Disney Irish
Premium Member
You’re reading too much into it. It was meant to be vague for a reason. As I said I just take the post to mean we’re not getting a clone of the land from AK.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Avatar Experience coming to Disneyland Resort
- Thread starter DCBaker
- Start date
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Could be but “this isn’t Pandora” can be interpreted in different ways. Pandora is the entire planet both movies have taken place on. If the new DCA land is set in a different part of the planet He could have said this isn’t the same version of Pandora. Anyway, can’t put too much stock in anything. He’s obviously choosing his words carefully. Don’t wanna pi$$ off that source now.
I’d rather have a Pandora clone than a Spaceport based in California that takes us to Pandora. The devil you know…
I’ll take my chances with a copy of some of the last WDI generations great work vs the question mark the people of today are giving us.
Last edited:
D.Silentu
Well-Known Member
"The devil you know.." point of view is completely understandable. My perspective is a little bit off center here. I've never been to Animal Kingdom so my only exposure to World Of Avatar is via media. While it may be very impressive in person, frankly it does not remind me of the planet in the film apart from a few recognizable icons. At least, not in the same way Cars Land or Wizarding World feel transportive. Pandora was depicted on film as dense and canopied jungle for the most part, which I just am not seeing in photos and film of the land. For that reason I've suggested that a 3D experience or indoor land might be a more suitable depiction. Likewise, it's why I find Yensid's 'Not what you'd expect' comment intriguing.
Consumer
Well-Known Member
I'll echo these sentiments. A singular attraction is far better suited for Avatar than an entire land for this reason. Whether it be a 3D experience, a boat ride, or something different, a land is far too limited to properly portray Pandora.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
I haven’t been there so I can’t really say but it seems to have great reviews. The big thing for me is that it’s aesthetically very pleasant and works as a theme park environment much better than lifeless GE or Avengers Campus. It also has a boat ride and perhaps the greatest simulator attraction on earth. It may not be identical to the film (not sure it has to be) but I guarantee you we’d all prefer it to a big plasticky Zootopia land with another trackless ride. You are comparing to the greatest single IP lands ever created (although I’m about 99% sure I’d prefer Pandora to the Wizarding World at USH) but I’m comparing it to other realistic contenders for new lands at DLR in the current climate.
I’m completely ok with the idea of an Avatar ride without a land but what land would that work other than maybe Tomorrowland which is a risk I do not want to take. Any Avatar ride would need at least a mini land. Or I guess it could go into some sort of new Adventureland in DL Forward but that’s not happening.
D.Silentu
Well-Known Member
I see what you mean when comparing something like World Of Avatar to Avengers Campus. However, you bring up the parameter of realistic comparisons and Zootopia land. I believe there is a relevant connection between the two. While neither of us want to see Zootopia here, I think it works as a proof of concept that such detailed and immersive lands are still possible. Zootopia somehow prevailed as a land that is vastly more visually engaging than Avengers Campus, both having a roughly concurrent construction cycles during a challenging time. I take this, and the fact that Disney will want to please James Cameron as positive signs.
Offhandedly, you posited whether film based lands need to be identical to their source movies. I'm not completely sure they have to be, although it's worth remembering all the people who complained that Galaxy's Edge was an invented planet. I don't mind this though, it looks like Star Wars, the fault is that it just seems to feel empty. As far as I can tell World Of Avatar is certainly more pleasing to behold than Galaxy's Edge, but it doesn't look all that much like Pandora to me. The trouble I run into here is that if I'm meant to be stepping into the world of Avatar and it's beautiful, but feels inauthentic, was it really worth devoting a whole land to a single intellectual property? Personally, I'm not so sure it is.
Offhandedly, you posited whether film based lands need to be identical to their source movies. I'm not completely sure they have to be, although it's worth remembering all the people who complained that Galaxy's Edge was an invented planet. I don't mind this though, it looks like Star Wars, the fault is that it just seems to feel empty. As far as I can tell World Of Avatar is certainly more pleasing to behold than Galaxy's Edge, but it doesn't look all that much like Pandora to me. The trouble I run into here is that if I'm meant to be stepping into the world of Avatar and it's beautiful, but feels inauthentic, was it really worth devoting a whole land to a single intellectual property? Personally, I'm not so sure it is.
Gusey
Well-Known Member
As in Backlot isn't becoming Pandora/Avatar but something else??
I can see an Avatar land fitting between Toontown and Galaxy's Edge, similar to Hong Kong's berm lands
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
Avatar is planned to go in the Backlot.
Avatar does not mean “Pandora: The World of Avatar” from Animal Kingdom.
Like I said earlier, it’s not what you’d expect . . .
SplashJacket
Well-Known Member
So excited for Blue Man Group: An Avatar Musical coming to Hyperion and Superstar Navi, race through Pandora as we chase the greatest chiefs for photos to send back to earth on a top-secret reconnaissance mission!
Last edited:
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Zootopia land>>>>> Avengers Campus. Still don't think it deserves a place at DLR with our limited expansion space. Sure its shows they can build a land but we already knew that. Galaxies Edge is only a few years old. They obviously can do it. They're just making the wrong choices and cutting out the wrong things when the budget gets tight(er).
The GE situation is different. They went with an invented planet and did not include most of the OT characters etc. Pandora features the most iconic part of the Avatar films. The floating Mountains. The beautiful scenery. Those dragon things. You have zero lightsaber battles in GE. Not one mention of the force outside of the $300 experience. Whether you think Pandora was executed well is another story. I'm just saying if the jungle not feeling large or dense enough doesn't make Pandora land like Pandora then most lands will fall short. If that is the expectation. I'm not sure many that have actually been to the land share the sentiment that the land feels inauthentic. Not something I've heard or read.
Last edited:
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
hahah yes we touched on this pages ago. The beach from the movie isn’t very distinct (at least from what I remember) and a beach in general doesn't really translate well to a theme park environment but I suppose it could work as a little mini land with one ride. It would make sense if the ride was centered more around the sequel (or maybe even part 3) but you also have to consider the land that the ride would reside in and how that translates to a theme park.
Last edited:
If they do an immersive Avatar themed resort in the corner…
That’s the only “unexpected” thing I can think of. I just don’t know if they’d be dumb enough to take valuable theme park space for a hotel.
Largest. Splash pad. Ever!
D.Silentu
Well-Known Member
This is what it all comes down to really. Here, I think they were a little too preoccupied with their floating mountain to the point that details I would have expected were dismissed. I'm glad that we can anticipate another approach to whatever is in the works for California.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
I don’t think I’ve seen a whole walk through of the entire land. If I have its been a long time. Don’t want to spoil too much. Haven’t seen a ride through of FOP either.
If it’s not a clone, I’m 99% sure that what we’ll get won’t be as good as Pandora from AK. What have they done since 2013 that’s as good domestically? Not to say the ride can’t or won’t be good but the land I’m 99% sure won’t be as good. Not with these guys in this climate. There would have to be a big shift. I guess it’s always possible we can look back and say Avatar at DCA is where things started to turn for the better.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I get your pessimism but I don't think we can write this off yet just because it won't be a clone of the land in AK. Because of how its being hyped not once but multiple times by Iger makes me think they have an ambitious plan.
Now maybe it'll end up being a dud, but I just don't think we can jump to that yet.
chadwpalm
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Most people don't realize Avatar 3 and a third of Avatar 4 have already been filmed and supposedly part 3 explores other areas of Alpha Centauri.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
I don’t think it’ll be a dud I just think the odds are that it won’t be as good if it’s not a clone. Pandora at AK feels like they spared no expense and they had Rohde in charge. It was designed and built during a period in history where the company/ WDI still had a lot of their institutional knowledge and were killing it with lands like Cars Land. They were also in a much better financial state. For those reasons, the odds are very high that if they don’t go with a clone it will not be as good. It can still be good but it won’t be as good. A lot of new things at Disney parks are a mixed bag or just “good.” I want something great.