AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[FrankLapidus]

No, the point being made is: you and your Avatar hating friends are complaining about the POSSIBILITY that the land may only include one ride, one restaurant, one shop while letting the fact that the other lands in DAK contain the same exact thing and not complaining about it...

I have no "Avatar hating friends", just my own opinion. You and I have gotten along fine in accepting we have different opinions on Avatar in the past so I don't know why you've lost your temper now but if you want to argue find someone else to do it with.

That's exactly what I'm complaining about. If I was on the forum back when Africa, Asia and DinoLand opened I would have complained about the lack of attractions then but I wasn't. Disney didn't create enough to do at AK but instead of adding attractions to those areas, they're committing millions of dollars to building a new land. If that land doesn't amount to more than one attraction then I would consider that as not doing enough to solve the problems that the park has. If it was Beastly Kingdomme I would be saying the same, getting one new attraction is lovely but it's not enough in a park like AK that needs more. You can say one is a start but if it opens in 2016 it would have taken five years to achieve that start; how long would you then have to wait for further additions? Another five years?

If you read my posts you will see that I'm not being purely anti-Avatar here, I'm not criticising it so don't accuse me of doing so. My problem here is summed up in the FLE, it looks very nice but doesn't add a ton of stuff to do. I think the same about Cars Land, having RSR at DHS would be brilliant but it wouldn't be enough to solve all of the park's problems. I don't like Avatar and I've made my reasons for that clear in the past but I'm not repeating that here and it has nothing to do with me stating my opinion that an expensive expansion that only adds one ride in a park in need of more isn't enough and I would say the same about any expansion in any park.

 

[danlb_2000]

And it is time to end the smoking nonsense once and for all Pixie... What do you say about this, a pipe smoking EWOK in a fanchise Disney just purchased and include in their theme parks? Guess no more Star Wars in WDW!!!!

No to mention Jabba also smokes in return of the Jedi, and I think there is some smoking in the Cantina scene in A New Hope. Guess Disney better ask for their $4 billion back.

 

[MarkTwain]

No offense to anyone here but when some people bash Dinosaur as being nothing more then a jerk fest you do know that it is intentional to be rough, dark, loud and sometime scary right!?

lets put everything into perspective:
1. its a ride that takes you back in time to see dinosaurs before the meteor hits
2. dinosaurs were not friendly(or so we think)
3. Meteor showers were most likely dangerous
4. We don't want to die by dinosaurs or meteors
5. ITS REALISTIC

seriously. Back then there weren't roads of pavement for vehicles to glide upon. Its jerky because you supposes to be going over rocks and boulders and logs during the middle of the night before the BIG METEOR hits the earth and we all die. If it wasn't fast and jerky it would seem lame people. NOW sorry for the off topic rant. I just really think Dinosaur is a very Unappreciated ride! What needs to change is the surrounding area!

This is all true and a fair analysis. The problem with Dinosaur is that it's the only actual representation of dinosaurs in an entire land supposedly themed to them, and yet in the ride you only see a handful of dinosaurs for a few seconds each. Worse still, dinosaurs tend to be of highest interest to young kids, who often would be much too afraid (or short) to ride such an intense ride. I agree a good fix would be to add actual dino-centric attractions to the surrounding land, in which Dinosaur could be a strong component, but for the time being Dinosaur is a sad under-realization of what could be a much broader and more amazing concept.

 

[MarkTwain]

No, the point being made is: you and your Avatar hating friends are complaining about the POSSIBILITY that the land may only include one ride, one restaurant, one shop while letting the fact that the other lands in DAK contain the same exact thing and not complaining about it...

And these same insiders, if you recall, swore Transformers was not going into SS44, that it was going to be a year round haunted house while those of us who AREN'T "insiders" knew from the start it was Transformers... Moral of the story: insiders are not always right, don't always have the correct information, and are often times used to dupe the online fan community and help promote one's agenda...

A key difference is that all of the other lands opened simultaneously as part of a more-or-less completed theme park. People didn't perceive those lands' opening as the opening of 3-5 new lands with one major attraction each; they they perceived AK as a theme park opening with several new major attractions, which happened to be subdivided into lands. The point is, after all the media hype and promotion, the years of waiting paid off with the simultaneous opening of multiple new attractions.

That's not the case with Avatar. It sounds like we'll have an equally long wait before we see completed results, and let's face it, Disney's hype for a land these days may well match what once would have been used to promote a new theme park. Guests that buy into that hype, come down to Florida, and find a single attraction that's basically an upgraded Soarin' might well find the expansion completely underwhelming, after the amount of press and time that went into it.

I think in the current "theme park wars" environment, the press of a new attraction and the theme park attractions themselves are inseparable. When every ride (at any resort) is promoted like crazy as an attempt to draw customers to that resort, the payoff of expectation is now as important as the ride itself. This was the problem New Fantasyland faced; it was completely overhyped in what otherwise would be a very solid and worthwhile (if minor) addition to MK. Disney needs to make sure Avatar lives up to the expectations of people that are fully aware they're giving up days at Universal and Potterland to see it.

 

[Captain Chaos]

No to mention Jabba also smokes in return of the Jedi, and I think there is some smoking in the Cantina scene in A New Hope. Guess Disney better ask for their $4 billion back.

I figured a smoking Ewok was better to look at than a slob like Jabba... I didn't want to send PixieDustSnorter into a rant about how Disney better never include Jabba in any of their new Star Wars attractions because then they may be accused of promoting childhood obesity...

 

[luv]

This is all true and a fair analysis. The problem with Dinosaur is that it's the only actual representation of dinosaurs in an entire land supposedly themed to them, and yet in the ride you only see a handful of dinosaurs for a few seconds each. Worse still, dinosaurs tend to be of highest interest to young kids, who often would be much too afraid (or short) to ride such an intense ride. I agree a good fix would be to add actual dino-centric attractions to the surrounding land, in which Dinosaur could be a strong component, but for the time being Dinosaur is a sad under-realization of what could be a much broader and more amazing concept.

Between Jurassic Park at Uni and Ellen and Dinoland at WDW, the dinosaur thing is pretty well covered in Orlando, I think. Disagree?

 

[SirLink]

It is easy to poke holes in the haters' arguments because they are blinded by their hatred...

You could poke the whole in that there are more interesting imaginary creatures, one may say mythical, which can have all the creativity and passion put into creating killer attractions and far more instantly recognizable...

...such as say a Dragon - there is a reason why every culture has had their version of the Dragon after all

 

[MarkTwain]

Between Jurassic Park at Uni and Ellen and Dinoland at WDW, the dinosaur thing is pretty well covered in Orlando, I think. Disagree?

No, I wouldn't disagree. I wish Disney was capable of fully realizing a theme without having to concede part of the work to Universal, and I think the dinosaurs at Ellen are a bit misplaced in a time when the false connection between dinosaurs/"fossil fuels" is increasingly irrelevant to the future of energy. But as far as the number of dinosaur-based attractions in Orlando, there does seem to be a decent amount.

 

[jt04]

No, I wouldn't disagree. I wish Disney was capable of fully realizing a theme without having to concede part of the work to Universal, and I think the dinosaurs at Ellen are a bit misplaced in a time when the false connection between dinosaurs/"fossil fuels" is increasingly irrelevant to the future of energy. But as far as the number of dinosaur-based attractions in Orlando, there does seem to be a decent amount.

The theme is not properly realized at any of the venues where they are featured. Energy needs to be completely reimagined preferably without dinos. Then competition should ensue between Uni and Disney as to who can create the best "Land" featuring dinosaurs.

IMO.

 

[MarkTwain]

The theme is not properly realized at any of the venues where they are featured. Energy needs to be completely reimagined preferably without dinos. Then competition should ensue between Uni and Disney as to who can create the best "Land" featuring dinosaurs.

IMO.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I have no "Avatar hating friends", just my own opinion. You and I have gotten along fine in accepting we have different opinions on Avatar in the past so I don't know why you've lost your temper now but if you want to argue find someone else to do it with.

No temper being lost...

And my last paragraph, I did say let's not group you in with the others...

That's exactly what I'm complaining about. If I was on the forum back when Africa, Asia and DinoLand opened I would have complained about the lack of attractions then but I wasn't. Disney didn't create enough to do at AK but instead of adding attractions to those areas, they're committing millions of dollars to building a new land. If that land doesn't amount to more than one attraction then I would consider that as not doing enough to solve the problems that the park has. If it was Beastly Kingdomme I would be saying the same, getting one new attraction is lovely but it's not enough in a park like AK that needs more. You can say one is a start but if it opens in 2016 it would have taken five years to achieve that start; how long would you then have to wait for further additions? Another five years?

Taking long to build projects is obviously a problem Disney has yet to remedy...

And again, no one here is saying one attraction is enough... No one... But, we do not know if Avatar will only be one attraction or two... Sorry, I am not going to believe the "insiders" since they have been wrong plenty of times before... Let's say Avatar does only open with one e-ticket attraction, a restaurant, and a shop in a deeply immersive land where you can walk around and absorb the sights... The land in itself would be a second attraction (providing they go all out with details)...

I will keep saying it is a start... Building a one attraction Avatarland is a lot better than closing CMM and putting nothing in its spot... One Avatar attraction is one more attraction to do in DAK...

If you read my posts you will see that I'm not being purely anti-Avatar here, I'm not criticising it so don't accuse me of doing so. My problem here is summed up in the FLE, it looks very nice but doesn't add a ton of stuff to do. I think the same about Cars Land, having RSR at DHS would be brilliant but it wouldn't be enough to solve all of the park's problems. I don't like Avatar and I've made my reasons for that clear in the past but I'm not repeating that here and it has nothing to do with me stating my opinion that an expensive expansion that only adds one ride in a park in need of more isn't enough and I would say the same about any expansion in any park.

But wasn't the idea of the new area of Fantasyland to increase capacity, which it does? Sure they could have done more with Fantasyland... But this is what we got... Now, we see what comes next for MK, which does need more... And until Disney fixes their construction issues, sadly, yes we will have to wait 5 years... No, I don't like it, but it is what it is... We can't change it.. Only management can...

And you keep repeating one ride, one ride, one ride as if that is fact... It isn't... You're getting all upset and mad denouncing Avatar based on "insiders", who have been wrong before and have admitted to being used to promote and advance an agenda, saying so?

 

[doctornick]

What's sad is that it has better attendance rates (at least unofficially) than DHS...

I don't know why that's "sad" -- DAK is a far better park than DHS. IMHO, anyway. DHS has a couple of absolutely fantastic rides, but otherwise is pretty weak. Most would likely agree that DAK has weaker headlining attractions than DHS, but is just a far better park to just walk around in and "experience the surroundings". I realize that you so not share that opinion, but I don't think it's a common sentiment. Most people like DAK good enough with what it has, but feel it needs more stuff to do.

I don't care whether Avatar or something else is added to DAK, but the park does need more rides and attractions. But the theme is solid and the environment is top rate. When it comes to parks at WDW that need a complete overall, DHS is clearly at the top of the list. It needs a ton of work to create a cohesive theme and to make the layout more reasonable.

 

[doctornick]

IMO, most of the complaints are weird. Avatar isn't my favorite, but I do have eyeballs. If anyone can't be a little excited that what is arguably the most visually stunning special effects spectacular of all time has been franchised by Disney who is now going to work with Cameron to make an immersive environment based on the movie that already wowed our eyeballs, I find it odd. Really odd. The movies rating? Not the right imaginary animals? Worried about the planet's atmosphere? Really? Disney could blow it, but we've got quite a while to judge that. Right now, I'm just really happy something cool is in the pipeline.

Agreed. This is still what it comes down to for me. Avatar visually is fantastic and a well executed recreation of that would make an awesome immersive experience for a theme park. That is true no matter how commonplace the plot for the movie is or how forgettable the characters where. Honestly, I wouldn't expect any attractions to be based on the movie plot per se anyway.

Granted, the execution is key, but I do feel like with Cameron involved if it happens that Avatar Land would be pretty impressive.

 

[ctxak98]

This is all true and a fair analysis. The problem with Dinosaur is that it's the only actual representation of dinosaurs in an entire land supposedly themed to them, and yet in the ride you only see a handful of dinosaurs for a few seconds each. Worse still, dinosaurs tend to be of highest interest to young kids, who often would be much too afraid (or short) to ride such an intense ride. I agree a good fix would be to add actual dino-centric attractions to the surrounding land, in which Dinosaur could be a strong component, but for the time being Dinosaur is a sad under-realization of what could be a much broader and more amazing concept.

While I can see where your coming from and agree its the only depiction of REAL dinosaurs, I do not think the brief look at them is a bad thing! They are very well done AA dinosaurs and the best our there really. IF we are talking about which land is better themed Jurassic Park or Dinoland....Obviously Jurassic Park has Dinoland beat. BUT in terms of the main Attraction....Dinosaur had River Adventure beat by a long shot!

I agree many kids love dinosaurs and Disney should create more in that area for kids to enjoy. I posted an idea in the Imagineering Forum a while back with a whole DINOLAND update that made it seem more cohesive and much more appropriate for dinoaland. with a dig site smaller coaster, a water expedition viewing prehistoric sea life and a stage show featuring live dinosaurs....I just feel it needs something more! While Dinosaur may be to scary for young kids I do feel this attraction is necessary for young teens and young adults as it provides that rare attractions that's not a rollercoaster but its still thrilling. Disney doesn't have any other rides like this besides TOT!

 

[doctornick]

Carsland seems to be mostly rockwork and buildings - Pandora would have flora and fauna and bioluminescence to deal with, in a park that is covered in real plants (I know that The Tree of Life is fake, so it is possible to make fake plants, but it's the bioluminescence that I'm worried about.)

I don't think the bioluminescence is that problem with fiberoptics. I think a good prospective for floating mountains, which doesn't interfere with sitelines for the rest of the park, would be the biggest challenge. So much so that they might not even try to tackle it.

 

[doctornick]

So you'd be happy if AvatarLAND amounted to no more than one ride, one shop and a restaurant? I hate the idea of Avatar altogether but even I would be pi**ed off if, after all the speculation, rumour and planning they've supposedly been doing, that was all it ended up being. It's going to take three more years to build one ride and a gift shop?

I'm a little scared about it being pared down that way too. If they are going to do Pandora, they should commit to it and do it. That should mean something more substantial like a 2-3 rides, a restaurant and gift shop (plus themed bathrooms of course ). I was actually pretty down with the Soarin 2.0 plus the boat ride concept. That seems like a reasonable compromise and would be the kind of attractions that DAK needs desperately.

If the idea is down to 1 ride and a gift shop or such, then it doesn't make much sense as it's own land. And what else would you combine with Avatar to make a logical theme park land for DAK? I really can't think of anything. I can it can be a small land on its own, but if they do that, I really hope they have plans for some other attractions on the rest of the CMM plot (Mysterious Island, pretty please?)

 

[FrankLapidus]

Taking long to build projects is obviously a problem Disney has yet to remedy...

And again, no one here is saying one attraction is enough... No one... But, we do not know if Avatar will only be one attraction or two... Sorry, I am not going to believe the "insiders" since they have been wrong plenty of times before... Let's say Avatar does only open with one e-ticket attraction, a restaurant, and a shop in a deeply immersive land where you can walk around and absorb the sights... The land in itself would be a second attraction (providing they go all out with details)...

I will keep saying it is a start... Building a one attraction Avatarland is a lot better than closing CMM and putting nothing in its spot... One Avatar attraction is one more attraction to do in DAK...

It's up to you whether or not you want to believe the insiders on the forum, for me I see no reason why they would lie. They might well be wrong, equally I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are correct in this instance taking into account the players involved in this particular projects.

It's a start but for me it's taken too long to get here and I worry it will take just as long to reach the next point. I stand by my opinion of Avatar but I'm still interested and somewhat invested in this expansion despite my dislike of it because I want it to show that Disney is still serious about adding quality attractions to WDW and for it to be the start of improvements right across the resort.

But wasn't the idea of the new area of Fantasyland to increase capacity, which it does? Sure they could have done more with Fantasyland... But this is what we got... Now, we see what comes next for MK, which does need more... And until Disney fixes their construction issues, sadly, yes we will have to wait 5 years... No, I don't like it, but it is what it is... We can't change it.. Only management can...

You increase capacity by adding things for guests to do and that will keep them coming back. The Fantasyland expansion looks lovely from what I've seen of it but it's a lot of style over substance; having two new rides is great but there was potential for more and I think the Snow White building is being wasted as another M&G. It is what it is, I just think it's sad that it's reached a point now where we as guests are so welcoming of something new that we don't expect or demand more than we should and I include myself in that.

 

[Captain Chaos]

A key difference is that all of the other lands opened simultaneously as part of a more-or-less completed theme park. People didn't perceive those lands' opening as the opening of 3-5 new lands with one major attraction each; they they perceived AK as a theme park opening with several new major attractions, which happened to be subdivided into lands. The point is, after all the media hype and promotion, the years of waiting paid off with the simultaneous opening of multiple new attractions.

So, should Disney open Avatar with 5 new rides then? Reality is that won't happen... Won't happen in Disney, won't happen in Universal.. Won't happen in SeaWorld... WW is one new ride and two rethemed rides... WW did not open with three new rides... The fact that the land draws you into a new world, with one hell of a great attraction (and the most popular IP helps) is what draws...

Now, open Avatar with one massive E-ticket that blows people away, with a possible B or C ticket, with a land that immerses the guest in the world of Pandora, and you have a success...

Screaming Avatar may only be one ride while the other lands only have one ride and no one complains is just silly... IF and I stress IF Avatar gets only one ride (and no we have no proof that is the case), then it fits with the rest of the lands in DAK...

That's not the case with Avatar. It sounds like we'll have an equally long wait before we see completed results, and let's face it, Disney's hype for a land these days may well match what once would have been used to promote a new theme park. Guests that buy into that hype, come down to Florida, and find a single attraction that's basically an upgraded Soarin' might well find the expansion completely underwhelming, after the amount of press and time that went into it.

Disney's fault lies in how slow they are in construction, and again, nothing you or I can do about that...

And last I looked, people ate up Soarin.. The general public (the guests who matter most to Disney, not the less than 1 perfect of guests who frequent theme park sites) love Soarin... The next logical step in theme park evolution is the next generation of Soarin... If the ride is fun and exciting, and puts smiles on faces, the GP will eat it up, whether it is Soarin 2.0 or something completely revolutionary...

I think in the current "theme park wars" environment, the press of a new attraction and the theme park attractions themselves are inseparable. When every ride (at any resort) is promoted like crazy as an attempt to draw customers to that resort, the payoff of expectation is now as important as the ride itself. This was the problem New Fantasyland faced; it was completely overhyped in what otherwise would be a very solid and worthwhile (if minor) addition to MK. Disney needs to make sure Avatar lives up to the expectations of people that are fully aware they're giving up days at Universal and Potterland to see it.

Over hyped? Isn't that what marketing people are paid to do? Over hype their products? And to be fair, Fantasyland is not complete yet... I don't really think it is fair to say it isn't living up to expectations especially since Be Our Guests is constantly book full and the 7D mine train ride is still under construction... Once it is open in full, then we can fairly judge it...

James Cameron is a perfectionist (at least anything you read about him says so LOL)... Do you really think he'd allow Disney to create garbage and not something that lives up to the hype? Yea... I don't think he'd allow that.. I think he'd rather see it fall through than allow Disney to go half-assed with it...

 

[ctxak98]

I'm a little scared about it being pared down that way too. If they are going to do Pandora, they should commit to it and do it. That should mean something more substantial like a 2-3 rides, a restaurant and gift shop (plus themed bathrooms of course ). I was actually pretty down with the Soarin 2.0 plus the boat ride concept. That seems like a reasonable compromise and would be the kind of attractions that DAK needs desperately.

If the idea is down to 1 ride and a gift shop or such, then it doesn't make much sense as it's own land. And what else would you combine with Avatar to make a logical theme park land for DAK? I really can't think of anything. I can it can be a small land on its own, but if they do that, I really hope they have plans for some other attractions on the rest of the CMM plot (Mysterious Island, pretty please?)

I can agree that the Ride number is a little scary at this point. I mean if they added the boat ride and the soarin 2.0 then I would be fine! I really like the idea of visiting Pandora so this would be a plus in my book!

 

[BoarderPhreak]

No offense to anyone here but when some people bash Dinosaur as being nothing more then a jerk fest you do know that it is intentional to be rough, dark, loud and sometime scary right!?

Of course I realize what they were going for. I just think it can be a lot more than a bouncy car with an occasional strobe-lit dinosaur in light of everything else about the ride (theming, building, entrance, backstory, etc.). It's right in a lot of places, but I think it's wrong in others. It starts off great, in the jungle with meteors flying overhead, etc. But once the lights go off, it just falls apart.