The impact of animated movies about animals on conservation

[Great Argus]

{Note from mods - posts in this thread split from here: Replace a popular US zoo animal with a more endangered one}

Beyond absurd to me that they would be vying for space with least concern species like red river hog and warthog, ridiculous.

I think the spaces should just be given over for Visayan and babirusa.

The warthog in particular is common due to public exposure (The Lion King in particular) and the Red River Hog has bred well and been quite successful. The two species can be added to African sections very easily.
We would have to breed a lot of the Asian two to fill all the spaces opened by phasing out the African duo. Also remember that the AZA cannot force any species changes; they're more like a distant oversight committee.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

The warthog in particular is common due to public exposure (The Lion King in particular) and the Red River Hog has bred well and been quite successful. The two species can be added to African sections very easily.
We would have to breed a lot of the Asian two to fill all the spaces opened by phasing out the African duo. Also remember that the AZA cannot force any species changes; they're more like a distant oversight committee.

Oh god... the curse that is "the lion king"

 

[amur leopard]

Oh god... the curse that is "the lion king"

Would you rather they made another movie about a princess? I think the Lion King has served wildlife and zoos quite well actually, helping to popularize animals that otherwise would be ignored.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Would you rather they made another movie about a princess? I think the Lion King has served wildlife and zoos quite well actually, helping to popularize animals that otherwise would be ignored.

I don't care what films they make as I don't watch them full stop, in terms of Disney the only thing that I really care about is their Disney fund for nature programe and for entirely pragmatic reasons.

I think the lion king has served zoos well commercially but it is arguable whether that has added anything in terms of conservation (they had the disney fund for nature prior to the latest "The lion king") and it certainly hasn't added anything in terms of education IMO.

 

[amur leopard]

I don't care what films they make as I don't watch them full stop, in terms of Disney the only thing that I really care about is their Disney fund for nature programe and for entirely pragmatic reasons.

I think the lion king has served zoos well commercially but it is arguable whether that has added anything in terms of conservation (they had the disney fund for nature prior to the latest "The lion king") and it certainly hasn't added anything in terms of education IMO.

I think you are underestimating the impact the lion king had. Along with the jungle book it is easily the most famous animal film to young children, probably also to adults. I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of adults hadn’t heard of meerkats before the lion king and ensuing adverts. It made an entire generation at least moderately aware of animals, and also inspired a good portion of them to be actively interested in them. In fact while I was interested in animals before I watched it, the Jungle Book really piqued my interest in animals and I watched it at least 20 times.

So before you assume it had no effect, examine the consequences of such a film on the general populus.

Your point about Disney not spending enough on conservation is almost like saying Walmart doesn’t spend enough on conservation - why should they? They are a business, not a charity. Whole Disney does own an animal attraction, the attraction in question’s purpose is not to breed endangered animals but purely to show the public the animals in their films - educational, if you will.

 

[Great Argus]

I don't care what films they make as I don't watch them full stop, in terms of Disney the only thing that I really care about is their Disney fund for nature programe and for entirely pragmatic reasons

Don't forget Disney manages and distributes Nat Geo films. That's all through them, although Nat Geo themselves are separate.

Yes, exactly, and I really do think that native endemics should be kept by zoos more whether in the US or Europe

This is common, though usually larger or charismatic species. We've got Grizzlies, Bald Eagles, river otters, beavers, American Alligators, and more all over the place here. I think we have more places holding river otter than all other otter species combined. It would be nice to see less common natives kept more often though.

Your point about Disney not spending enough on conservation is almost like saying Walmart doesn’t spend enough on conservation - why should they? They are a business, not a charity. Whole Disney does own an animal attraction, the attraction in question’s purpose is not to breed endangered animals but purely to show the public the animals in their films - educational, if you will

Half true. DAK is a major player in many populations here in NA. They are as important as SDZSP for hoofstock, they breed multiple species on a regular basis and are providing animals to other zoos. One of my local okapis was born at DAK. They are also an important player for African Elephants, and even birds like the Carmine Bee-eater. DAK often isn't seen in a great light here on the site, but the reality is they are a very valuable facility. Not to mention they are AZA accredited.

 

[CMP]

Degu are diurnal, commonly kept as household pets and are also very low maintenance in comparison.
Crested porcupines, while primarily nocturnal, can be kept outdoors and clearly are able and willing to feed and move around during the day in zoos at least. They are also more interesting to the general public (quills add to its status as an oddity), and it much easier to obtain.
Agoutis are diurnal, can be mixed easily with birds as they almost always are and are low maintenance.



They have less cold tolerance than other bovid species and require indoor housing, which they often use during the winter, so are not really on show for a third of the year in colder countries.



I think you are underestimating the impact the lion king had. Along with the jungle book it is easily the most famous animal film to young children, probably also to adults. I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of adults hadn’t heard of meerkats before the lion king and ensuing adverts. It made an entire generation at least moderately aware of animals, and also inspired a good portion of them to be actively interested in them. In fact while I was interested in animals before I watched it, the Jungle Book really piqued my interest in animals and I watched it at least 20 times.

So before you assume it had no effect, examine the consequences of such a film on the general populus.

Your point about Disney not spending enough on conservation is almost like saying Walmart doesn’t spend enough on conservation - why should they? They are a business, not a charity. Whole Disney does own an animal attraction, the attraction in question’s purpose is not to breed endangered animals but purely to show the public the animals in their films - educational, if you will.

I think that Lion king is somewhat notorious here on zoochat because non endangered species were showcased, and now all that the average zoo guest wants to see is 'simba', 'timon', and 'pumba'.
The Jungle Book is far better in my opinion, showcasing endangered animals that actually do need increased awareness and conservation, such as Orangutans, Tigers, Dholes, and Asiatic black bears.

 

[GiratinaIsGod]

I think that Lion king is somewhat notorious here on zoochat because non endangered species were showcased, and now all that the average zoo guest wants to see is 'simba', 'timon', and 'pumba'.
The Jungle Book is far better in my opinion, showcasing endangered animals that actually do need increased awareness and conservation, such as Orangutans, Tigers, Dholes, and Asiatic black bears.

In the jungle book, Mowglie was raised by a famaily of grey wolfs (who are also native to india), not dholes, and Balu is a sloth bear, not a asiatic black bear (even though both hte classic and the new modern movies show him more like a brown bear)

 

[CMP]

In the jungle book, Mowglie was raised by a famaily of grey wolfs (who are also native to india), not dholes, and Balu is a sloth bear, not a asiatic black bear (eeven though both hte classic and the new modern movies show him more like a brown bear)

To be fair, I was contemplating whether they were Indian wolves and a Sloth bear, however I ended up saying they were the other species anyways. Its too bad Balu is not represented better. I also forgot to mention Bagheera, however I think that most people don't associate black panthers with a color morph of leopard. (It is a color morph, right?)

 

[GiratinaIsGod]

To be fair, I was contemplating whether they were Indian wolves and a Sloth bear, however I ended up saying they were the other species anyways. Its too bad Balu is not represented better. I also forgot to mention Bagheera, however I think that most people don't associate black panthers with a color morph of leopard. (It is a color morph, right?)

yes it is a colour morph (particular commen in the jungle populations). Eventhoug I would love to see Balu as a realstic sloth bear (one of my favourite animals sice childhood) It is not hard to see why they don't choose such a weird animal for its image. There is a reason why it has the name.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I think you are underestimating the impact the lion king had. Along with the jungle book it is easily the most famous animal film to young children, probably also to adults. I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of adults hadn’t heard of meerkats before the lion king and ensuing adverts. It made an entire generation at least moderately aware of animals, and also inspired a good portion of them to be actively interested in them. In fact while I was interested in animals before I watched it, the Jungle Book really piqued my interest in animals and I watched it at least 20 times.

So before you assume it had no effect, examine the consequences of such a film on the general populus.

Your point about Disney not spending enough on conservation is almost like saying Walmart doesn’t spend enough on conservation - why should they? They are a business, not a charity. Whole Disney does own an animal attraction, the attraction in question’s purpose is not to breed endangered animals but purely to show the public the animals in their films - educational, if you will.

I'm not underestimating the role that the "Lion King" franchise had, quite the opposite actually, I do recognize that it has had an enormous impact on making a whole generation stupid when it comes to the natural world.

Good for you, have you read the books by Rudyard Kipling that the "Jungle book" was based on too then ? If not then you might want to go and acquaint yourself with some actual literature rather than a children's film.

I've had ample time and experience to view the effects that the film has had on the general public and I haven't really seen any young conservationists emerge because of watching either of the films but it has generated a lot of banal catchphrases and cuddly toy sales no doubt.

I didn't actually say that they don't spend enough on conservation as that is something that you have misconstrued and implied because of your rather bizarre defensiveness about Disney.

What I actually said was that what they do spend on conservation with the Disney fund for nature is to be honest the only bit of Disney that I am interested in and generally appreciate and this for totally pragmatic reasons.

 

[Great Argus]

I think that Lion king is somewhat notorious here on zoochat because non endangered species were showcased, and now all that the average zoo guest wants to see is 'simba', 'timon', and 'pumba'.
The Jungle Book is far better in my opinion, showcasing endangered animals that actually do need increased awareness and conservation, such as Orangutans, Tigers, Dholes, and Asiatic black bears.

Lions are VU... Asian subspecies is EN...

I'm not underestimating the role that the "Lion King" franchise had, quite the opposite actually, I do recognize that it has had an enormous impact on making a whole generation stupid when it comes to the natural world.

Let's be honest here, how many non-documentary films involving nature actually contribute positively? Jaws stirred up quite a bit of fear and hatred for sharks... Piranhas chewing the heck out of people... Asian Elephants in Africa, Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds", the list goes on...

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Let's be honest here, how many non-documentary films involving nature actually contribute positively? Jaws stirred up quite a bit of fear and hatred for sharks... Piranhas chewing the heck out of people... Asian Elephants in Africa, Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds", the list goes on...

I would say that the viewing rates of "Planet Earth" and David Attenborough documentaries in general show that these are a brilliant format and have become really popular.

I don't actually hate Disney, I just dont care for it other than their fund for nature which I love as it helps fund conservation interventions.

 

[CMP]

I'm not underestimating the role that the "Lion King" franchise had, quite the opposite actually, I do recognize that it has had an enormous impact on making a whole generation stupid when it comes to the natural world.

Good for you, have you read the books by Rudyard Kipling that the "Jungle book" was based on too then ? If not then you might want to go and acquaint yourself with some actual literature rather than a children's film.

I've had ample time and experience to view the effects that the film has had on the general public and I haven't really seen any young conservationists emerge because of watching either of the films but it has generated a lot of banal catchphrases and cuddly toy sales no doubt.

I didn't actually say that they don't spend enough on conservation as that is something that you have misconstrued and implied because of your rather bizarre defensiveness about Disney.

What I actually said was that what they do spend on conservation with the Disney fund for nature is to be honest the only bit of Disney that I am interested in and generally appreciate and this for totally pragmatic reasons.

I would say that the viewing rates of "Planet Earth" and David Attenborough documentaries in general show that these are a brilliant format and have become really popular.

I don't actually hate Disney, I just dont care for it other than their fund for nature which I love as it helps fund conservation interventions.

@amur leopard is the one with a bee in his bonett today.

I would say that for most, cartoons and animals in media is what puts an interest of wildlife on young viewers' radars, while the documentaries entice them and turn them into full blown 'animal lovers'.
Looking back on my own experience, I viewed both simultaneously, but I would say that the documentaries made me like the cartoons or kids movies with animals or wildlife. Attenborough's work and BBC Earth certainly have a very special place in my, and I'm sure most zoochaters, hearts.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I would say that for most, cartoons and animals in media is what puts an interest of wildlife on young viewers' radars, while the documentaries entice them and turn them into full blown 'animal lovers'.
Looking back on my own experience, I viewed both simultaneously, but I would say that the documentaries made me like the cartoons or kids movies with animals or wildlife. Attenborough's work and BBC Earth certainly have a very special place in my, and I'm sure most zoochaters, hearts.

Yes, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that and I wasn't suggesting there was.

Cartoons and animal shows are part of childhood, right ?

I'm not at all suggesting that Disney productions should be replaced with documentaries.

All I was getting at was that Disney and "The lion king" is that I don't personally care for singing and dancing musicals about megafauna or all the catchphrases and platitudes and meerkats.

There are people and adults no less out there whose whole concept of Africa and African wildlife comes down to one Disney film about talking, singing and dancing wildlife, don't you think that is a little sad ?

 

[birdsandbats]

There are people and adults no less out there whose whole concept of Africa and African wildlife comes down to one Disney film about talking, singing and dancing wildlife, don't you think that is a little sad ?

Yes. But it is even sadder when they have little to no concept of the local wildlife.

 

[Great Argus]

There are people and adults no less out there whose whole concept of Africa and African wildlife comes down to one Disney film about talking, singing and dancing wildlife, don't you think that is a little sad ?

Two films, Disney's Lion King and Dreamworks' Madagascar. I feel Lion King isn't too bad in realism when put against Madagascar 1 & 2.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Two films, Disney's Lion King and Dreamworks' Madagascar. I feel Lion King isn't too bad in realism when put against Madagascar 1 & 2.

I can't really comment on realism in Disney I'm afraid.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Yes. But it is even sadder when they have little to no concept of the local wildlife.

Yes, exactly !

 

[CheeseChameleon1945]

Yes, exactly !

Yes, exactly.

To be honest, these Films had no effect on my love for animals. Standalone BBC earth documentaries were the only films that I really watched repeatedly when I was younger, and these Childish animated films that seemingly are not supporting wildlife conservation isn't really the film's job, its to make a good production for the Audience.