Joe Rohde on how Avatar fits within Disney's Animal Kingdom

Siren

Well-Known Member
Sigh. Basic Stock Answer: Disney is simply levering established paradigms against a more modernistic synergism, thus enabling a forward thinking lattice structured organization.

The addition of Avatar patterns into a more vertically integrated, organic and transparent entity, especially when embraced with fresh eyes.
Joe is overrated and most of his work, although beautiful, doesn't work properly a good chunk of the time or hold up very long. Visit Pandora soon after opening if you want to see it actually working as intended.
Wow. I hope this isn't about the Yeti.

Anyway, as far as "things not holding up" -- isn't that the nature of theme parks, in general, for things to not "hold up?" That can easily be attributed to Disney for lack of proper maintenance, abuse from guests, harsh operating conditions or just daily wear and tear.

Also, we can't overlook James Cameron's role in this. I'm sure he will see to it that Pandora is well maintained.
 
Last edited:

Gabe1

Ivory Tower Squabble EST 2011. WINDMILL SURVIVOR
I've been critical towards the Pandora world and it not fitting in. I think there is several things that people find difficult to accept with the project. That being said, I do believe the people who worked on this project, at least from what we've seen, have worked very hard on it, and it does look beautiful.

For me, I'm well aware Animal Kingdom was always going to explore the fantastical world of fictional animals, as seen by the dragon being represented on the original logo. Though I wasn't 100% sold on that concept even, I at the very least saw it's potential. Humans have long had beliefs and interactions,and even feelings towards some of these mythic creatures. Right now, there is a mythic animal in Animal Kingdom, being the Yeti, and no one mentions it, in terms of not fitting in, because it does. Man has long searched for the Yeti, or bigfoot. Legendary works of literature have explored animals like dragons, minotaurs, krakens, pegasus, hydras, loch ness monster etc. Many assume that those animals are just called mythic because they are fictional, but it has more to do with the fact those animals are intricate and incredibly important to whole cultures on this planet. During chinese New Years, Dragons are all over the place. Tales of bigfoot are spread throughout wooded areas, loch ness is a tourist attraction. The Sphinx is one of the most recognized images of ancient egypt. These animals don't only represent imagination and adventure, but also the cultures that they became prominent in. For everything Avatar has, I don't think it has that by any means. The sole reason mankind was even on Pandora was to mine it. It had little to do with teh nature or the animals, and had everything to do with the rock found on the planet. Animal Kingdom had the potential to try to make these animals as real as humanly possible, to the point people would question whether or not they were real.

Some on here have compared it to DinoLand. I don't see that at all. Whether you feel Dinoland is good or not, it makes sense that something like that could exist in this magical land, on the outskirts, similarly to Dumbo's Circus situated next to Fantasyland. With the exception of Dumbo and other Disney characters, Dumbo's circus (though I believe it is very well done) has very little to do with fantasy. Dinoland is a way to explore dinosaurs, both with man's interaction with them after the fact, as well as being taken back to the time of the Dinosaurs. Dinosaurs however have had a long standing position in relation to human's interests, understandings and affections towards them. They were real, and mankind has entire occupations devoted to understanding and studying them. They also go out and find them. No movie franchise on earth, including Star Wars and Potter, have had the interest level that dinosaurs have generated over mankind.

Harry Potter over at Islands of Adventure I do feel fits in quite nicely, as originally when Islands of Adventure opened, all the lands were popular IPs, but they also were lands that were based around literature. Marvel (comics), Newspaper comic strips, Jurassic Park (originally a book), Sinbad, Dr Seuss, all can be found in literature, just like Harry Potter is. The icon of Islands of Adventure is the Pharos Lighthouse which is the lighthouse of Alexandria, renowned for it's library. That being said, I think Potter fits in fine.

Pandora, from what I've seen is not a campsite or even a carnival, both things that are unquestionably found throughout the world, but rather it's own planet. A planet that humans can't even breathe on without oxygen masks. In the movie, you don't see human figures walking around Pandora. They have to change into their alien Avatars duplicates on the planet in order to live. The transfer from Discovery island to Pandora will be walking across a bridge?? Unless there's some sort or transporter, or teleportation device, that's going to be hard to justify.

Animal Kingdom is a great park, and Avatar I think honestly takes more abuse then it probably should on these boards. I just don't see the two meshing well. If you were going to take and infuse fiction into animal kingdom, it should be legend and myth, things of yesterday that have aged and grown with us all on this Earth. Science fiction, just doesn't do that. The creatures from Pirates of the Caribbean have more cultural and lasting impact both in legacy, but also being directly attached to mankind. Literally if it wasn't for the rock on Pandora, mankind wouldn't care about Pandora, it'd just be another planet. in the vast galaxy. It's not even part of our solar system. Krakens, dragons, mermaids, and unicorns are fictional beasts made from the minds of man, and influenced throughout this planet. There so old and so storied, few no where the first reference of them came. Every single animal mentioned there has been displayed existing on Earth. They are a part of our history and culture. Avatar is a really popular movie, but it's just a movie. It didn't even produce a comic book or novel series.

One way Avatar will help the park, is at night, as it's glowing forests should be a draw for people who are staying late at the park. Since fireworks can't be exploited, and animals go in after dark, at least many of them do, it is a reasonable advance to come up with things to do at night. I think that is a good idea, though I don't know that a whole land was needed.

Just the fact that Disney still has to have Joe once again stand up and speak out why Avatar fits into Animal Kingdom after all these years of development speaks volumes to the disconnect regardless if we ultimately love or hate the new land. At this stage I would have expected more teasers than explanations to the Whys this close to the lands debut.
 

wm49rs

A naughty bit o' crumpet
Premium Member
Sigh. Is it truly impossible to have just ONE Avatarland thread without this negativity?

Isn't there some kind of "complain" forum somewhere, for people who wish to wallow in despair over Beastly Kingdom and Figment with Dreamfinder and Food Rocks and Horizons or whatever it may be?
I really hope you're right because that's more room for me. We'll see.

Anyway. OMG. Pandora is just so beautiful to me.
Actually, it appears there's more than one. But, you're paid to ignore those irritating details....
 

SportsGoofy

Well-Known Member
I just think he's gone overboard with the floating mountains...dude's getting his shirt wet....
Screen Shot 2017-02-23 at 12.33.41 AM.png
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
Sigh. Is it truly impossible to have just ONE Avatarland thread without this negativity?

Isn't there some kind of "complain" forum somewhere, for people who wish to wallow in despair over Beastly Kingdom and Figment with Dreamfinder and Food Rocks and Horizons or whatever it may be?
I really hope you're right because that's more room for me. We'll see.

Anyway. OMG. Pandora is just so beautiful to me.

If everyone has the same opinion then there is no point in discussion boards.
 

michmousefan

Well-Known Member
Just the fact that Disney still has to have Joe once again stand up and speak out why Avatar fits into Animal Kingdom after all these years of development speaks volumes to the disconnect regardless if we ultimately love or hate the new land. At this stage I would have expected more teasers than explanations to the Whys this close to the lands debut.
You mean, like this?
https://twitter.com/visitpandora/status/834043866865090561

They are creating multiple types & methods of promotion to market this new land. Several different audiences they have to attract.
 

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
Just the fact that Disney still has to have Joe once again stand up and speak out why Avatar fits into Animal Kingdom after all these years of development speaks volumes to the disconnect regardless if we ultimately love or hate the new land. At this stage I would have expected more teasers than explanations to the Whys this close to the lands debut.
To be fair, Avatarland opening now has gotten a lot of "Oh yeah, Disney's still making a land based on Avatar" responses on non-Disney sites.
 

RandySavage

Well-Known Member
Pandora is a much better thematic fit to the park's overall core vision than Camp Minnie-Mickey ever was (IMO).

Any critique one sees typically applied to Pandora (not based on ages of human culture as it relates to animals; consisting of shoe-horned IP) applies also to the old CMM with the added minuses of CMM's internal incoherence (Virginian Pocahontas in an Adirondack Camp setting, African Lion King show in the same setting) and anthropomorphized character M&Gs (i.e. Mickey/Donald exist as humans driving cars, living in houses as apposed to toon animals as animals (ie. Jungle Book, Pluto).

Rohde really had to talk around CMM in 1998 interviews about how that land fit the original Vision (Real, Extinct, Imagined).

So Pandora bests (or at least equals) CMM in adherence to the park's theme, and it obliterates CMM in land atmosphere and attractions (safe to say). It's a huge improvement for the park.
 

Brad Bishop

Well-Known Member
It's sad that they trot Rhode out to explain management decisions.

CMM was: We don't want to spend the money. That's how it related to DAK. They happened to eventually build a theater with a hit show but, ultimately, CMM was "Budgetcutland".

One of the things that really suck, and I think it's just human nature, really, is that they'll have these plans, cut the budgets which mean things get cut and, rather than readdressing them a few years later they land on "good enough" and leave it.

You can see this with:
- DAK: CMM
- Tomorrowland's 1994 1/2 doneness
- Epcot with World Showcase
- DHS, just in general.

I completely get, "We need to tighten the purse strings this year.. Already over budget!".. Ok.. Cool.. give it a few years of rest and then go back and finish it... but they don't (and it's not just a Disney thing).
 

nolatron

Well-Known Member
I'm curious if these "3 core ideas of Animal Kingdom" that he's using to connect Pandora to Animal Kingdom have ever been mentioned before, or are they just new in order to create the connection?

1 - Intrinsic value of nature
2 - Transformation through adventure
3 - Personal Call to Action
 

DDLand

Well-Known Member
I'm curious if these "3 core ideas of Animal Kingdom" that he's using to connect Pandora to Animal Kingdom have ever been mentioned before, or are they just new in order to create the connection?

1 - Intrinsic value of nature
2 - Transformation through adventure
3 - Personal Call to Action
As @twebber55 said, those are ingrained into the Park's DNA. The best theme parks have a set of values from the very beginning and allow the park to keep future growth in line with past areas. If he was coming up with that now, there's no telling everything would fit into those goals.

A fun exercise to do is try to place your favorite Disney's Animal Kingdom attractions in those three goals. Take Everest for instance.

Intrinsic Value of Nature- After facing the Yeti you understand what a living breathing creature is capable of. The strength and majesty of those Animal instincts. Say what you will, but by the end of the ride most people feel the Yeti deserves to be left alone.

The Yeti is simply a metaphor for the wild and untamable aspects of nature. It's animal instincts and appearance evoke real animals. In the same way by the end of the attraction you feel that the Yeti is worth protecting, those sorts of feelings should apply elsewhere.

He's worth protecting not because you can watch him or because he does you a public service (in fact, he tries killing you) but because he's wild and untamable. He's Animal.

It is also accomplished by visuals too. Technically you're desecrating the Mountain by being there, but it's beautiful nonetheless.

By the end, you understand why the temple and the people of Serka Zong hold the Yeti in such high esteem.

Transformation through adventure- Pretty obvious here. You face the Yeti and almost die. It should change your outlook on things.

Call to Action- Because you've had those experiences above, you should feel moved to act differently. To approach Conservation differently and with more respect. Respect for the wild and untamable aspects of nature.

With the Yeti as a metaphorical tool, you should approach conservation knowing that though you may have doged him today, who knows what will happen in the future.

Humanity commonly looks at mountains as things that need to be conquered. In this case the conceit is turned on its head. The Mountain conquers man.

So do that just about anywhere in Disney's Animal Kingdom and you'll find it ingrained into the attractions.

Pandora is a much better thematic fit to the park's overall core vision than Camp Minnie-Mickey ever was (IMO).

Any critique one sees typically applied to Pandora (not based on ages of human culture as it relates to animals; consisting of shoe-horned IP) applies also to the old CMM with the added minuses of CMM's internal incoherence (Virginian Pocahontas in an Adirondack Camp setting, African Lion King show in the same setting) and anthropomorphized character M&Gs (i.e. Mickey/Donald exist as humans driving cars, living in houses as apposed to toon animals as animals (ie. Jungle Book, Pluto).

Rohde really had to talk around CMM in 1998 interviews about how that land fit the original Vision (Real, Extinct, Imagined).

So Pandora bests (or at least equals) CMM in adherence to the park's theme, and it obliterates CMM in land atmosphere and attractions (safe to say). It's a huge improvement for the park.

You're absolutely correct. Avatar should still at least be a showcase of natural Animal behaviors (though in a weird setting). All the same, still a disappointing compromise from my eyes.

Camp Minnie Mickey on the other hand was purely wrong. That was a terrible compromise. The park did need it. Sadly temporary things so often become permanent...

I cringe when people suggest things like Zootopia or Mystic Manor at Disney's Animal Kingdom.
 
Last edited:

twebber55

Well-Known Member
As @twebber55 said, those are ingrained into the Park's DNA. The best theme parks have a set of values from the very beginning and allow the park to keep future growth in line with past areas. If he was coming up with that now, there's no telling everything would fit into those goals.

A fun exercise to do is try to place your favorite Disney's Animal Kingdom attractions in those three goals. Take Everest for instance.

Intrinsic Value of Nature- After facing the Yeti you understand what a living breathing creature is capable of. The strength and majesty of those Animal instincts. Say what you will, but by the end of the ride most people feel the Yeti deserves to be left alone.

The Yeti is simply a metaphor for the wild and untamable aspects of nature. It's animal instincts and appearance evoke real animals. In the same way by the end of the attraction you feel that the Yeti is worth protecting, those sorts of feelings should apply elsewhere.

He's worth protecting not because you can watch him or because he does you a public service (in fact, he tries killing you) but because he's wild and untamable. He's Animal.

It is also accomplished by visuals too. Technically you're desecrating the Mountain by being there, but it's beautiful nonetheless.

By the end, you understand why the temple and the people of Serka Zong hold the Yeti in such high esteem.

Transformation through adventure- Pretty obvious here. You face the Yeti and almost die. It should change your outlook on things.

Call to Action- Because you've had those experiences above, you should feel moved to act differently. To approach Conservation differently and with more respect. Respect for the wild and untamable aspects of nature.

With the Yeti as a metaphorical tool, you should approach conservation knowing that though you may have doges him today, who knows what will happen in the future.

Humanity commonly looks at mountains as things that need to be conquered. In this case the conceit is turned on its head. The Mountain conquers man.

So doing that just about anywhere in Disney's Animal Kingdom and you'll find it ingrained into the attractions.



You're absolutely correct. Avatar should still at least be a showcase of natural Animal behaviors (though in a weird setting). All the same, still a disappointing compromise from my eyes.

Camp Minnie Mickey on the other hand was purely wrong. That was a terrible compromise. The park did need it. Sadly temporary things so often become permanent...

I cringe when people suggest things like Zootopia or Mystic Manor at Disney's Animal Kingdom.
your posts have on point
well said
 

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
Camp Minnie Mickey on the other hand was purely wrong. That was a terrible compromise. The park did need it. Sadly temporary things so often become permanent...
There's potential in the idea of a "Camp" setting with characters, it's just that what they came up with was really cheap and disjointed.

Something like using the National Parks setting of the Humphrey Bear cartoons or what Tokyo's done with the Junior Woodchucks as a base and exploring North American animals (and potentially the Fearsome Critters of lumberjack folklore) through the lens of classic Disney animation could have had potential. But it's waay too late to Monday Morning Quarterback over this sort of thing.
 

Gabe1

Ivory Tower Squabble EST 2011. WINDMILL SURVIVOR
To be fair, Avatarland opening now has gotten a lot of "Oh yeah, Disney's still making a land based on Avatar" responses on non-Disney sites.
:confused:

It is not like Joe's explanation is being seen by the masses. It isn't a Sunday night WDW Special we are speaking of or an infomercial Christmas Parade.
 

Brad Bishop

Well-Known Member
I'm curious if these "3 core ideas of Animal Kingdom" that he's using to connect Pandora to Animal Kingdom have ever been mentioned before, or are they just new in order to create the connection?

1 - Intrinsic value of nature
2 - Transformation through adventure
3 - Personal Call to Action
4 - IPs are OK if we can explain them away. (Which means every IP)

Woody Wookpecker would fit:
- He's a woodpecker
- He transforms nature through his pecking of wood
- He makes me want to burrow some holes in trees.
- All IPs can be explained and placed anywhere in any of the parks. Theming has no value... Just look at how the Six Flags parks have evolved over time.
 

Gabe1

Ivory Tower Squabble EST 2011. WINDMILL SURVIVOR
You mean, like this?
https://twitter.com/visitpandora/status/834043866865090561

They are creating multiple types & methods of promotion to market this new land. Several different audiences they have to attract.
And yet they still find themselves in a position to trot Joe out yet again to defend and explain why they stuck it in Animal Kingdom.

At least Disney stopped trying to explain Frozen in the World Showcase and just gave it a rest already.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom