that ride). I understand why Disney wants to use it from a business perspective.
But from an overall design standpoint and in terms of creating the best possible attractions, being forced to use a pretty small library of IP (it's not like ALL Disney IP is truly available -- management isn't going to greenlight something big based on a minor/unpopular IP because it defeats the purpose of using preexisting IP) really constrains what can be done.
NotCalledBob
Well-Known Member
The final nail in the coffin for original (non IP content) in the parks happened in March 2018. When Parks and Resorts merged with Consumer products and became DPEP.
Now the Chairman of DPEP is juggling in his (or her) head both parks development and how much merch they can sell. Frozen Ever After sells Merch. LWTL does not. The main exception to this is JIIWF, which they already know. Hence. Merch.
It's a slam dunk for D'Amaro for his whole division to bring more popular IP rides to AK (or any of the other parks). Advertising at it's finest.
The parks were obviously full steam ahead towards this prior to early 2018. But, I am sure this has helped cement the direction.
Now the Chairman of DPEP is juggling in his (or her) head both parks development and how much merch they can sell. Frozen Ever After sells Merch. LWTL does not. The main exception to this is JIIWF, which they already know. Hence. Merch.
It's a slam dunk for D'Amaro for his whole division to bring more popular IP rides to AK (or any of the other parks). Advertising at it's finest.
The parks were obviously full steam ahead towards this prior to early 2018. But, I am sure this has helped cement the direction.
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
I mean I see why Disney likes IP so much from a marketing standpoint, but I don't know if I am in full agreement that an IP mandate is the obvious economic decision that some people on this board have made it out to be. Surely the most successful movie and character IPs will sell more merchandise than most park specific IPs will (see Tiana vs Splash, unfortunately), but the number of IPs that have that much of a marketing advantage over original park specific IPs has to be really small. So surely Disney can't rely solely on those for new lands ans attractions. Especially since the four parks rely on lands and attractions with diverse settings and themes, something that is not the case with Disney's library of hyper-popular IPs. I mean will TRON really sell all that much merchandise?
Now combine this fact with knowledge that Disney's film and streaming divisions aren't actively creating very much new IP, mostly remaking and adapting things that already exist and often with little success (from both a financial and especially a critical standpoint) and surely Disney's current business model can't be viable for that much longer.
It can also not be understated how detrimental it is for the artistic quality of the parks that Disney mandates every single land and attraction they build must be based on some already established film IP or character tie-in. There is obvious value to creative freedom in any art form, theme parks included, and outlawing creation in all its forms simply cannot yield the best artistic results for Disney's theme parks. Sure, various film IPs can fit in the parks to varying degrees, but they'll never be an optimal choice. An attraction designed specifically to supplement a park as best as possible, or a land based on themes of the park itself rather than the themes of some popular movie or TV show, using artistic languages not from the park itself but from some completely unrelated popular movie or TV show, will more times than not be superior to the already existing film/television IP that is determined to "fit" in the park, which will always just be a matter of "close enough."
Last edited: