AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[andre85]

Oh and I find it interesting how most people admit that they haven't even seen the movie.

Pretty sure most people have said they HAVE seen the movie...the small portion of posts you're reading doesn't count.

 

[djkidkaz]

Glad to see some love coming to AK.

I assume this will force them to keep the park open later as they are going to want to let people see the beautiful colors and evening lights of Pandora.

This should also push them to come up with a plan for the rest of the park. Unless they plan to stay open late and just have Avatar land, Everest and Bugs life to see. They could also have a nighttime light show in pandora or something where the land "comes to life with color".

Never seen the movie, but from what I know of it, there are plenty of possibilities! Interested...

 

[Crazy Harry]

Pretty sure most people have they they HAVE seen the movie...the small portion of posts you're reading doesn't count.

Well, I'll add myself to the small portion...

 

[MAF]

Pretty sure most people have they they HAVE seen the movie...the small portion of posts you're reading doesn't count.

...and the people who have seen it have admitted that they disliked or are indifferent to the film. I think that speaks VOLUMES.

What happens when the sequal bombs in the box office? Is Disney going to scramble to find the next new fad franchise to shoehorn into AK or will they force through with it?

 

[Pioneer Hall]

again, conservation is not a theme. Also, if the imaginary creatures of Pandora fit in with animal kingdom then Stitch and the aliens from Alien would fit into Animal Kingdom too right?

Again, this point is debatable because many of us certainly believe that it can be a theme. Whenever I have taken classes the "theme" was the overall idea that was trying to be brought across. To me conservation is certainly a theme, perhaps not an environment, but it is a theme. You think different, and that's fine. However, sitting and arguing with people who disagree with you isn't going to make your point any more valid.

 

[andre85]

Well, I'll add myself to the small portion...

You do that...

 

[stitchcastle]

Pretty sure most people have they they HAVE seen the movie...the small portion of posts you're reading doesn't count.

Funny, I've seen the movie, saw it twice in theaters and completely understand why it would never fit in with Animal Kingdom.

A lot of the people praising its addition also admit to never having seen the movie.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Pretty sure most people have they they HAVE seen the movie...the small portion of posts you're reading doesn't count.

The current Mrs Sak has seen the movie, or the first 20 mins, before declaring it a busted flush. She however is obsessed by Twilight and love Lord of the Hippy Elves, go figure. Theres nowt as queer as folk.

 

[Thrill]

I'm sorry, but this is much different. There are mytohological aspects of Yetis, but they could infact be real creatures based on numerous sighting and inclusion in many cultures. Nevertheless, human culture regarding animals, mythological or not, is a part of the pre-established theme of AK, and not fictional creatures on an alien planet. There is a difference between mythology and pure fiction. Mythology is a part of culture that has some aspect of truth to it. Fiction is just that, not mythology.

Again, I made assumptions and simplified so as to not make things overly complex when it came to the Yeti.

As for the distinction between myth and fiction, Avatar is certainly a work of fiction. Which is a problem, yes.

After all, is the animal kingdom being refered to Earth itself? If it is, how do aliens on another planet fit? Conservation is the only part of Avatar that fits in AK, which I believe is not enough to truly fit the theme of the park.

Admittedly, Avatar is not a perfect fit. But it can work. There are worse placement issues at Walt Disney World. Far worse. I'm willing to take a bit of that in exchange for a much needed possible mega-expansion at Animal Kingdom.

 

[mightynine]

...and the people who have seen it have admitted that they disliked or are indifferent to the film. I think that speaks VOLUMES.

What happens when the sequal bombs in the box office? Is Disney going to scramble to find the next new fad franchise to shoehorn into AK or will they force through with it?

Since you can see into the future, can you grab me the winning Powerball numbers for tomorrow night? Thanks.

 

[andre85]

...and the people who have seen it have admitted that they disliked or are indifferent to the film. I think that speaks VOLUMES.

Many of which people have also said the visuals are beautiful and they can see why it would make for a compelling theme park experience.

 

[andre85]

Funny, I've seen the movie, saw it twice in theaters and completely understand why it would never fit in with Animal Kingdom.

Understand? You don't think it will fit in; that doesn't mean you understand anything better than any other poster here.

 

[stitchcastle]

Again, this point is debatable because many of us certainly believe that it can be a theme. Whenever I have taken classes the "theme" was the overall idea that was trying to be brought across. To me conservation is certainly a theme, perhaps not an environment, but it is a theme. You think different, and that's fine. However, sitting and arguing with people who disagree with you isn't going to make your point any more valid.

It's hardly debateable if its a "theme" within the context of a "theme" park. By saying that conservation is all you need to be in line with The Animal Kingdom park, then Wall-E would be a good fit for the park as well.

 

[ISTCrew20]

A few questions I have about today's Avatar announcement. Feel free to weigh in:

1) Why would they make such a huge announcement during a random, un-streamed press conference? Even the press event for the Memories campaign was hyped up and was streamed live. That was not as major an announcement as this. Adding to that, they could have made this announcement during the Expo, the upcoming 40th anniversary of WDW, or the upcoming media event for fiscal year 2012.

2) Why would they choose to announce this now when details are so scarce? No concept art / no specifics / no anything. Why not wait until details are more clear?

3) Why does the Disney company feel the need to continue to PURCHASE outside properties instead of using their own license to create new experiences?


I find it interesting how this press conference was so similar to the initial Wizarding World one - Announced partnership and vague timelines and ideas but really held back specifics. The only difference was that Universal released one piece of original concept art.

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

I'm sure Disney will realize what a mistake this is and "retool" it just like they did with the Fantasyland expansion. I mean we have until 2017 or later to wait. Its sad that the next big thing we'll get in WDW is this garbage and its going to take around 10 years. Sad...

Oh and I find it interesting how most people admit that they haven't even seen the movie. So Disney is banking on a franchise that their core customers don't even care about? They really didn't think this through at all did they? I guess all they could see was how they could snatch up a popular franchise to compete with Harry Potter. How short sighted.

Maybe they're trying to reach out to new visitors who'll come down to ride Avatar (just like more people went to Universal for Harry Potter), as well as the fact that recurring guests/locals will be happy to see anything new on such a large scale after years of relatively slow development at WDW.

And I'm probably one of the few people who hasn't seen it, but I've heard a lot about it...mostly positive. Very positive. In addition, this film received an academy award nomination for best picture, and it has an 83% on Rotten Tomatoes (quite solid). I'll see the movie eventually (it's sitting on my DVR at home), but there are plenty of people that this addition will appeal to.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

It's hardly debateable if its a "theme" within the context of a "theme" park. By saying that conservation is all you need to be in line with The Animal Kingdom park, then Wall-E would be a good fit for the park as well.

I disagree with that because context makes a difference. The core of Wall-E takes place in what we know of as Space (stars, ships, planets, etc). The "Space" that Avatar is in, is a made up land with lush landscapes that could mimic some places on Earth. If Wall-E was a different movie that took place in the Rainforest then I would believe that it could have its place in the park possibly...although I think it would be a harder fit that the project at hand.

 

[andre85]

3) Why does the Disney company feel the need to continue to PURCHASE outside properties instead of using their own license to create new experiences.

Do we need to post that list of licensed attractions again? You could ask that very same question in regards to any of them.

 

[stitchcastle]

Understand? You don't think it will fit in; that doesn't mean you understand anything better than any other poster here.

when did I say that I understand it better than anyone? It's simple logic, it's a movie about aliens, why would it fit in a park about animals?

 

[menamechris]

I'm sorry, but this is much different. There are mytohological aspects of Yetis, but they could infact be real creatures based on numerous sighting and inclusion in many cultures. Nevertheless, human culture regarding animals, mythological or not, is a part of the pre-established theme of AK, and not fictional creatures on an alien planet. There is a difference between mythology and pure fiction. Mythology is a part of culture that has some aspect of truth to it. Fiction is just that, not mythology.

After all, is the animal kingdom being refered to Earth itself? If it is, how do aliens on another planet fit? Conservation is the only part of Avatar that fits in AK, which I believe is not enough to truly fit the theme of the park.

How about unicorns? Those were a part of the original plans of Beastly Kingdom. Clearly fiction, however.

 

[Crazy Harry]

Again, this point is debatable because many of us certainly believe that it can be a theme. Whenever I have taken classes the "theme" was the overall idea that was trying to be brought across. To me conservation is certainly a theme, perhaps not an environment, but it is a theme. You think different, and that's fine. However, sitting and arguing with people who disagree with you isn't going to make your point any more valid.

But isn't that what you are doing too, arguing with people who disagree with you? And this is ok, we don't have to agree about anything and express our opposing views, that is the point of a discussion. The worst thing we can do is express our view then tell someone else they should not express theirs.

Now, since conservation is a THEME which should be included in AK, then does Wall-E fit?