AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[Scuttle]

I agree with this.

http://horizonreviews.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/review-of-disneys-avatarland-announcement/

Me to, that review is spot on IMO.

 

[George]

IMO, most of the complaints are weird. Avatar isn't my favorite, but I do have eyeballs. If anyone can't be a little excited that what is arguably the most visually stunning special effects spectacular of all time has been franchised by Disney who is now going to work with Cameron to make an immersive environment based on the movie that already wowed our eyeballs, I find it odd. Really odd. The movies rating? Not the right imaginary animals? Worried about the planet's atmosphere? Really? Disney could blow it, but we've got quite a while to judge that. Right now, I'm just really happy something cool is in the pipeline.

 

[JustInTime]

Wow, way to not read a single word I wrote!

People arent looking to complain, we are looking to discuss. We are just trying to get you guys to respect our opinions and our hesitation about the project. This is a message board, we're discussing the announcement of some pretty big news. Not everyone is going to have the same opinion. If everyone just agreed, whats the point?

I am okay with people being hesitant. I encourage that. But the rating on a movie has nothing to do with what is going in the park. And if it was something that was actually up for debate, we would lose some already stellar attractions. All I am saying is if you are going to spend your energy worrying about something, at least have it be relevant and worth your time. And this isn't person specific. Just because I quote you, it's not an attack. It's for the people who are worried about the films rating in general.

 

[kap91]

Okay i was trying to keep up with this thread on Day 1 but have slacked off since then so this might have been mentioned before:

I've heard a lot of people talking about concerns about how either they hated the movie, didn't see the movie, or are concerned about the lasting power of it. So in answer to that:

The popularity or success of a theme park attraction has very little to do with the success or longevity of the franchise its based on. Splash Mountain is one of the most popular rides in the Magic Kingdom and few if any people could even tell you the movie its based on, and even less have actually seen Song of the South which in all honesty is not the most interesting movie ever made. Yet people love Splash Mountain. Splash isn't an isolated case either. The Jungle Cruise comes to mind (the african queen), 20,000 leagues and the submarine voyage, Mr. Toad, Tom Sawyer's Island, and you could argue the Matterhorn (third man on the mountain) but I'll leave that off. All extremely popular and beloved attractions that turned out great even though the movies were either not very well known or not very loved. What is important is that they provided great experiences that are immersive and exciting with great visuals along the way. Pandora can fit all those requirements.

People also seemed to be concerned because they say Avatar's storyline isn't original. That certainly is true but the setting, beings, characters, and circumstances of Avatar are some of the most original material to hit the theatre in years. And really is originality or experience more important in a theme park attraction? i would argue experience.

Indiana Jones (the ride), Dinosaur, Star Tours (more the original), Everest, Mission: Space, Body Wars, Splash Mountain, Thunder Mountain, Maelstorm, Journey to the center of the earth, and indeed Wild Artic, Spiderman, Forbidden Journey, Mummy, the Simpsons, Earthquake, Jaws, and Jurassic Park all have roughly the same story. You're going on some sort of trip, something goes wrong, there's some sort of climatic chase/escape, then you return to the loading dock. Not very original.Even on a slightly more detailed level some are pretty similar. Take Indy and Everest: "there's some evil legend lurking in the temple/mountain and low and behold you just happen to encounter it". The thing that makes them unique and different and each worth going on is the setting, visuals, and ride system. While story influences everything about a theme park, ultimately it is the experience that matters.

Finally people worry about the appropriateness of Avatar in Animal Kingdom and if the story really fits. The movie has a strong conservation theme and is at least half about nature. The movie also has strong mythological connections very similar to those of most the cultures of earth, although obviously not the specific ones common to different earth cultures. Animal Kingdom is most certainly a park with a message about conservation and nature and the connection among all species including humans. How does Avatar not fit the bill? It's practically preaching that message. Furthermore, if there was any doubt lets go back to the originality complaint. People say Avatar is just like Pocahontas (which it is). Would anyone be questioning whether Pocahontas belonged in Animal Kingdom? No! In fact, she was/is already there. If the story and themes of Pocahontas are appropriate to Animal Kingdom, and Avatar really is just that story and theme but with a much more interesting, compelling, and imagination inspiring world, then surely Avatar is appropriate for Animal Kingdom as well.

So sorry for the long post, but regardless if you personally like the idea or not, I don't think you can argue against it with the complaints mentioned above. I'm very excited for the potential this land has and can't wait to hear more.

P.S. A while back tons of people (and i'm sure several are ones against the Avatar expansion)were clamoring for a LOST island to replace Tom Sawyer's. Anyone want to take a stab on how LOST has any relationship to the Old West or Revolutionary America?

 

[Prototype82]

Because when it comes to the Disney BRAND; heart, cute, silly, fun, warming, truthful, classic--Avatar does not fit into ANY of these things.

Yeah, let's build something totally fluffy and adorable to be our next exotic adventure at AK. :ROFLOL: I'm sorry, but the Disney brand is versatile. It's everything from Tangled to Tron, science to industry.

 

[NMBC1993]

IMO, most of the complaints are weird. Avatar isn't my favorite, but I do have eyeballs. If anyone can't be a little excited that what is arguably the most visually stunning special effects spectacular of all time has been franchised by Disney who is now going to work with Cameron to make an immersive environment based on the movie that already wowed our eyeballs, I find it odd. Really odd. The movies rating? Not the right imaginary animals? Worried about the planet's atmosphere? Really? Disney could blow it, but we've got quite a while to judge that. Right now, I'm just really happy something cool is in the pipeline.

I tend to agree, while I didn't really enjoy Avatar that much I'm still excited for the expansion. IMO I just think they're going about it the wrong way, instead of making (insert title here) land they should dust off those Beastly Kingdom plans and build that with Avatar being the flagship attraction. I just think down the road when the next big fantasy adventure film comes out, Disney will be kicking themselves for only focusing on one franchise instead of adding Avatar along with dragons, unicorns, etc since it will have a broader appeal. Plus as someone else already stated, the other two movies are not even out yet, we might end up having a franchise that turns out like a lot of others where the first was good and the others were horrible.

 

[Computer Magic]

Me to, that review is spot on IMO.

I found the last sentence interesting "It is a little sad that Disney couldn’t come up with something on their own that was original."

When was the last time Disney did something original? They had to buy Pixar because their CGI didn't hold up. Disney bought Marvel because they didn't have much for boys. Disney bought Muppets. Disney bought the idea behind MGM movies, Star Wars and Indiana Jones. So why not buy idea of Avatar?

Universal bought the idea behind Potter.

I don't think Disney does much with creating orginial ideas. Disney has enough money to wait and buy the next great idea.

 

[Dukeblue1227]

I am okay with people being hesitant. I encourage that. But the rating on a movie has nothing to do with what is going in the park. And if it was something that was actually up for debate, we would lose some already stellar attractions. All I am saying is if you are going to spend your energy worrying about something, at least have it be relevant and worth your time. And this isn't person specific. Just because I quote you, it's not an attack. It's for the people who are worried about the films rating in general.

Gotta 100% agree with what you're saying.

It's just kind of outrageous to me that people would be upset with a new theme park land based on a movie that is rated PG-13.

All three POTC were rated PG-13. Harry Potter's were rated PG-13. The last Star Wars movie was rated PG-13.

American Idol experience is based on a telvision show on Fox that allows for people to use the D-word.

Like... if you have a 4 year-old and you don't want them to walk through a Theme Park because it's based on a PG-13 rated movie... then don't. Walk through the FLE.

I'm a 26 year old male with no kids... gotta say I legitimately couldn't careless about the FLE. It has absolutely zero things appealing to me, and to me it's kind of disappointing that something so big is going in that I really won't value for probably... 10 years at least until I have kids to take there.

But Disney has to appeal to everyone. So maybe this will appeal to a SLIGHTLY older crowd than the FLE. But they can't keep building lands based on fairy-tale animated movies that are aimed at Children. Just as I might have to wait 10 years to truly enjoy FLE, maybe families who find it unreasonable to have a land based on a PG-13 movie will have to wait a few years until their kids are older.

No matter what the case though... if you "rated" theme parks I can assure you the land won't be a PG-13 rated area. It is still Disney... they are simply using the themes from a movie that happened to be PG-13 to create it into an enjoyable family park.

And again, i found it flatout ludicrous that someone doesn't approve of that. Sorry, but I find it appalling.

 

[WDWmazprty]

Yeah, I know. Its like I posted earlier, you can't please everyone. Of course everyone has a right to their opinion, but to bash the idea before it even has a chance to develop is ridiculous.

Maybe it will bomb! Who knows? But at least try to be positive and HOPE this will be a good thing for the Parks. There are a lot of things I personally don't think should be in Disney World for whatever reasons, but they're there and it works for most people.

Disney is a business and will do whatever they think is necessary to MAKE MONEY and keep everything going. Its the majority of people they are trying to cater to, which, looking at the movie sales and overall popularity of the movie tells Disney....well, Avatar works for the majority of the public..this will be a good thing.

Only time will tell if this was a really wise decision or not, but I liked Avatar as a movie, it was entertaining, which is what movies are for. If they make you feel anything else much deeper and make you reflect about your life, then great.

But the story doesnt always have to be wonderful or relevant; if I'm entertained for a couple hours for whatever reason, then its done its job and I'm happy. Every movie will not be life changing or Oscar worthy or even make sense. However, Avatar-IMHO-was a great fantasy/sci-fi flick with great special effects and a good, although frequently done, storyline/plot.

Overall, I think the addition will be a big money maker for Disney and a good entertainment addition for AK. Although we're well aware of the ones who don't like it, which I think will be in the overall minority.

Gotta 100% agree with what you're saying.

It's just kind of outrageous to me that people would be upset with a new theme park land based on a movie that is rated PG-13.

All three POTC were rated PG-13. Harry Potter's were rated PG-13. The last Star Wars movie was rated PG-13.

American Idol experience is based on a telvision show on Fox that allows for people to use the D-word.

Like... if you have a 4 year-old and you don't want them to walk through a Theme Park because it's based on a PG-13 rated movie... then don't. Walk through the FLE.

I'm a 26 year old male with no kids... gotta say I legitimately couldn't careless about the FLE. It has absolutely zero things appealing to me, and to me it's kind of disappointing that something so big is going in that I really won't value for probably... 10 years at least until I have kids to take there.

But Disney has to appeal to everyone. So maybe this will appeal to a SLIGHTLY older crowd than the FLE. But they can't keep building lands based on fairy-tale animated movies that are aimed at Children. Just as I might have to wait 10 years to truly enjoy FLE, maybe families who find it unreasonable to have a land based on a PG-13 movie will have to wait a few years until their kids are older.

No matter what the case though... if you "rated" theme parks I can assure you the land won't be a PG-13 rated area. It is still Disney... they are simply using the themes from a movie that happened to be PG-13 to create it into an enjoyable family park.

And again, i found it flatout ludicrous that someone doesn't approve of that. Sorry, but I find it appalling.

:sohappy:

 

[Scuttle]

Disney already has this person. His name is John Lasseter. Not to mention the the largest share holder is a guy you might have heard of, Steve Jobs.

Of course those two are brilliant, but why not add another brilliant mind to the mix. I think JC has a different vision than both of them. I mean come on he wrote a 400 page encyclopedia about Pandora. That's dedication and being a perfectionist. Which is exactly what makes me so excited about this expansion.

 

[Scuttle]

Also, I have to say I was pretty impressed that Tom Staggs addressed not only the positive questions, but the negative ones as well. That was pretty cool and unexpected.

Staggs seems like an all around cool guy. Everything he has done so far I definitely approve of.

 

[JohnLocke]

As I've said before, even though I don't like the movie as much as most, I don't see the hate for this idea. Any big attraction is welcome in my book, and even though I'd much rather have something based on many other properties, I'll still take this.

If nothing else, look at this new land as a new place to draw crowds to help out with your other favorite attractions wait time, and hopefully this, FLE, and anything else coming soon will keep revenues up and lead to more expansions in the future.

 

[Scuttle]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-hill/avatar-park_b_973615.html

I have no idea if anyone has posted this link yet, but it's an interesting article.

 

[GLaDOS]

And as Tom was standing there... Well, he kind of wished that there was an intellectual property out there that would allow the Imagineers to take everything that they had learned from working on the "Star Tours: The Adventures Continue" project and the construction of Cars Land and then combine it. Create a hybrid, if you will. The theme park version of some sci-fi / fantasy world that the guests could actually enter. Where -- through the use of innovative ride systems and cutting-edge technology -- they could then have this incredibly immersive experience. One where it felt like the guests weren't just passively viewing, they were actually visiting this far-off place.

Ummmm...how did he not immediately think of STAR WARS!?:lol::brick:

Avatar is a good idea for a land, but Star Wars outclasses it by a mile.

 

[nngrendel]

My feelings have thoroughly been expressed within these 1700 post. I do not feel like repeating something that has already been mentioned.
If you read back and find the plethora of positive, or "I will wait until I see before I lose it" comments these are my thoughts exactly.

 

[bferrara16]

Yeah, I'm sorry but I can already see our lovely community's responses to such a thing: Lazy! Half-cooked! Uninspired! And you know why? Because that excuse for theming everything and anything at DHS is tired and lazy, and I'd rather see WDI be challenged with making it fit over at DAK.

If I was an imagineer I'm sure I'd have a better idea for you. Sadly, I'm not. I was presented a question and I gave my best stab at it. My skeptical mind can only think that it'd be much easier for the real Imagineers to place Avatar in DHS than AK, and thats a good thing. Create too much of a challenge and it becomes a reach or a shoehorn. That's what I'm thinking is going to happen here.

But what would you have in DHS instead? Things NOT associated with movies? It's already a hodgepodge of sorts. The common link I can find is movies & hollywood (which Avatar most certainly is). No need to disrupt AK's theme just for the sake of a Potter Swatter and a "challenge".

 

[fosse76]

Point of irony.....

So many people complain that Disney is always too late to the game making attractions based on IPs that are at the end of their life span. (ie American Idol, Kim Possible, etc) In this case Disney is in somewhat on the ground floor. Now people are complaining that Avatar has no track record, fan base, staying power, etc.

You can't have it both ways.

Is Disney taking a chance? Sure, but is that not what so many of you want them to do?

Well, as I stated in another post, the irony is that the same arguments people in this thread are making against Avatar-land, the Avatar-land supporters were making making against Harry Potter. Why? Oh, because it's Disney, who can do no wrong. As I mentioned in my post, Simply being the highest grossing film of all time doesn't mean anything: E.T. and Jurassic Park ALSO held that title, and while not completely forgotten they aren't at the height of pop culture.

If Disney does the area well, then it won't matter (and I think Avatar leads to realtively easy re-themeing if they decide to drop the license). The difference between Harry Potter and Avatar is that Harry Potter is a a much bigger success, because its fanbase isn't strictly confined to the movies (Fed-Ex had devoted trucks solely to delivering the books...can't say the same thing about Avatar DVDs).

Now I'm not saying anything against this investment, though I too would have preferred an expansion at DAK to at least be based on real folklore and mythology as opposed to the commercialism that is Avatar, but that's neither here nor there.

And for the record, Avatar broke the record for the highest number of Blu-Ray DVDs sold, but not regular DVDs.

 

[bferrara16]

I found the last sentence interesting "It is a little sad that Disney couldn’t come up with something on their own that was original."

When was the last time Disney did something original? They had to buy Pixar because their CGI didn't hold up. Disney bought Marvel because they didn't have much for boys. Disney bought Muppets. Disney bought the idea behind MGM movies, Star Wars and Indiana Jones. So why not buy idea of Avatar?

Universal bought the idea behind Potter.

I don't think Disney does much with creating orginial ideas. Disney has enough money to wait and buy the next great idea.

I think the idea of originality stems from rides like E:E (even disco version), the Safari, KRR, etc. being able to stand alone without a movie attachment. I'm glad we don't have Harry and the Henderson's presents E:E, Ace Ventura's Kilimanjaro Safari (awfully hot in these rhinos) and J-Lo's Amazon River Rapids. I guess that's why I fall on the side of wishing this was an Australia or the more general Beastly Kingdom ideas (which I acknowledge were probably out the window once DD was built in IOA and E:E went to Asia). Why does the new expansion need the movie?

(And before you type, I know your answer - money and instant name recognition).

 

[bferrara16]

This is a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" scenario when it comes to the hardcore Disney fans.

They don't get Avatar rights...
you hear, "They need to do something, Universal has Harry Potter!"

They do get the rights...
"Why would they go after that horrible movie?!?!?"

If they put it in the Magic Kingdom:
This doesn't belong here! Walt wouldn't have approved! Tomorrowland is not Avatar!

If they put it in Epcot:
Why do we need a character overlay for EVERYTHING!?!?! Universe of Energy does NOT need Avatar...bring back Ellen!

If they put it in DHS:
If they're going for an expansion, they should've done Star Wars or Indiana Jones or Muppets or Pixar!!!

If they put it in DAK:
Well...we're hearing that now.

Bottom line...none of us have a voice in where it goes...if you don't like it...don't go!
Remember, this isn't your backyard where you can choose where the swingset is going.

If you're anti-Avatar...there are plenty of other places in WDW to visit.

I vote for choice 5. I'll take that discussion any day (because it focuses only on other potential positives, not adding a negative).

 

[fractal]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-hill/avatar-park_b_973615.html

I have no idea if anyone has posted this link yet, but it's an interesting article.

Thanks for posting that Scuttle.

I think this is the most interesting and informative part of that article.

"One of the things that we found when we screened (AVATAR) was that the scenes that people liked best were not the obvious things, like the big battle scenes, and that sort of thing. It was the creatures. It was learning to fly. It was being in the forest at night. The impression that we got was people just like to go to Pandora," Tom continued. "So here's an opportunity to use (our) animatronic technology, and all of these amazing craftsmanship and design capabilities of Imagineering, and possibly rolling in mixed-media, 3-D projections, holography. Whatever makes sense to build, bring this world to life and actually get to wander in it and explore it, and see things you didn't see either in the first film or in the subsequent two."

Long story short: If you like the recently-opened "Star Tours: The Adventures Continue" ride at Disneyland Park and WDW's Disney's Hollywood Studios theme park, then think about how much you're going to enjoy an attraction that not only flies you to a far-off place like Pandora but also allows you to exit that craft and go off and explore this world.

Well, that's what Disney is hoping to bring to Animal Kingdom in the not-so-distant future. So keep an eye on this Central Florida theme park. Because -- sometime in late 2015 / early 2016 -- The Wizarding World of Harry Potter will have some brand-new competition. Thanks to the world of James Cameron's AVATAR.