For people with taste, "Avatar" is just as bad as "Twilight."
Mindless dreck with a delusional fanbase.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom
- Thread starter DocMcHulk
- Start date
For people with taste, "Avatar" is just as bad as "Twilight."
Mindless dreck with a delusional fanbase.
devoy1701
Well-Known Member
I take this to mean depending on how the Harry Expansion goes could very well dictate the final outcome (and budget) of the Pandora. Do we get one E-ticket and few shops? Do we get an E coupled with a C and some show? Will they have a "showstopper" waiting incase they need to play that card?
I'm just thinking outloud here...but I agree that it could a be very interesting 5 years in Orlando!
baymenxpac
Well-Known Member
beastly kingdom is truly a legend of it's own hype. i love the ideas that were supposed to turn into BK, but based on how budgets could have gotten changed and all of the last minute shifting that has been known to go on, you don't even know what you would have gotten as a final product. can't we just stop measuring up things to something that, while was once at a time as green lit as you can get, is nothing more than concept art?
let me chime in and say i'm cautiously optimistic about this.
based on lee and marni's comments, it seems like:
a) if the right people are pushing for this to be expansive and amazing, it will be.
b) the budget certainly is enough to make the shine. and it has flex room to go up, if need be.
i haven't seen avatar yet, but i choose to see any progress and progress. a huge win in my eyes in the short term with the possibly for it to be incredible.
let me chime in and say i'm cautiously optimistic about this.
based on lee and marni's comments, it seems like:
a) if the right people are pushing for this to be expansive and amazing, it will be.
b) the budget certainly is enough to make the shine. and it has flex room to go up, if need be.
i haven't seen avatar yet, but i choose to see any progress and progress. a huge win in my eyes in the short term with the possibly for it to be incredible.
TalkingHead
Well-Known Member
I'd feel a lot better about this if we were talking about the James Cameron of 15 years ago. Maybe WDW will finally get to pioneer a new style of attraction like Spider-man and Potter did.
MrsJackSparrow
Active Member
LOVE this!!!!!
mightynine
Well-Known Member
stitchcastle
Well-Known Member
Clearly you don't get it. I'm not just saying it will be a failure, I'm saying it doesn't belong in Animal Kingdom.
And I bring out the Harry Potter/Star Wars comparisons because it seems like everyone's expecting Avatar to be the answer to the Harry Potter land.
Plus you're missing the point, Potter and Star Wars are LOVED. Avatar is largely greeted with a collective shrug.
and for the record, I hate Harry Potter.
Tigger1988
Well-Known Member
Sounds like what many people think about Disney and it's obsessive fans...
This x10,000.
TalkingHead
Well-Known Member
If it's any indication, the Orlando Sentinel story has four comments. Not fourteen, not forty, but four. I don't think this reaches Potter levels of interest for the general public.
stitchcastle
Well-Known Member
what fanbase? at least Twilight has fans that love it, The one and only member of the Avatar fanclub is James Cameron, its his Star Wars prequels.
I thought Avatar was a decent movie, I dont see where all the hate comes from, especially the people saying that they never even seen the movie and never will. James Cameron does nothing small and half way, so if he is involved in the project, whatever it is when its done, it Will be great.
Also we still have avatar 2 and 3 to go, I believe one of them is set in space, the other is in the oceans, So we still have yet to see where the story will go. Cameron on the other hand has been writing this particular story for years and has only been waiting for technology to catch up to his imagination so I for one am all for letting him run wild.
Also we still have avatar 2 and 3 to go, I believe one of them is set in space, the other is in the oceans, So we still have yet to see where the story will go. Cameron on the other hand has been writing this particular story for years and has only been waiting for technology to catch up to his imagination so I for one am all for letting him run wild.
Know what I think is sad from this expansion..it's that Disney has to go to an outside source/third party to come up with an idea to boost attendance in a park.
It used to be Disney's own ideas and concepts were enough and people came simply because it was Disney. They lost sight of that and now we're seeing the poor decision to include Avatared into AK.
It used to be Disney's own ideas and concepts were enough and people came simply because it was Disney. They lost sight of that and now we're seeing the poor decision to include Avatared into AK.
bennyw01
Active Member
You can add Splash Mountain, Roger Rabbit's Toontown Spin, Tower of Terror, and Mr. Toad's Wild Ride to that list.
The more I think about this, the more I like it. Beastly Kingdom would have just been another castles-n-dragons-n-unicorns type situation that we've seen at lots of theme parks.
Going the Avatar route allows the imagineers to mix 2 things they're good at, sci-fi architecture (Tomorrowland, Star Tours, Epcot) with large, dinosaur-shaped animatronics (Universe of Energy, Countdown to Extinction, Journey to the Center of the Earth, etc.)
This should play right to their strengths.
Good point, no point shooting down the idea. My personal view is that its the wrong park but I can see why they chose Animal Kingdom.
-Available Space
-Extra-Terrestrial Conservation
-Exploration
I just dont want to see any of this:
http://th03.deviantart.net/fs70/150/i/2010/023/1/8/Na__vi_Tinkerbell_by_My_Safe_Haven.jpg
or this:
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/pho...cahontas-disney-princess-17028153-950-560.jpg
or any of this rubbish:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4004/4656613203_f6bd4ca5e4.jpg
You know who you are!
Scuttle
Well-Known Member
I agree with every word of this post. In fact it has more to do with AK than BK did.
hammysammy59
New Member
Yikes, it can't be that bad, can it? I mean the story looked (almost comically) heavy-handed and lifted mostly out of Pocahontas, but I can't imagine it's as wrist-slashingly unwatchable as the Star Wars prequels.
mightynine
Well-Known Member
A billion dollar shrug, but anyways. Far be it for me to think a movie that had worldwide appeal would attract interest to a theme park that has worldwide appeal.
Also, I think you're moving the goalposts in your argument about the "doesn't belong in AK", but maybe I did miss your point, so I'll just leave it here.
Maryssa*
Well-Known Member
I don't get the argument that Potterland is "better because people can name the characters from the movie." The whole area is the town of Hogsmeade come to life, not "here are Harry Potter and Hermione's houses. You can meet them over there." The only times you see them are a few moments in the ride.
This Avatar-land is also likely to be focused about the LAND and not the characters. It's going to make an absolutely beautiful environment to see in real life. The story of the movie and whether or not you liked it isn't what is going to make this cool.
This Avatar-land is also likely to be focused about the LAND and not the characters. It's going to make an absolutely beautiful environment to see in real life. The story of the movie and whether or not you liked it isn't what is going to make this cool.
Crazy Harry
Active Member
Wow...
I was genuinely shocked when I read this news this afternoon. I am also rather suprized with the number of people who are actually excited about this. I realize this movie was tremendously popular and many people are clammoring for a Potter swatter, but is this the answer, and in DAK?
Disney these days seems more concerned with pushing technological limits and integrateing well received and marketed properties into the parks rather than simply creating good attractions. This certainly does not mean that an existing property cannot be transformed into a good attraction because they can and this should be attempted, but certain clues are arguably telling of underlying motivations.
A trend over the last decade or so has been to thematically shoehorn popular proties within the parks. Disney's California is the perfect example of this. Exciting content and immersive environments have attracted visitors to Disney parks since their inception. DCA was the odd stepchild which failed miserbly at capcuring hearts and minds with ineffective utilization of the subject matter. This failure has been admitted in some respect with the restructuring of the park's entrance and new building facades, and the frantic addition of new attractions. But look at what has been/ is being added to rectify attendance woes. Little Mermaid, Monster's Inc., Toy Story Mania, and Cars Land are individually great properties and likely helping the attendance considerably at that park, but what do they have to do with California? Loose connections can be argued, but the original theme of the park evident by its name has fallen to the wayside. Is this practice nessisary?
So what about Avatar? Yes, Avatar was one of the highest grossing films in history, but does it fit in AK? Disney argues yes because of the spirit of the film: its message about the preservation of nature. But from another point of view, this is a science fiction film. It has nothing to do with true natural envirnoments and animals or the culture and mythology of the world which at least has fragments of truth attached to them. Ficticious blue aliens do not belong in animal kingdom regardless of their message, but this has been the trend of the powers that be. Its more about popularity and marketing then it is simply about producing a high quality product.
And yes, the movie was popular, as a movie. Do people actually want theme park attractions of this property. I guess time will tell, and if this works more power to the powers that be, but I personally am neither excited nor interested, I am disappointed. How bout we stick to the theme the name of the park represents.
I was genuinely shocked when I read this news this afternoon. I am also rather suprized with the number of people who are actually excited about this. I realize this movie was tremendously popular and many people are clammoring for a Potter swatter, but is this the answer, and in DAK?
Disney these days seems more concerned with pushing technological limits and integrateing well received and marketed properties into the parks rather than simply creating good attractions. This certainly does not mean that an existing property cannot be transformed into a good attraction because they can and this should be attempted, but certain clues are arguably telling of underlying motivations.
A trend over the last decade or so has been to thematically shoehorn popular proties within the parks. Disney's California is the perfect example of this. Exciting content and immersive environments have attracted visitors to Disney parks since their inception. DCA was the odd stepchild which failed miserbly at capcuring hearts and minds with ineffective utilization of the subject matter. This failure has been admitted in some respect with the restructuring of the park's entrance and new building facades, and the frantic addition of new attractions. But look at what has been/ is being added to rectify attendance woes. Little Mermaid, Monster's Inc., Toy Story Mania, and Cars Land are individually great properties and likely helping the attendance considerably at that park, but what do they have to do with California? Loose connections can be argued, but the original theme of the park evident by its name has fallen to the wayside. Is this practice nessisary?
So what about Avatar? Yes, Avatar was one of the highest grossing films in history, but does it fit in AK? Disney argues yes because of the spirit of the film: its message about the preservation of nature. But from another point of view, this is a science fiction film. It has nothing to do with true natural envirnoments and animals or the culture and mythology of the world which at least has fragments of truth attached to them. Ficticious blue aliens do not belong in animal kingdom regardless of their message, but this has been the trend of the powers that be. Its more about popularity and marketing then it is simply about producing a high quality product.
And yes, the movie was popular, as a movie. Do people actually want theme park attractions of this property. I guess time will tell, and if this works more power to the powers that be, but I personally am neither excited nor interested, I am disappointed. How bout we stick to the theme the name of the park represents.