AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[unkadug]

i guess they could keep the rest of the park open, but there might be a problem with trying to let the animals sleep... idk. it's confusing.

and i love Primeval Whirl, i really don't know why people dislike it so much. it's like Crazy Mouse on steroids djkhgskfgsdgs

what do you do for North America? i mean the only animals we have here are either domesticated or live in like camp forest area, and Animal Kingdom doesn't really come off as that. i guess they can have an area with wilderness and forest animals. i just hope they do eventually put Australia in there, like rumored. that'd be so cool and i'd love to feed baby kangaroos and koala bears again

and i see Camp Minnie-Mickey as a place where they should dump all of the Disney aspect of the park. like if it's a Disney movie with the aspect of wilderness and animals they should just make an attraction there. but themeing it as a campground instead of a part of the park would be cool.

I've noticed you doing this before....what does that even mean?

 

[J03Y]

I've noticed you doing this before....what does that even mean?

when you do this: "dkfgkfgahfgdsfhf" or "asaljdfhsdjhfjdghdsj;kgs" it's supposed to mean you're spilling your emotions, or more commonly known in the social media/blogging world as "banging your head on the keyboard". that's not what it literally is, but basically if you're excited or upset about something you just type random letters incoherently together.

i'm sorry, i do that a lot on my forums and social media outlets, i forget that some people don't know what it is

 

[ChrisFL]

Here's a hypothetical question for everyone...

If you could replace Dinorama with the kind of things we were talking about earlier (aquarium, prehistoric creatures attractions, etc.), would you be happy for Primeval Whirl and the carnival games to move to Storybook Circus in the Magic Kingdom (where it would seem they would fit better)?

NO carnival games. I hate it at DAK, I hate it at IOA also, unless they were somehow "free" for guests on a one-time basis to increase their value for the price of admission, even then they're typically loud, gaudy, etc.

It IS at this point where I would like to mention my first job (EVER!) was at Universal Studios. I was one of the "carnival barkers" in Amity for a few months. I ran some of those games where we might get ONE winner per day IF it was a good day, and often zero winners a day.

 

[Beholder]

Regardless if you like or dislike Dinorama, I think the biggest issue, to me, is that with all of the endless possibilities that this subject matter (prehistoric life) has to offer, this is what they went with. I understand the desire/need for an attraction for the younger set, but Disney has done just that for years without resorting to the
kind of "carnival" atmosphere Dinorama creates.

 

[Lee]

That cheap carnival area cost close to a hundred million from what I've heard. Makes it all the worse in my opinion.

Nah...not even close to that much.
They only did it because it was a cheap, fast, and easily removable way to add capacity to the park.

 

[RSoxNo1]

If you don't want one gigantic building, have lots of smaller ones run by different Institutes...

· Dino Institute (DINOSAUR, Triceratop Spin)
· Prehistoric Life Institute
· The Ocean Institute
...and have it set up like mini-museums all in one location.

That would give you more areas/rides that you could open later (Nemo closes at 7pm in Epcot - so that's longer than DAK currently, and the others would be able to be open all night).

Wait a minute... I love that idea... How about some backstage passes?

that land was known as Beast Kingdom, which would've encompassed fictional animals. the idea was scrapped. Lord knows why

Various iterations were scrapped for different reasons. Most notably it was scrapped from the park opening in favor of Dinoland U.S.A., and it was scrapped from Phase 2 construction because many imagineers brought concepts over to Universal for Islands of Adventure’s Lost Continent.

That cheap carnival area cost close to a hundred million from what I've heard. Makes it all the worse in my opinion.

Yes, and the choice was apparently between Chester and Hesters and the Excavator for that area.

 

[djlaosc]

Wait a minute... I love that idea... How about some backstage passes?

I'll gladly have some backstage passes!

If Disney want to relocate my family I'll gladly become an Imagineer, and the rest of the family would love to work in the UK Pavilion at Epcot!

 

[spacemt354]

That cheap carnival area cost close to a hundred million from what I've heard. Makes it all the worse in my opinion.

That sentence is an oxymoron. How can something be cheap, but cost close to $100 million??

 

[ChrisFL]

That sentence is an oxymoron. How can something be cheap, but cost close to $100 million??

If anything, I would take one "0" off that number and that would be my guess as to how much it cost to build.

Cheap= The purchasing/building of the attractions didn't cost much

$100 million = the cost for the Imagineers to come up with a backstory and decide which gaudy colors to use

 

[lazyboy97o]

That sentence is an oxymoron. How can something be cheap, but cost close to $100 million??

Inefficiency. Something Disney is far too god at when it comes to park development.

 

[spacemt354]

Cheap= The purchasing/building of the attractions didn't cost much

$100 million = the cost for the Imagineers to come up with a backstory and decide which gaudy colors to use

I highly doubt it cost $100 million, when you show me the facts I'll believe you

Inefficiency. Something Disney is far too god at when it comes to park development.

I'm confused. Are you saying disney is good at being inefficient? Because that would make even less sense than the oxymoron statement.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I highly doubt it cost $100 million, when you show me the facts I'll believe you

Not sure where I heard it but I remember the number being between $100-150 mil. While it doesn't go into prices this article by Jim Hill does talk about what happened in this area of land and has some good concept art as well:

http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_c...er-built-at-disney-s-animal-kingdom-park.aspx

I'm confused. Are you saying disney is good at being inefficient? Because that would make even less sense than the oxymoron statement.

Disney is good at being inefficient with their money. Or the way you would prefer it to be written, Disney is inefficient with their money. Imagineering is very good at wasting money.

 

[spacemt354]

Disney is good at being inefficient with their money. Or the way you would prefer it to be written, Disney is inefficient with their money. Imagineering is very good at wasting money.

I wouldn't say they waste money. That was where I disagreed with the original poster. To say Disney spends a lot of money on attractions/parks/hotels is true. And sometimes, attractions don't even need that extra money to make them great. Like Tower of Terror for example. That ride is good on it's own. The Imagineers didn't have to hire championship Mahjong players to play a game of Mahjong, then purposely stop their game halfway so that the Mahjong board in the lobby would look like a realistic game was being played when lightning struck in 1939. That sort of detail to the average guest would likely go unnoticed, along with serveral other details that people might find wasteful. But I don't see it as that. I think that is what separates disney from everyone else. The extra mile they take in detail and story-telling. Now, people complain that Dino-Rama has average rides. Well, they are right. Disney usually combines that great story-telling with an amazing attraction. It didn't happen in the case of Dino-Rama. The rides are average. But as a whole, and beyond the scope of Dino-Rama, I don't see spending money on the little details to be a bad thing, or to be inefficient. If people just want to ride the rides, and not worry about the story or details, then they have a point in saying that disney wastes money. But at least for me, the investment of both creativity and money that the Imagineers put into the story-telling goes a long way, and I always appreciate it when I discover new details about rides I've gone on several times before.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I wouldn't say they waste money. That was where I disagreed with the original poster. To say Disney spends a lot of money on attractions/parks/hotels is true. And sometimes, attractions don't even need that extra money to make them great. Like Tower of Terror for example. That ride is good on it's own. The Imagineers didn't have to hire championship Mahjong players to play a game of Mahjong, then purposely stop their game halfway so that the Mahjong board in the lobby would look like a realistic game was being played when lightning struck in 1939. That sort of detail to the average guest would likely go unnoticed, along with serveral other details that people might find wasteful. But I don't see it as that. I think that is what separates disney from everyone else. The extra mile they take in detail and story-telling. Now, people complain that Dino-Rama has average rides. Well, they are right. Disney usually combines that great story-telling with an amazing attraction. It didn't happen in the case of Dino-Rama. The rides are average. But as a whole, and beyond the scope of Dino-Rama, I don't see spending money on the little details to be a bad thing, or to be inefficient. If people just want to ride the rides, and not worry about the story or details, then they have a point in saying that disney wastes money. But at least for me, the investment of both creativity and money that the Imagineers put into the story-telling goes a long way, and I always appreciate it when I discover new details about rides I've gone on several times before.

What's often cited are attractions like Little Mermaid which cost over $100 million. Most people wouldn't view that as being a $100 million ride based on what they got for their money. In comparison, Universal reportedly spent less than that on Forbidden Journey (I had heard between $60-80 million).

I think Radiator Springs Racers is an excellent attraction, but I don't see the $350 million price tag, even with the ridiculous amount of rock work.

People aren't criticizing the extra small details at all, they're criticizing all of the seemingly unnecessary overages that comes from having a much larger team of imagineers designing attractions and wanting to put their own stamp on something.

 

[flynnibus]

I wouldn't say they waste money. That was where I disagreed with the original poster. To say Disney spends a lot of money on attractions/parks/hotels is true. And sometimes, attractions don't even need that extra money to make them great

If I can built X for $10
And WDI builds the exact same thing and spends $20

That's being inefficient with money. Why are we being bogged down with the simple concepts?

You are confused in thinking people are saying they shouldn't spend money to get the final product - that's completely wrong. What they are saying is they are WASTEFUL and the same result can be done more cost effective.

 

[WDITrent]

Excuse me if I missed this already being mentioned somewhere, but when I saw this:
http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x1076260226/Dragon-spotted-over-Minter-Field

I was immediately reminded of that patent:
http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/Disney-Dragon-Patent.jpg

And then the article continues to make that connection itself.

Once again, this seems like something that would have come up before, but I didn't notice any discussion on this since the date the article was published. Seems to me like it could be Avatar business.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm confused. Are you saying disney is good at being inefficient? Because that would make even less sense than the oxymoron statement.

Are being purposefully obtuse to be snarky? I think @flynnibus said it quite well. There is a difference between spending on details and wasting money. If literalists semantics are what you resort to for an argument than you must not have much of a point.

 

[spacemt354]

If I can built X for $10
And WDI builds the exact same thing and spends $20

That's being inefficient with money. Why are we being bogged down with the simple concepts?

You are confused in thinking people are saying they shouldn't spend money to get the final product - that's completely wrong. What they are saying is they are WASTEFUL and the same result can be done more cost effective.

So now the argument has come full circle. First people were complaining that disney has cut the budget of the FLE, and they are being cheap. Now the argument is they are wasteful in their spending because they spend too much on attractions that can be built for a cheaper price.

I would tend to agree that disney typically has a lot of imagineers oversea attractions, which could increase the cost. But I personally would not use the term "wasteful" if the attractions turn out to be a success, and the majority of the time, they do. Some posters were saying that it's a shame that Dino-Rama cost so much to build, so I had responded. Others said that it had cost so much because the money was used to develop the story behind it. I had said that statement holds true for other attractions as well, like tower of terror. The only difference between ToT and dino-rama is the attractions itself. And although nobody has been on TLM yet, I'm going to assume that a lot of that budget went into the story-telling and design. Radiator Springs cost an enormous amount of money. But very few have complained about the cost since the ride is awesome. Everyone was in support of the huge budget assessed for the DCA refurb, yet people are already demoting rides like TLM as being wasteful, even though none of us have seen the finished product yet. People may have seen the one in DCA, but who knows, maybe this one will be better. Dino-Rama I will give you. A majority of that is average at best, and the story-telling can only do so much to revive an area that is for the most part, below the Disney standard.

But based on your analogy above, if the consumer knows that X is built for $10, it's a good chance that park's admission is going to be cheaper than disney. So, it's really the consumer that is being wasteful, spending more money to go to disney's $20 ride, rather than spend less money to ride the exact same thing that cost $10 to build.

 

[spacemt354]

Are being purposefully obtuse to be snarky? I think @flynnibus said it quite well. There is a difference between spending on details and wasting money. If literalists semantics are what you resort to for an argument than you must not have much of a point.

Snarky? I was simply asking a question because I didn't understand what you had said. Yes, there is a difference in spending on details and wasting money. But if Dino-rama cost $100 million, and a lot of that went into the story-telling and detail, then why call it a waste? From what I have gathered, the "waste" terminology for Dino-rama evolved because the attractions are, simply put, bad. If the same amount of money had been put into a ride that everyone enjoys, then I doubt people would be complaining about the cost. The cost debate only arose because the attractions are mediocre, even if the details are there.

So when you made a blanket statement like disney is good at being inefficent, I was confused. Dino-Rama is a specific case, but for the most part, disney combines the attractions, the details and the cost to make great experiences for their guests. I don't see Disney as being wasteful, but that is just me. I hadn't heard anyone say anything negative about Radiator Springs, even though it cost a lot more than test track, which was $100 million and uses the same ride system. That's because the detail of Radiator Springs, the AA's, and the experience warrented that cost. Can I say the same for DIno-Rama? No. But that is a specific case, and not every attraction disney puts out there.

Sorry if my literalists semantics were too much for you. I was simply asking a question because I didn't understand your statement.

 

[flynnibus]

So now the argument has come full circle. First people were complaining that disney has cut the budget of the FLE, and they are being cheap. Now the argument is they are wasteful in their spending because they spend too much on attractions that can be built for a cheaper price.

No - completely different arguments and really I'm not going to continue to spell out the obvious. You are either being difficult, or really should just sit back and absorb a lot more before jumping into these conversations.

I would tend to agree that disney typically has a lot of imagineers oversea attractions, which could increase the cost. But I personally would not use the term "wasteful" if the attractions turn out to be a success, and the majority of the time, they do

You still are obvlious to the core concepts here. It's not about how many people.. and no, success at the end does not justify waste.

But based on your analogy above, if the consumer knows that X is built for $10, it's a good chance that park's admission is going to be cheaper than disney. So, it's really the consumer that is being wasteful, spending more money to go to disney's $20 ride, rather than spend less money to ride the exact same thing that cost $10 to build.