AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[Prototype82]

If the de-weaponizing of Kilimanjaro Safaris is any indication, I think we can discount the possibility of seeing much of the military aspect of Avatar represented in the pavilion.

Unfortunately they have to baby us. -_-

 

[Skipper Dan]

If the de-weaponizing of Kilimanjaro Safaris is any indication, I think we can discount the possibility of seeing much of the military aspect of Avatar represented in the pavilion. There will probably be something like a broken, vine-covered AmpSuit sitting off as a decoration somewhere, or the wreckage of a Dragonfly gunship or something, and I anticipate that some if not most of the show buildings are going to be re-purposed "barracks" now serving as a visitor's center or something, but the emphasis will probably be on exploration rather than shootin' stuff.

I could be wrong though, and an interactive infrared shooting gallery ride with machine guns would be a lot cooler than an alien "Listen to the Land," but I don't think they'll go that direction.

Okay, I rarely post stuff anymore, but I saw where someone had quoted part of your post, and was going to say I disagree with you, but once I read the entire thing, that's not bad.

But, I'll go ahead and say that the (by that time) modern earth technology was such a big part of that film, with such an emphasis on it, I'd find it hard to believe it won't be represteted in the land.

If anyone can make an AmpSuite, it's WED.

 

[Skipper Dan]

Oh! I forgot to say that maybe Joe secretively sees this as a way to justify eventually bringing back the 'edgy' parts to KJS. Now all KJS is, is a ride through a field in a truck. I love KJS, but when they strayed breaking it apart piece by piece, we're only left with a fragment of what it use to be.

 

[NoChesterHester]

Oh! I forgot to say that maybe Joe secretively sees this as a way to justify eventually bringing back the 'edgy' parts to KJS. Now all KJS is, is a ride through a field in a truck. I love KJS, but when they strayed breaking it apart piece by piece, we're only left with a fragment of what it use to be.

I never thought the poacher storyline improved the ride. I was glad to see it go.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I never thought the poacher storyline improved the ride. I was glad to see it go.

I really don't think there needs to be controversy in Kilimanjaro Safaris. What's wrong with an amazing safari ride where you see animals. OK, we can have the backstory that we're on the Harambe Wildlife Reserve, but the only things the storyline brings is playful mocking amongst fanboys. It really adds little to nothing to the ride.

 

[Master Yoda]

I really don't think there needs to be controversy in Kilimanjaro Safaris. What's wrong with an amazing safari ride where you see animals. OK, we can have the backstory that we're on the Harambe Wildlife Reserve, but the only things the storyline brings is playful mocking amongst fanboys. It really adds little to nothing to the ride.

One could argue that every good story needs an antagonist.

 

[njDizFan]

One could argue that every good story needs an antagonist.

I would have to agree with you Yoda. Although it is probably subjective, I much prefer the ride with a plot and themed storyline opposed to "look over there, it a lion".

 

[RSoxNo1]

One could argue that every good story needs an antagonist.

One could also argue that not every attraction needs a story.

Who's the antagonist in Jungle Cruise, Pirates of the Caribbean, it's a small world or The Haunted Mansion?

Forcing story into an attraction is akin to character infusion - it's often an unnecessary replacement for quality theming/executing.

 

[invader]

Who's the antagonist in Jungle Cruise, Pirates of the Caribbean, it's a small world or The Haunted Mansion?.

Jack Sparrow, and Madam Leota. :lol:

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

I hope its not another film and motion simulator based attraction. I love Soarin' but enough is enough.

 

[G00fyDad]

Who's the antagonist in Jungle Cruise, Pirates of the Caribbean, it's a small world or The Haunted Mansion?

JC - Wild Nature
PotC - Barbosa and the East India Trading Co.
IaSW - Bigotry
HM - Ghosts (Or Ramsey if he is in there)

 

[RSoxNo1]

I hate you all

 

[trr1]

I hate you all

but we love you

 

[Bairstow]

At least we know who the protagonist of those rides is:

 

[The Empress Lilly]

I really don't think there needs to be controversy in Kilimanjaro Safaris. What's wrong with an amazing safari ride where you see animals. OK, we can have the backstory that we're on the Harambe Wildlife Reserve, but the only things the storyline brings is playful mocking amongst fanboys. It really adds little to nothing to the ride.

:sohappy:

 

[RandySavage]

One could also argue that not every attraction needs a story.

Who's the antagonist in Jungle Cruise, Pirates of the Caribbean, it's a small world or The Haunted Mansion?

Forcing story into an attraction is akin to character infusion - it's often an unnecessary replacement for quality theming/executing.

I'm of two minds on this one. Generally I'd agree with you. I think plot/story have too often been emphasized to the detriment of repeatability in theme park attractions (Dinosaur in particular would benefit from a less-specific, more randomized plot/ride script).

With Kilimanjaro, listening the exact same poacher storyline was getting a little tiring (even though bits have been dropped). BUT a major portion of the original Safari was the high speed chase at the end through the flooded canyon with geysers spewing (and no animals to see).

When done right and as it was designed - with high speed, really bumpy driving, lots of water effects (falls & geysers), shooting/speeding poacher jeeps, AA elephant - this was a very fun and exciting finale. The poacher storyline was okay because it led to this payoff.

However, I believe this finale segment has been reduced by TDO over the years and now is pale reflection of the way it opened. If you take away the poachers, there's no impetus to speed through the flooded canyon (which is pretty lengthy), although I supposed one could be fabricated.

 

[Master Yoda]

One could also argue that not every attraction needs a story.

Who's the antagonist in Jungle Cruise, Pirates of the Caribbean, it's a small world or The Haunted Mansion?

Forcing story into an attraction is akin to character infusion - it's often an unnecessary replacement for quality theming/executing.

All good points as well. Personally I am in the middle. I do not need a defined story in an attraction but I do appreciate a good one. The poacher story in KS was great when the attraction first opened in 1998 but became pointless once elements were either eliminated or were left broken. IMHO once the jeep stopped working that part of the story fell apart. It was such a great kinetic element that added to the urgency and made the poachers seem real. Without it we were chasing shadows.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I'm of two minds on this one. Generally I'd agree with you. I think plot/story have too often been emphasized to the detriment of repeatability in theme park attractions (Dinosaur in particular would benefit from a less-specific, more randomized plot/ride script).

With Kilimanjaro, listening the exact same poacher storyline was getting a little tiring (even though bits have been dropped). BUT a major portion of the original Safari was the high speed chase at the end through the flooded canyon with geysers spewing (and no animals to see).

When done right and as it was designed - with high speed, really bumpy driving, lots of water effects (falls & geysers), shooting/speeding poacher jeeps, AA elephant - this was a very fun and exciting finale. The poacher storyline was okay because it led to this payoff.

However, I believe this finale segment has been reduced by TDO over the years and now is pale reflection of the way it opened. If you take away the poachers, there's no impetus to speed through the flooded canyon (which is pretty lengthy), although I supposed one could be fabricated.

The selling point of the Animal Kingdom was the animals. They should be the focus point, they should be the thrill. In Kilimanjaro Safaris this is very much the case. The ride is already more restricting than it otherwise should be because of the rough terrain (I know when my sister was pregnant she wouldn't go near it for example). This is a ride that every person that visits that park should be able to see - I think that finale scene where you're rushing through the geysers should be eliminated in favor of another animal area.

 

[TimeTrip]

At least we know who the protagonist of those rides is:

Nice reference. I would play the space mountain level over and over just for the music.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

The selling point of the Animal Kingdom was the animals. They should be the focus point, they should be the thrill. In Kilimanjaro Safaris this is very much the case. The ride is already more restricting than it otherwise should be because of the rough terrain (I know when my sister was pregnant she wouldn't go near it for example). This is a ride that every person that visits that park should be able to see - I think that finale scene where you're rushing through the geysers should be eliminated in favor of another animal area.

This annoys me to no end as well. KS is AK's signature ride. Yet, half my family can not ride. All because of a few brief segments of the ride.

I understand that not everybody can ride a coaster, while others can't climb the steps of a Treehouse or island fort, and yet others can not see or hear a 3D movie. But there is something frustratingly unecessary about KS restricted rideability. :brick:

What I wouldn't give for Disney to create the possibility of a non-bumpy, 'orange option' to experience the Safari!