SeaCastle
Well-Known Member
What, High School Musical and Camp Rock isn't hot enough for you?
Could you make the argument, though, for Marvel? (Not that it has manifested itself in anything other than merchandise.)
-
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
What, High School Musical and Camp Rock isn't hot enough for you?
Could you make the argument, though, for Marvel? (Not that it has manifested itself in anything other than merchandise.)RandySavage
Well-Known Member
^ I'm fine with Avatar in DAK if done right (focusing on the animals/nature). Not sure how rampant shoe-horning at WDW has been under Iger's watch (would have to think about that), but I know of at least one example: Monsters Inc in Tomorrowland is a textbook shoehorn (e.g., take popular Pixar property, put it in land where it is highly out of context, damaging the coherency/theme of the wider environment)...
PalisadesPkteer
Active Member
Have to agree with this. Disney needs to develop its own properties as well
Captain Chaos
Well-Known Member
What, High School Musical and Camp Rock isn't hot enough for you?
No.. but they also aren't shoehorned in... We may not like them but they weren't shoehorned in... they fit the park they went into... DHS...
wickedsoccer22
Active Member
I don't understand why so many people think because Avatar is predictable and similar to other movies, it is bad.
Do you all watch modern movies?? Almost every movie is predicable. And by now, almost every new movie will share a lot of similarities with old movies. Basically it sounds as if there can never, ever be another movie that has a strong environmental message, or a movie where someone enters a foreign place and falls in love with it, or a movie where characters minds are changed because of love.
Anyways, I still don't get why people are even making an argument against this. It's new stuff that will likely be very immersive and we'll likely get at least one ride with cutting edge technology. We're getting something new and regardless of the storyline, it will be a fantastic experience.
Do you all watch modern movies?? Almost every movie is predicable. And by now, almost every new movie will share a lot of similarities with old movies. Basically it sounds as if there can never, ever be another movie that has a strong environmental message, or a movie where someone enters a foreign place and falls in love with it, or a movie where characters minds are changed because of love.
Anyways, I still don't get why people are even making an argument against this. It's new stuff that will likely be very immersive and we'll likely get at least one ride with cutting edge technology. We're getting something new and regardless of the storyline, it will be a fantastic experience.
DonaldDoleWhip
Well-Known Member
If we weren't getting Avatar, what would we be getting? Pixar. I don't see Pixar as "pure" Disney (technically Disney bought them out, just like Marvel), and I hate how they've disproportionately taken over the parks.
Disney has some great properties that they're not taking full advantage of. I would love to see Aladdin get a real attraction (instead of the carpets), Beauty and the Beast's mini-land also deserves an actual attraction, and The Lion King could easily have a dark ride in AK (just like Nemo has a whole Epcot pavilion + dark ride and stage show). Plus, I certainly wouldn't complain about a Lucasland (with Indiana Jones Adventure! I loved that ride), Australia, South America, Fire Mountain, or Beastly Kingdom.
But if it's a choice between Pandora (which could potentially be home to the next Star Tours/Indiana Jones Adventure in terms of pure awesome immersion) and Carsland, more Toy Story, more Nemo, Ratatouille, Up, Wall-E, Incredibles, or Monsters Inc, I'd rather have Pandora.
I've basically given up on seeing any of my dream attractions built, and I'm simply grateful that AK gets to grow so much over the next few years. Yes, it could've been better (for my tastes), but it also could've been worse, so I'm not complaining. Besides, I'm confident that this land will be detailed, immersive, and popular. Many of you disagree, and I respect that. But I see no reason to be a pessimist about it for the next 5-7 years.
Uncle Lupe
Well-Known Member
So which of they expansion pads covers 12 acres more or less?
danlb_2000
Premium Member
This was discussed in the other Avatar thread, the Camp Minnie Mickey plot is about 18 acres, the Asia plot is about 40.
Dan
Disaddict
New Member
I think that with this attraction keeping the park open late (what a mistake if it doesn't) that they will have to put this land somewhere as far from the main population of animals as possible and only keep that half of the park open later. In order to do that effectively they might replace Dinoland but I doubt they want to face the repercussions of the fan base (for some odd reason :shrug
that Dinoland has. But I think that if they replace a land it will be Camp Minnie Mickey. And they'll have to rope off the animal sections.
Tom
Beta Return
I think that with this attraction keeping the park open late (what a mistake if it doesn't) that they will have to put this land somewhere as far from the main population of animals as possible and only keep that half of the park open later. In order to do that effectively they might replace Dinoland but I doubt they want to face the repercussions of the fan base (for some odd reason :shrug
Nice drawing - very helpful. And, I agree. It will almost assuredly go in that location, based on all logical reasoning (of course, this is WDW we're talking about).
The hesitation I have about that location, however, is that I fear them spending so much money relocating current waterways and infrastructure that they steal money away from investment in the land itself.
If they get into that canal/detention pond, it's going to cost big bucks to relocate it for watershed purposes. And if they have to move Lion King, I vote they just tear it down instead of spending money on relocating it. And I REALLY hope they don't make the land so big that they get into the backstage area where the parade barn is. Big $$ in all that, which could be focused on the land.
BigRedDad
Well-Known Member
I was at WDW when this was announced. I did not see anything on it until one of the CMs used it as a trivia question during games by the pool. I thought it was a joke.
I have to say that the deal only leaves 2 places for it: DHS and AK. I think AK is a better fit simply with space and the message behind the movie. The movie is based on environmental issues and saving the environment from Big Business.
Personally, I love the movie both technically and story. WDW can do so much with it. I am praying for dueling, inverted hypercoasters, a TS restaurant, interactive/4D movie (Star Tours-esque).
I have to say that the deal only leaves 2 places for it: DHS and AK. I think AK is a better fit simply with space and the message behind the movie. The movie is based on environmental issues and saving the environment from Big Business.
Personally, I love the movie both technically and story. WDW can do so much with it. I am praying for dueling, inverted hypercoasters, a TS restaurant, interactive/4D movie (Star Tours-esque).
pax_65
Well-Known Member
I actually agree with most of your post, especially the part about not being pessimistic about these changes. But I wanted to add one thing... the reason you see so much Pixar is because it's popular. That's also why Universal invested so much in Harry Potter. And why Disney is taking such a huge risk on Pandora.
As Disney fanatics we all have our favorite classic Disney films. The Disney brand is stronger than we realize. Look at The Lion King - the #1 movie in America two weeks in a row! Personally I'm pleased that the Fantasyland expansion features The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast - two of my favorites.
All of the Disney movies and characters should absolutely support the parks, and they do. But the parks shouldn't be limited to the Disney library. If there's an opportunity to bring in an outside franchise to make the park better, they should absolutely do it. Then they can sort of make it Disney.
Look at Star Wars! This is NOT a Disney film, not even remotely close. But today Star Tours doesn't feel out of place. And now you can go into the gift shop and see Jedi Mickey, which is funny and bizarre but still feels right somehow.
Avatar was a pretty good movie (and the most popular movie of all time). The greatest strength of the film was the environment the movie recreated on film - unlike anything audiences had ever seen before, a new achievement in computer graphics that took you into a whole new world. If they can use the Disney magic to recreate that world in Animal Kingdom, it will be an absolutely amazing experience. Disney will make Pandora it's own.
Disaddict
New Member
I agree. I would have hated New Fantasyland if it had any Pixar stuff in it.
They seem to be keeping true to the classics with the project. Although, that being said, I would kind of have liked to have a Cars Land in DHS. That Radiator Springs Racers looks insane. :slurp: But they will do Avatar right and I'm sure we will all be blown away by it, even the haters. 
jt04
Well-Known Member
I still can't see it going into CMM because the buildings would overwhelm the area. Think of the Soarin buiding in that location. It would overwhelm the entrance architecture which would really ruin what has been so carefully crafted. Also, the photoshop above, while pretty and well done, is not to scale and really does not represent what the guest would see. And the advantage of the open area within and around the other pad do not confine Imagineering as the CMM pad would do.
Actually it is likely impossible to "save the environment" without a thriving economy and that includes the success of big business. Anywhere that has a poor economy also has a poor track record for managing the environment because they can't afford it.
Wrap your mind around that.
Question - Did they rope off these sections when they had Evening Extra Magic Hours, or are you thinking they may start doing this as a regular practice later in the evening when Avatarland opens?I think that with this attraction keeping the park open late (what a mistake if it doesn't) that they will have to put this land somewhere as far from the main population of animals as possible and only keep that half of the park open later. In order to do that effectively they might replace Dinoland but I doubt they want to face the repercussions of the fan base (for some odd reason :shrug
Kamikaze
Well-Known Member
He's saying they would have to rope off the areas with the Animal Habitats at night. This isn't what was done for EMH.
Disaddict
New Member
Exactly. The reason the park closes early right now is so the animals can some sort of peace and quiet. That's why zoo's typically aren't open late.
NoChesterHester
Well-Known Member
So why is Busch Gardens able to stay open late then? It is way more about demand then anything else.
Disaddict
New Member
Maybe they don't care about the animals there. LOL And I do see how demand plays a part. The park is almost empty by 5pm. But they still do not want the animals disturbed, I don't care what BG does. But if they do keep the park open later for Pandora then I seriously doubt they will allow people to run around in the animal areas.
devoy1701
Well-Known Member
Maybe they don't care about the animals there. LOL And I do see how demand plays a part. The park is almost empty by 5pm. But they still do not want the animals disturbed, I don't care what BG does. But if they do keep the park open later for Pandora then I seriously doubt they will allow people to run around in the animal areas.
The animals don't stay out in the viewing areas/jungle trails/savana at night anyway I don't think.