AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[WDWFREAK53]

I agree. Most of the movies that we all think have memorable music, most have multiple movies. Star wars, Jurassic park, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, Star trek.... all multi movie franchises. So if the new Avatars reuse music, and the movies are better than the original, it has a chance to become memorable. Banking on sequels that haven't been made yet seems like a dice roll to me. Either it will end up Disney was genius with this move or we will have a really cool looking land that people really are not attached to and would never plan a trip around.

Ha...we're definitely on the same wavelength my man.

I was just reading through and was going to post the same thing (about the sequels).
I do have one that bucks that theory though. Forrest Gump.
Gremlins is another but there was a sequel...but the theme was very "memorable" prior to the sequel.

There are plenty of things that could set this land apart and could raise the bar for future developments but I just don't see it happening. A clone of the Soarin' ride with a different movie is not going to do the job. A hybrid flying coaster themed to flying around the floating mountains with incredible sets and animatronics with near misses could do it. You need a "weinie" attraction. I like the boat ride that could showcase the different elements of Pandora...that's a step in the right direction. The Soarin' attraction is fine but it can't be the main draw. I would actually like to see a walkthrough attraction that is based on the humans on Pandora that have set up a facility to "study" the animals of Pandora. This facility would be reminiscent to a zoo with cages and be very "anti-the rest of the DAK" to really hit home the fact that animals need to be free...but the animatronics used could be like the Triceratops Encounter but on a higher level with multiple stops along the walk-through.

The land should change experiences as the day progresses. The beautiful scenery is a must but at night the land should really "come alive" with LEDs/Fiber Optics in the ground that interact with each step, RFID readers should be able to interact with you as you move through the land, different experiences that interact with certain merchandise purchases, etc.

 

[flynnibus]

I agree. Most of the movies that we all think have memorable music, most have multiple movies. Star wars, Jurassic park, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, Star trek.... all multi movie franchises

Common thread?? John Williams

 

[twebber55]

james horner is a pretty famous composer as well

 

[celluloid]

Ha...we're definitely on the same wavelength my man.

I was just reading through and was going to post the same thing (about the sequels).
I do have one that bucks that theory though. Forrest Gump.
Gremlins is another but there was a sequel...but the theme was very "memorable" prior to the sequel.

You are trying too hard. ET.

 

[twebber55]

i love HM's musical score

 

[BryceM]

All of John Williams music is great. I'm particularly fond of the Jurassic Park and E.T. theme songs. I remember for Halloween Horror Nights 22 I parked in the E.T. section of the park and hearing the music play as I made my way to CityWalk. I felt so "epic".

John Williams is amazing.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

As far as the score goes, I find tribal influenced music generally doesn't make for an instantly recognizable tune. That said, maybe when Avatar's theme is featured in four movies (like Indy's is), perhaps we'll begin to know it better.

 

[jt04]

Don't look for a year and I see our resident Andy Kaufman (as pointed out by another) is still active.

Thank-you-very-much

 

[Bryner84]

Even if its imagery is incredible and theme park appropriate, does its incredible-ness automatically make it fit for THIS theme park? If we agree to overlook the obvious no animal thing (no small feat) and take it from a strictly visual perspective, it has no place in this park. Like it or not, Animal Kingdom's overall experience is not one of distinctly disparate lands like the Magic Kingdom, but of an overarching cohesive look in spite of the different lands (as always, this excludes Dinoweranoutofmoneyasaurus land). The dilapidated, gritty, overgrown aesthetic pervades throughout which I feel strengthens the park beyond the sum of its parts. By introducing Avatar, this unification of aesthetics will be compromised...I see no place here for a futuristic glowing blue world. Beastly Kingdom would have accomplished the goal of fulfilling the parks dedication statement while still feeling like it belonged with the other areas of the park. That is the benefit of using mythical creatures steeped in rich culture and history rather then invented by James Cameron.
<insert obligatory first post comment here>

 

[danlb_2000]

Even if its imagery is incredible and theme park appropriate, does its incredible-ness automatically make it fit for THIS theme park? If we agree to overlook the obvious no animal thing (no small feat) and take it from a strictly visual perspective, it has no place in this park. Like it or not, Animal Kingdom's overall experience is not one of distinctly disparate lands like the Magic Kingdom, but of an overarching cohesive look in spite of the different lands (as always, this excludes Dinoweranoutofmoneyasaurus land). The dilapidated, gritty, overgrown aesthetic pervades throughout which I feel strengthens the park beyond the sum of its parts. By introducing Avatar, this unification of aesthetics will be compromised...I see no place here for a futuristic glowing blue world. Beastly Kingdom would have accomplished the goal of fulfilling the parks dedication statement while still feeling like it belonged with the other areas of the park. That is the benefit of using mythical creatures steeped in rich culture and history rather then invented by James Cameron.
<insert obligatory first post comment here>

The main thing that ties Avatar into Animal Kingdom is that the movie's main theme is conservation and living in harmony with nature which is a very good fit to Animal Kingdoms goals. I also disagree on the "animal thing". There are a lot of animals in Avatar (yes they are fictional animals) and they play a very important part in the story.

 

[WDWFREAK53]

Even if its imagery is incredible and theme park appropriate, does its incredible-ness automatically make it fit for THIS theme park? If we agree to overlook the obvious no animal thing (no small feat) and take it from a strictly visual perspective, it has no place in this park. Like it or not, Animal Kingdom's overall experience is not one of distinctly disparate lands like the Magic Kingdom, but of an overarching cohesive look in spite of the different lands (as always, this excludes Dinoweranoutofmoneyasaurus land). The dilapidated, gritty, overgrown aesthetic pervades throughout which I feel strengthens the park beyond the sum of its parts. By introducing Avatar, this unification of aesthetics will be compromised...I see no place here for a futuristic glowing blue world. Beastly Kingdom would have accomplished the goal of fulfilling the parks dedication statement while still feeling like it belonged with the other areas of the park. That is the benefit of using mythical creatures steeped in rich culture and history rather then invented by James Cameron.
<insert obligatory first post comment here>

I do see what you mean, but if you look at Pandora, it's overgrown and lush...like DAK. It doesn't truly become "unique" looking until it becomes dark. Sure, the plants are a little "different" than what we have on Earth but DAK also has some unique plants that most have never seen. There are some plants that only grow on remote islands that can't be found anywhere else. That being said, if you have plants from Pandora, they could do it where it blends seemlessly with the surrounding areas of DAK. When the sun goes down, watch Pandora come alive.

 

[Bryner84]

The main thing that ties Avatar into Animal Kingdom is that the movie's main theme is conservation and living in harmony with nature which is a very good fit to Animal Kingdoms goals. I also disagree on the "animal thing". There are a lot of animals in Avatar (yes they are fictional animals) and they play a very important part in the story.

I get the conservation theme viewpoint, but I disagree. To me, that is a stretch. Would "An Inconvenient Truth" be a good IP for Animal Kingdom simply for its conservation themes? I also agree that fictional animals should play a strong role in the park. However, when you have to explain how it fits...then the connection is tenuous at best. It's like explaining the punch line to a joke.

 

[Bryner84]

I do see what you mean, but if you look at Pandora, it's overgrown and lush...like DAK. It doesn't truly become "unique" looking until it becomes dark. Sure, the plants are a little "different" than what we have on Earth but DAK also has some unique plants that most have never seen. There are some plants that only grow on remote islands that can't be found anywhere else. That being said, if you have plants from Pandora, they could do it where it blends seemlessly with the surrounding areas of DAK. When the sun goes down, watch Pandora come alive.

You make a good sell for Pandora with your nighttime description...and again I have no problem with fictional plants or animals in the park, but I think there is a fundamental conceptual problem with an entire land in Animal Kingdom being devoted to a land created for a movie when the rest of the park feels more "important" than that.

 

[nytimez]

Would "An Inconvenient Truth" be a good IP for Animal Kingdom simply for its conservation themes?

Two words: MANBEARPIG COASTER!!!

I think you're onto something...

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Mythical and fictional are not the same thing. I thought that that part of DAKs mission statement was about "mythical" creatures that are steeped in our history and mythology. That is a MUCH deeper concept than Avatar's "oooo, cool, that thing has six legs" creatures.

 

[danlb_2000]

Mythical and fictional are not the same thing. I thought that that part of DAKs mission statement was about "mythical" creatures that are steeped in our history and mythology. That is a MUCH deeper concept than Avatar's "oooo, cool, that thing has six legs" creatures.

The dedication for AK was:

"Welcome to a kingdom of animals... real, ancient and imagined: a kingdom ruled by lions, dinosaurs and dragons; a kingdom of balance, harmony and survival; a kingdom we enter to share in the wonder, gaze at the beauty, thrill at the drama, and learn."

I don't know it "mythical" is mentioned anywhere else, but in the dedication it's open to anything imagined not just animals based in myth. Personally I think that dedication fits extremely well with Avatar not really a stretch at all.

 

[Bryner84]

Mythical and fictional are not the same thing. I thought that that part of DAKs mission statement was about "mythical" creatures that are steeped in our history and mythology. That is a MUCH deeper concept than Avatar's "oooo, cool, that thing has six legs" creatures.

Good distinction. I agree.

 

[danlb_2000]

I get the conservation theme viewpoint, but I disagree. To me, that is a stretch. Would "An Inconvenient Truth" be a good IP for Animal Kingdom simply for its conservation themes? I also agree that fictional animals should play a strong role in the park. However, when you have to explain how it fits...then the connection is tenuous at best. It's like explaining the punch line to a joke.

Personally I don't consider it a stretch, I have never understood how anyone who has seen the movie could see the connection. They may still have not liked the idea, but the connection seems obvious to me. As for why Avatar would make a good theme park attraction, if done right it allows the guests to visit and experience first hand a fantastical environment that they can't experience in real life which is what a lot of good theme park attractions do. Yes, the movie had a less then memorable story and characters, but I do remember walking out the theater thinking it would be cool to be able to visit that world!

 

[WDWFREAK53]

You make a good sell for Pandora with your nighttime description...and again I have no problem with fictional plants or animals in the park, but I think there is a fundamental conceptual problem with an entire land in Animal Kingdom being devoted to a land created for a movie when the rest of the park feels more "important" than that.

I don't think that Pandora is the way to go for DAK (I'd much prefer a Mythical Realm or even Australia) but if they are sold on putting in DAK I would hope that it would be done to the level of detail as the rest of the park. Given the resources, it could fit in just fine and have just as an importance to the park as the rest of the lands but we all just have to wait and see how it turns out and how much the imagineers have to work with.

 

[rle4lunch]

An Aussie Outback Coaster.

I can hear the fake Australian accents now.

We're on tha hunt for tha mythical kungaloosharoo. An animal so deeply trenched in Abororginal fokelore that it has been found on ancient tribal drawings and is still sung about around bonfire ceremonies. It's rumored to be a mix of kangaroo, dingo, koala and wallaby that mated with a wiley croc out in the Bush during an extremely harsh Aussie Winta... Explora's have been on the trail of its decendents for centuries, and some have claimed to encounta it, weaving fantasical stories about their encounta's... Our mission is to help our brave explora hunt down the mystical kungalossharoo to not only find out about how it fit into Australia's ecological history, but also how good it tastes when you throw 'em on the barby for a late afternoon suppa!

Happy Hunting!

I can see the aftershow gift shop/barbecue now... picture something like flame tree bbq, just with an exotic twist on their menu!

OY!