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

Birb

Birb

New Member
I was initially super iffy on Moana coming DAK but honestly my mind has been changed a tad. Not completely, but even just the possibility of more animal exhibits has me actually kind of excited. I'm not getting my hopes up, but I really, really hope that it turns out to just be an Oceanian themed area with a touch of Moana inspiration/attractions and not just a full on Moana land (if it happens at all of course). The focus should be on the stories of the natural world of the Australasian/Pacific realm and not on the film itself. If that's the case, it would probably become my favorite land (apart from maybe Africa my beloved <3 ).

The film can be used to help tell that story, but it shouldn't be the main focus. Even so, I still don't think it's an awful fit depending on how its utilized. Even if its main plot isn't directly tied to nature, (from my interpretation of it at least) the world it's set in and especially the culture it's based on definitely is (and so if those real world equivalents would be the focus, and Moana would be used to help teach about them, I'd be alright with it.)

The fauna of the Pacific islands is absolutely fascinating to me and I would adore seeing them represented in the park.

Messy zoology nerd ramble incoming!

Animals from Aotearoa/New Zealand are wonderful examples (despite what many think, Aotearoa is a part of Polynesia - heck Moana even has quite a bit of Māori influence). If I could see kiwi birds every time I go to Disney World, I'd accept any Moana presence in DAK lol. Kororā/Little blue penguins would make for a wonderful exhibit as well, and an aviary with NZ forest birds to go alongside the ones in Africa and Asia would make me melt with joy.

Considering the Moana presence, I assume Polynesia would be the main focus if things were to go this route, but since Australia is part of Oceania too I'll ramble about it as well. I'm pretty sure someone mentioned earlier in this thread the idea of a kangaroo/emu/wallaby walkthrough exhibit, which I agree would make a wonderful addition. That's not even to mention the potential for standalone exhibits of Tazzie devils, dingoes, crocs, brolgas, koalas, another aviary, etc.... Not to mention that as of recently, the San Diego Zoo Safari Park has become to first zoo outsize of Oz' to house platypus. If another institution could get their hands on them, I wouldn't put it past DAK.

And don't even get me started on the rest of the Oceania, plus the ocean itself. There is so much potential here that I'm almost sad that it would probably be a mini-land (if it is Oceania that is, if it's just Moana and only Moana then keep it a mini-land lol). I'm mostly relieved (if still more than a little worried considering their track record of not caring about theme...) that this is the more likely of the two phases and is only replacing Dino-Rama, which I'm alright with sacrificing if this does turn out as Oceania. I really hope we don't lose Dinosaur though, or at least give us more representation of prehistoric wildlife to replace it. I would hate to lose that aspect of the park's theme. Anyways, zoo-nerd ramble over, I guess I'm just saying that I really want a bushwalk trail to go with Gorilla Falls/Maharaja. I just it'd be neat. :>

In short, I'm hesitant on Moana, but I'll welcome it if its made specifically to fit DAK's themes. As for Zootopia... god no. At least Moana fits aesthetically and somewhat thematically (depending on execution). Zootopia ticks neither of those boxes and I see no way of getting around that at the moment.
 
Last edited:
BlakeW39

BlakeW39

Well-Known Member
Birb said:
I was initially super iffy on Moana coming DAK but honestly my mind has been changed a tad. Not completely, but even just the possibility of more animal exhibits has me actually kind of excited. I'm not getting my hopes up, but I really, really hope that it turns out to just be an Oceanian themed area with a touch of Moana inspiration/attractions and not just a full on Moana land (if it happens at all of course). The focus should be on the stories of the natural world of the Australasian/Pacific realm and not on the film itself. If that's the case, it would probably become my favorite land (apart from maybe Africa my beloved <3 ).

The film can be used to help tell that story, but it shouldn't be the main focus. Even so, I still don't think it's an awful fit depending on how its utilized. Even if its main plot isn't directly tied to nature, (from my interpretation of it at least) the world it's set in and especially the culture it's based on definitely do (and so if those real world equivalents would be the focus, and Moana would be used to help teach about them, I'd be alright with it.)

The fauna of the Pacific islands is absolutely fascinating to me and I would adore seeing them represented in the park.

Messy zoology nerd ramble incoming!

Animals from Aotearoa/New Zealand are wonderful examples (despite what many think, Aotearoa is a part of Polynesia - heck Moana even has quite a bit of Māori influence). If I could see kiwi birds every time I go to Disney World, I'd accept any Moana presence in DAK lol. Kororā/Little blue penguins would make for a wonderful exhibit as well, and an aviary with NZ forest birds to go alongside the ones in Africa and Asia would make me melt with joy.

Considering the Moana presence, I assume Polynesia would be the main focus if things were to go this route, but since Australia is part of Oceania too I'll ramble about it as well. I'm pretty sure someone mentioned earlier in this thread the idea of a kangaroo/emu/wallaby walkthrough exhibit, which I agree would make a wonderful addition. That's not even to mention the potential for standalone exhibits of Tazzie devils, dingoes, crocs, brolgas, koalas, another aviary, etc.... Not to mention that as of recently, the San Diego Zoo Safari Park has become to first zoo outsize of Oz' to house platypus. If another institution could get their hands on them, I wouldn't put it past DAK.

And don't even get me started on the rest of the Oceania, plus the ocean itself. There is so much potential here that I'm almost sad that it would probably be a mini-land (if it is Oceania that is, if it's just Moana and only Moana then keep it a mini-land lol). I'm mostly relieved (if still a little worried that it's happening at all) that this is the more likely of the two phases and is only replacing Dino-Rama, which I'm alright with sacrificing if this does turn out as Oceania. I really hope we don't lose Dinosaur though, or at least give us more representation of prehistoric wildlife to replace it. I would hate to lose that aspect of the park's theme. Anyways, zoo-nerd ramble over, I guess I'm just saying that I really want a bushwalk trail to go with Gorilla Falls/Maharaja. :p

In short, I'm hesitant on Moana, but I'll welcome it if its made specifically to fit DAK's themes. As for Zootopia... god no. At least Moana fits aesthetically and somewhat thematically (depending on execution). Zootopia ticks neither of those boxes and I see no way of getting around that at the moment.
Click to expand...

I'm a huge zoology lover too, and I would very much like to see aquatic life brought to the park. But I think that would be a tough sell for Disney right now, what with the Seas pavillion and all at EPCOT.
 
BlakeW39

BlakeW39

Well-Known Member
Henry Mystic said:
Animal Kingdom isn’t just about animals. It’s about conservation and man’s relationship to nature.

Zootopia is like you said, animals that act like people. It has nothing to do with conservation, nature, or how we relate to nature because those animals are us, just in a massive, sprawling metropolis.

Moana has more of a conservation angle and prominently showcases nature, that while nowhere near AS strong as Avatar, it would still fit way better than Zootopia at Animal Kingdom because of that. Zootopia should instead find it’s way over to Hollywood Studios; anthropomorphic animals does not equal nature.
Click to expand...

How about zootopia finds its way into the trash can
 
SpectreJordan

SpectreJordan

Well-Known Member
Bocabear said:
NOBODY would argue with that one....that was a failed idea...I mean I got what they were doing with the whole Route 66 theme and all....but that one should have been sent back to the drawing board. (Parts of the design were beautifully done like the shop and tram part pieces)
Click to expand...
Have we ever heard about the original plans they had for the dinosaur land? I imagine we ended up with the cheesy Dinoland theming as a result of the higher ups saying "It's either dinosaurs or fantasy at launch", so the dinosaur team went with a cheap idea. I can't imagine this is what they wanted the whole time.
 
peter11435

peter11435

Well-Known Member
GhostHost1000 said:
The carnival games part of dinorama fits?

Dinosaur theming in animal kingdom fits, but not the cheap carnival crap
Click to expand...
Yes, the carnival part of dinorama fits. You can debate whether or not it belongs in a Disney theme park. But it fits the theme and mission of animal kingdom. The theme of animal kingdom does not require a jungle. The cheap carnival crap absolutely fits just the same way harambe, anandapur, etc fit. The biggest difference is your familiarity with the subject matter.
 
GhostHost1000

GhostHost1000

Premium Member
peter11435 said:
Yes, the carnival part of dinorama fits. You can debate whether or not it belongs in a Disney theme park. But it fits the theme and mission of animal kingdom. The theme of animal kingdom does not require a jungle. The cheap carnival crap absolutely fits just the same way harambe, anandapur, etc fit. The biggest difference is your familiarity with the subject matter.
Click to expand...
Chester and Hester water squirting ballon pop game area fitting the theme and mission the same as Harambe and Anandapur areas? We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one
 
BubbaisSleep

BubbaisSleep

Well-Known Member
peter11435 said:
Yes, the carnival part of dinorama fits. You can debate whether or not it belongs in a Disney theme park. But it fits the theme and mission of animal kingdom. The theme of animal kingdom does not require a jungle. The cheap carnival crap absolutely fits just the same way harambe, anandapur, etc fit. The biggest difference is your familiarity with the subject matter.
Click to expand...
My only gripe is that yeah they made a carnival work but it’s how they built it that’s questionable for AK’s identity. A jungle isn’t a requirement but I thought one of the purposes of AK was to take you out of the parking lot environment. That’s at least why many on here defend AK’s horribly hot parking lot situation. So it’s kind of ironic that they ended up building a whole land on a parking lot anyways & wonder why people don’t connect to it.
 
SpectreJordan

SpectreJordan

Well-Known Member
celluloid said:
Indy 5 is going to keep the Stunt Show and representation around the resorts of the world that feature the property relevant. It is not going to likely get us another Indy attraction. I just wanted to put the realistic dose out there so no one gets their hopes up.
Click to expand...
It really depends on the movie's success. If it's a moderate to good success ($600-$900 mil range), we probably won't be seeing anything new in the parks.

But if it makes a billion+, then I think there's a good chance the parks will want to do something with it. The Force Awakens making an impressive 2 billion is absolutely why they went full force on the Sequel Trilogy in the parks (They probably would've went with OT if they waited until after TLJ to make a choice). Zootopia making a billion is also why they're considering this Animal Kingdom land.

If the new Indy is good, then I think it has a shot at Top Gun: Maverick numbers which Disney would be psyched about.
BlakeW39 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think refusal to actually expand is another huge problem. I remember seeing a picture of the expansion pads Animal Kingdom has & it's A LOT; it's so stupid that they want to replace all of this stuff instead of just building new stuff & actually increase capacity.
 
yensidtlaw1969

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
GhostHost1000 said:
Chester and Hester water squirting ballon pop game area fitting the theme and mission the same as Harambe and Anandapur areas? We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one
Click to expand...
DinoRama is part of the Morality Play of Dinoland U.S.A. It's essentially a warning. Dinosaurs no longer walk the earth, and the spectrum of how we memorialize them runs from stodgy museums to cheap roadside attractions. With Dinoland guests are being asked - in a "fun" way - to consider what happens when animals go extinct. It would obviously be much more fun to confront an actual magnificent beast like a dinosaur (and Dinosaur! does give us a taste of that to wet our whistle), but there's no bringing back animals who go extinct. At least not yet.

There's tension in the relationship between humans and animals, with many people only too ready to exploit animals for their financial value rather than their actual value. While humans are not responsible for the extinction of dinosaurs, in their extinction we do still prey on them in ways that echo that tension between humans and still-living creatures. If we allow that tension to continue and advance, we might one day see amazing and endangered animals like Rhinos and Tigers relegated only to museums and roadside attractions.

Is that what we want? If DinoRama is any indication, the answer should be an emphatic no. It's arguably fun for what it is, but it could never mirror the magic of seeing those animals for real.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom