AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[George]

It's the most obvious thing in the world, but I've only just connected the two thanks to your post. How did I miss it? I mean, really... HOW?

Now, I'm really curious as to how SM evolved and if there was any "awkwardness".

It was pre-internetz so back in the day, things would just show up at a theme or amusement park. I still remember when BTMRR was a big deal in my teen years. We knew some type of western roller coaster thing was being built, but that was it. No discussions. I'm also reasonably sure that during that time Disney didn't poll guests about everything. Or if they did, it was a lot less frequent.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Absolutely. I still don't see what the big deal is. It's not replacing anything. It's actually going to fill wasted space, essentially. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to even look at it.

It's not like they're replacing the Yeti with Stitch... Or another Blue alien

The problem isn't an issue of attending. Any addition still becomes a part of the fabric of a park and can influence future decisions. It's the skippy slope argument and with Disney I think there is definitely a cause for concern when Disney's Animal Kingdom really is the only theme park at Walt Disney World that still has its own, original sense of identity. What will Disney credit for Avatarland's success? It's message and commonality with the rest of the park or its power as a franchise?

It was pre-internetz so back in the day, things would just show up at a theme or amusement park. I still remember when BTMRR was a big deal in my teen years. We knew some type of western roller coaster thing was being built, but that was it. No discussions. I'm also reasonably sure that during that time Disney didn't poll guests about everything. Or if they did, it was a lot less frequent.

They didn't poll everybody with rigged surveys nor did they consider the theme parks as a mere marketing platform for other franchises. When Big Thunder Mountain Railroad was built the parks had to stand on their own and they did just that so well they kept the Company afloat in spite of drops in tourism and despite the Studio bleeding.

 

[spacemt354]

I wouldn't. I don't know about other people.

I'm not actually all that jazzed about Transformers. I'm not a fan, of course. But I'm not against it. It's fine. It fits the theme there. And it will probably be a good ride. Not dying to see it open, like I am with Antarctica, but it will probably be good, overall. Not anti-Transformers there.

And I wouldn't be anti-Avatar in DHS. It would be fine there. I'd feel much the same as I do about Transformers, though I wouldn't be as confident that the ride would be good, lol.

I just do not want this thing in my beloved AK.

Not trying to be a stickler, and maybe you've said it already, but what exactly is so bad about Avatar in DAK, since you said you wouldn't be anti-Avatar in DHS?

To be honest, from the little info that we have heard, it sounds as if the land would be best suited for DAK. The scenery on Pandora would fit very well with the scenery in the park, and the bio luminescent flowers concept seemed pretty cool as well. DHS is already a thematic mess, so placing Avatar with all its lush greenery and dense forests into a "studio" would just add to that mess.

So I'm just wondering what it is about Avatar that would ruin DAK. I mean it's not like they haven't incorporated film franchises into the park before. Lion King, Dinosaur, Finding Nemo, A Bug's Life, Jungle Book, and Tarzan have all been a part of DAK at some point. And it's not like the Avatar concept would add a Chester and Hester 2.0 to the park. Although it has apparently been cut down in terms of the # of attractions, it seems whatever is going in will have very nice themes and detail. All those things considered, I'm just curious as to why you are so against it.

 

[Magenta Panther]

There are bigger things to get butthurt over, people. Like Nemo in the Living Seas or Donald Duck in Mexico. The ironic part is that most of the butthurt couldn't care less about those...

At least Nemo and Donald are Disney creations, and have much more valid reasons for being in Epcot than Avatar does in DAK IMO.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Not trying to be a stickler, and maybe you've said it already, but what exactly is so bad about Avatar in DAK, since you said you wouldn't be anti-Avatar in DHS?

To be honest, from the little info that we have heard, it sounds as if the land would be best suited for DAK. The scenery on Pandora would fit very well with the scenery in the park, and the bio luminescent flowers concept seemed pretty cool as well. DHS is already a thematic mess, so placing Avatar with all its lush greenery and dense forests into a "studio" would just add to that mess.

So I'm just wondering what it is about Avatar that would ruin DAK. I mean it's not like they haven't incorporated film franchises into the park before. Lion King, Dinosaur, Finding Nemo, A Bug's Life, Jungle Book, and Tarzan have all been a part of DAK at some point. And it's not like the Avatar concept would add a Chester and Hester 2.0 to the park. Although it has apparently been cut down in terms of the # of attractions, it seems whatever is going in will have very nice themes and detail. All those things considered, I'm just curious as to why you are so against it.

To me at least, the creatures and world of Pandora are absolutely, 100% without a doubt fiction. The films you all listed are fictional stories, and while I question the inclusion of some due to their story focus, they're set on this planet. Disney's Animal Kingdom is by far the most directed of Disney's theme parks. It is inspired by Rohde's travels of our planet. It is about engaging with our planet, our world. It is not abstracted, it is direct, sometimes to the point of being overly preachy to many. That message may be in Avatar, but it is abstracted and projected onto a different planet inhabited by nothing we will ever see on this planet.

 

[twebber55]

To me at least, the creatures and world of Pandora are absolutely, 100% without a doubt fiction. The films you all listed are fictional stories, and while I question the inclusion of some due to their story focus, they're set on this planet. Disney's Animal Kingdom is by far the most directed of Disney's theme parks. It is inspired by Rohde's travels of our planet. It is about engaging with our planet, our world. It is not abstracted, it is direct, sometimes to the point of being overly preachy to many. That message may be in Avatar, but it is abstracted and projected onto a different planet inhabited by nothing we will ever see on this planet.

i think you re way over thinking this stuff..its a theme park which is supposed to be fun and informative but mostly entertainment

 

[FigmentJedi]

i think you re way over thinking this stuff..its a theme park which is supposed to be fun and informative but mostly entertainment

That's the sort of execu-thinking that diluted Future World and gave us a Nemo ride focused on rehashing the movie instead of using the characters to explore our oceans, the now very dated Energy pavilion (though by all means if it gets an update, keep Bill Nye), and trying to make Imagination more sci-fi because "Epcot's the science park right?"

 

[spacemt354]

To me at least, the creatures and world of Pandora are absolutely, 100% without a doubt fiction. The films you all listed are fictional stories, and while I question the inclusion of some due to their story focus, they're set on this planet. Disney's Animal Kingdom is by far the most directed of Disney's theme parks. It is inspired by Rohde's travels of our planet. It is about engaging with our planet, our world. It is not abstracted, it is direct, sometimes to the point of being overly preachy to many. That message may be in Avatar, but it is abstracted and projected onto a different planet inhabited by nothing we will ever see on this planet.

I disagree with the notion that everything in DAK has to be based on this planet and is based on Rhode's experiences. Describing DAK, Michael Eisner was quoted as saying:

"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."

Imagination and mythical creatures were always a component of DAK. Obviously Beastly Kingdom never came to be, however the fantasy realm of the park never ceased to exist. That is where Avatar blends in nicely with the park. One of the film's main focuses was on the environmental conservation of a planet that fantasy creatures populate. While yes, Joe Rohde's travels throughout the world heavily influenced attractions such as Expedition Everest, and much of the overall landscape of the park, that was never the park in its entirety.

 

[FigmentJedi]

I disagree with the notion that everything in DAK has to be based on this planet. Describing DAK, Michael Eisner was quoted as saying:

"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."

Imagination and mythical creatures were always a component of DAK. Obviously Beastly Kingdom never came to be, however the fantasy realm of the park never ceased to exist. That is where Avatar blends in nicely with the park. One of the film's main focuses was on the environmental conservation of a planet that fantasy creatures populate. While yes, Joe Rohde's travels throughout the world heavily influenced attractions such as Expedition Everest, and much of the overall landscape of the park, that was never the park in its entirety.

And what were the imaginary creatures they intended to incorporate? Beings from Earth's mythology with Beastly Kingdom functioning as Animal Kingdom's "Europe" to Dino-Land being Animal Kingdom's "North America". You can experience mythological creatures traveling throughout the world like Rohde, which you can't really say the same of with Avatar.

 

[twebber55]

I disagree with the notion that everything in DAK has to be based on this planet and is based on Rhode's experiences. Describing DAK, Michael Eisner was quoted as saying:

"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."

Imagination and mythical creatures were always a component of DAK. Obviously Beastly Kingdom never came to be, however the fantasy realm of the park never ceased to exist. That is where Avatar blends in nicely with the park. One of the film's main focuses was on the environmental conservation of a planet that fantasy creatures populate. While yes, Joe Rohde's travels throughout the world heavily influenced attractions such as Expedition Everest, and much of the overall landscape of the park, that was never the park in its entirety.

this

nothing and i mean nothing was ever mentioned about it only being earth based...avatar is much more closely related to the central themes of DAK than MANY attractions in other parks

people become so blinded by their hatred of a particular attraction they have to make up stuff that was never apart of the original dedication of said particular theme park

 

[twebber55]

To me at least, the creatures and world of Pandora are absolutely, 100% without a doubt fiction. The films you all listed are fictional stories, and while I question the inclusion of some due to their story focus, they're set on this planet. Disney's Animal Kingdom is by far the most directed of Disney's theme parks. It is inspired by Rohde's travels of our planet. It is about engaging with our planet, our world. It is not abstracted, it is direct, sometimes to the point of being overly preachy to many. That message may be in Avatar, but it is abstracted and projected onto a different planet inhabited by nothing we will ever see on this planet.

i ll assume you really know the movie is not about blue aliens fighting people from earth..its core message is conservation

 

[twebber55]

"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 bet there is a reason they left this open-ended so that WDI could have some leverage in creativity

 

[spacemt354]

And what were the imaginary creatures they intended to incorporate? Beings from Earth's mythology with Beastly Kingdom functioning as Animal Kingdom's "Europe" to Dino-Land being Animal Kingdom's "North America". You can experience mythological creatures traveling throughout the world like Rohde, which you can't really say the same of with Avatar.

Rhode saw dragons and unicorns in his travels? Those creatures are imaginary.

You can make the argument that Avatar addresses how our planet needs Pandora for survival . Earth needed the unobtainium from Pandora. How can these distant worlds interact peacefully and in harmony with nature, and not resort to violence and destruction as seen in the film can be another key theme. In this James Cameron created fantasy future, Pandora can be presented as the land in DAK that possesses the key to Earth's survival and the conservation of our own planet.

 

[champdisney]

I rather see the Pride Lands make it's way to DAK in conjunction of Africa first, "Pandora" can either come later or not at all. Who wouldn't want to experience riding into a full scale replica of Pride Rock, or even learning the knowledge of Pride Lands' Kings Past? My family and I have always wondered why there isn't an E-ticket attraction based off of the Lion King in DAK, there's so much potential and I feel that FotLK alone doesn't give it, it's full justice considering how big that Disney classic was and still is today. "Pandora" (Avatar) on the other hand, I can see being forgotten about 5 years after the sequels come out... Oh well!

 

[doctornick]

There definitely would be controversy if Splash Mountain was being constructed today, but the controversy over the film is more recent than people think. Song of the South was rereleased to theaters 5 times - twice in the 1980s. The last rerelease of the film was done to commemorate the film's 40th anniversary and to promote the opening of Splash Mountain in Disneyland.

I am of the mind that the controversy has been made worse by Disney's actions in burying the film. I think if more people have actually seen the film, they'd wonder what all the big deal is. Uncle Remus is the main character of the film and has a very positive portrayal. I think Disney's actions by not releasing the film has actually created a controversy that isn't supported by the actual content of the film.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I disagree with the notion that everything in DAK has to be based on this planet and is based on Rhode's experiences. Describing DAK, Michael Eisner was quoted as saying:

"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."

Imagination and mythical creatures were always a component of DAK. Obviously Beastly Kingdom never came to be, however the fantasy realm of the park never ceased to exist. That is where Avatar blends in nicely with the park. One of the film's main focuses was on the environmental conservation of a planet that fantasy creatures populate. While yes, Joe Rohde's travels throughout the world heavily influenced attractions such as Expedition Everest, and much of the overall landscape of the park, that was never the park in its entirety.

The imagined and mythical creatures selected for inclusion are not fictional in the same manner as the Na'vi. Expedition Everest demonstrates this in an incredible manner. Beyond the immediate question of whether or not the yeti exists, we are shown how regardless of whether or not the creature is an actual animal, the yeti has a cultural reality. It's a manifestation of the respect the people have for the mountains. The yeti, as guardian and protector, is a sort of personification of the power of nature.

this

nothing and i mean nothing was ever mentioned about it only being earth based...avatar is much more closely related to the central themes of DAK than MANY attractions in other parks

people become so blinded by their hatred of a particular attraction they have to make up stuff that was never apart of the original dedication of said particular theme park

The dedicated of the park is some nice words for the CEO to say at park opening tied into a specific format based on the Disneyland dedication. Intentions go far beyond what Michael Eisner briefly said one day. There does not need to be a specific mention of it only being about earth because it is so evident in the subjects explored. I doubt many people would immediately group a Grey with animals such as dinosaurs, lions or even unicorns.

Rhode saw dragons and unicorns in his travels? Those creatures are imaginary.

Yes, he did, because they have a cultural reality. The stories of these creatures are about our direct relationship and experiences with out world.

 

[RandySavage]

Say you wanted to create a 'Tomorrowland' for DAK (just as BK would have been its Fantasyland).

I can think of two options:
1. Imagine how the current biosphere of Earth might evolve over the coming millennia (e.g. predatory trees, cow-like beetles), which would be cool.

2. Imagine alien biologies discovered as future tech makes possible a survey across the galaxy.

Either could work within Animal Kingdom's theme, and Avatarland, with the right emphasis, is aligned with the second.

I wonder what the reaction would be if Disney announced a $400 million expansion to DAK focusing on #2 above but being completely original - having no connection to Avatar.

 

[luv]

Not trying to be a stickler, and maybe you've said it already, but what exactly is so bad about Avatar in DAK, since you said you wouldn't be anti-Avatar in DHS?

To be honest, from the little info that we have heard, it sounds as if the land would be best suited for DAK. The scenery on Pandora would fit very well with the scenery in the park, and the bio luminescent flowers concept seemed pretty cool as well. DHS is already a thematic mess, so placing Avatar with all its lush greenery and dense forests into a "studio" would just add to that mess.

So I'm just wondering what it is about Avatar that would ruin DAK. I mean it's not like they haven't incorporated film franchises into the park before. Lion King, Dinosaur, Finding Nemo, A Bug's Life, Jungle Book, and Tarzan have all been a part of DAK at some point. And it's not like the Avatar concept would add a Chester and Hester 2.0 to the park. Although it has apparently been cut down in terms of the # of attractions, it seems whatever is going in will have very nice themes and detail. All those things considered, I'm just curious as to why you are so against it.

I just don't think it fits. Chester & Hester is probably not the best fit, I have to admit. It hangs on by a string and is fairly easy for me to overlook, being as its the only part that I don't really think totally belongs.

Once they add in Avatar, we have a bunch of stuff that doesn't fit. C&H aren't as easy to overlook. The park, overall, becomes more of a mess. Then toss in the fact that Nemo isn't a great show and it just all comes down.

Since DHS is already a mess, as you pointed out, I don't really care what they do over there and would be completely fine with Avatarland there.

Avatar was a movie people liked a lot because of the special effects. It wasn't loved because of its story or characters. In five or ten years, the effects will seem outdated and nobody will think much of it at all. There is nothing special about Avatar.

And it isn't Disney.

Avatar also won't take me anywhere I want to go. The rest of the park does...even Chester & Hester, to a small degree. I don't want to go to Avatarland.

I just don't want it in the AK. That's me. That's my feeling on that.

I really hope that after they do this, I can continue to love the park as much as I do now. But it may just tip the scale from having to kind of overlook the badness of Nemo and the awkwardness of C&H to having to overlook half the park, lol.

I'll have to see.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Say you wanted to create a 'Tomorrowland' for DAK (just as BK would have been its Fantasyland).

I can think of two options:
1. Imagine how the current biosphere of Earth might evolve over the coming millennia (e.g. predatory trees, cow-like beetles), which would be cool.

2. Imagine alien biologies discovered as future tech makes possible a survey across the galaxy.

Either could work within Animal Kingdom's theme, and Avatarland, with the right emphasis, is aligned with the second.

I wonder what the reaction would be if Disney announced a $400 million expansion to DAK focusing on #2 above but being completely original - having no connection to Avatar.

They're still wild tangents to what is presented at the park. Alien biologies makes far more sense as part of space exploration, not our relationship with our planet.

 

[spacemt354]

The imagined and mythical creatures selected for inclusion are not fictional in the same manner as the Na'vi. Expedition Everest demonstrates this in an incredible manner. Beyond the immediate question of whether or not the yeti exists, we are shown how regardless of whether or not the creature is an actual animal, the yeti has a cultural reality. It's a manifestation of the respect the people have for the mountains. The yeti, as guardian and protector, is a sort of personification of the power of nature.

Mythical implies creatures such as the Yeti, who regardless of whether or not they actually exist, have built a folklore and following behind their being. Same can be said for dragons, unicorns and much of the concept of Beastly Kingdom. Then there are fantasy creatures, such as the Na'vi, who are created through pure imagination and develop their folklore through their creator. Both mythical and imaginative creatures have a place in DAK, as quoted in Eisner's statement. There does not need to be a historical perspective on these mythical and fantasy creatures to garner them passage to inclusion in DAK. Dragons and Yetis are some the first mythical creatures to mind when the topic comes up. That doesn't mean those are the only mythical and imaginative creatures that can be slated for the park. Personally, I'm all for expansion and something new in the parks. If it's Avatar, then so be it.