AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[lazyboy97o]

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I'm pro innovation and expansion, if the component fits in the park (I figured the last part to be understood). In my view, Avatar does fit in AK. To others, apparently not.

Then I do not get what point you were trying to make. Not many people have doubted that James Cameron will ensure that something of quality is delivered.

 

[spacemt354]

Then I do not get what point you were trying to make. Not many people have doubted that James Cameron will ensure that something of quality is delivered.

My point is whatever this Avatar experience turns out to be, it will be new, unique to DAK and WDW, and it will be an almost guaranteed quality addition with James Cameron on board.

All those things considered, I do not understand how this concept can possibly fuel the extreme negativity that has been bestowed upon it. I can understand some initial skepticism, and I can understand the idea that this might not be the "potter swatter" that everyone is looking for, but this type of backlash without a glimpse at concept art I don't understand.

 

[lazyboy97o]

My point is whatever this Avatar experience turns out to be, it will be new, unique to DAK and WDW, and it will be an almost guaranteed quality addition with James Cameron on board.

Because none of that matters if it undermines the indenting of the only park at Walt Disney World left with a true identity.

All those things considered, I do not understand how this concept deserves the extreme negativity that has been bestowed upon it. I can understand some initial skepticism, and I can understand the idea that this might not be the "potter swatter" that everyone is looking for, but this type of backlash without a glimpse at concept art I don't understand.

The reasons are varied. I think the biggest has to do with the park's identity and what that means for the future. Even if the film was a perfect fit I would be very concerned about this project because of why it was chosen, as a quick reaction based only on box office performance. Disney won't view success as a result of the content of the experience, but its brand affiliation. It is exactly the prism through which Carsland is being measured. To Disney, Carsland is a success because of Cars, not the immersive experience that was built (this is why thoughts of trimming it for Florida can survive). Disney's Animal Kingdom remains committed to its vision and its lesser performance is not because it lacks big name franchises, but a [successful] Avatarland will only further convince Disney that this is the case and the park will going the other three as a mere DisneyPark.

 

[Captain Chaos]

With all due respect to the opposers, I just don't understand the loathsome and seemingly flat-out hatred of the notion that it's going to be built in Animal Kingdom.

Your first mistake is trying to figure out WDW fans.. They are their own worst enemy... They will moan and groan about stale parks, and when something new comes, they moan and groan about the addition because it isn't what THEY want...WDW fans can never be pleased... Sometimes (most times) professional help should be sought for the lot.. LOL

 

[lazyboy97o]

Your first mistake is trying to figure out WDW fans.. They are their own worst enemy... They will moan and groan about stale parks, and when something new comes, they moan and groan about the addition because it isn't what THEY want...WDW fans can never be pleased... Sometimes (most times) professional help should be sought for the lot.. LOL

Nothing like argumentum ad hominem to class up a good discussion.

 

[FigmentJedi]

like kali

Kali shows a karmic response of the illegal logging operation getting screwed over by the natural disasters they invited from their clear cutting and burning and it's already apparent in the rest of Anandapur's story that the village has been committing themselves to preserving their forests and trying to shut down operations like the one on the Kali ride.

 

[luv]

With all due respect to the opposers, I just don't understand the loathsome and seemingly flat-out hatred of the notion that it's going to be built in Animal Kingdom.

Members on these board preach for something new to come to the parks. Carsland gets purposes and backlash ensues now arguing for something new and unique. Pandora, an idea that fits the "new and unique" description seems to be on the verge of construction, and the backlash is even worse than Carsland.

I understand if you thought the movie had a sub-par plot and lackluster characters. However I felt the same way about Cars, and look what they did with that franchise out in DCA. And if you feel that Avatar does not fit thematically, or if components of its message are counterintuitive for DCA, we can argue till kingdom come. But neither side it seems will ever budge from their position, so it's this point where I don't really see any point to continuing to argue.

Would Beastly Kingdom have been the best option perhaps for that area of the park, probably. Im not pro or anti avatar. im pro expansion of the parks and im pro innovation of unique and new experiences. I don't see how expansion of the park with a new experience that will be unique to DAK can possibly be weighed down with so much negativity before we even see concept art

I don't want an expansion just for the sake of expanding. Just because it is an expansion does not mean it is good. To me.

I never preached for anything new to come to the AK. Could it use an extra ride or show (or two)? Sure. But I've not been complaining about the AK. I've had nothing but praise for the AK.

I respect your choice. I'm not arguing that you should be anti-Avatar, which I so firmly am. Or anti-expansion just for the sake of expansion, either. If it floats your boat, I'm glad you're glad.

You bordered on behaving like certain other posters who resort to nastiness with the whole "hater" thing. Not saying that you were actually going so far as to call people names! But, please do refrain from that. It's rude, childish...and flat-out wrong. We have had quite enough insulting of others, IMO.

If you want to know why people don't like it, that info is easily obtained without the sort of rudeness we have seen.

 

[spacemt354]

I don't want an expansion just for the sake of expanding. Just because it is an expansion does mean it is good. To me.

I respect your choice. I'm not arguing that you should be anti-Avatar, which I so firmly am. Or anti-expansion just for the sake of expansion, either. If it floats your boat, I'm glad you're glad.

You bordered on behaving like certain other posters who resort to nastiness with the whole "hater" thing. Not saying that you were actually going so far as to call people names! But, please do refrain from that. It's rude, childish...and flat-out wrong. We have had quite enough insulting of others, IMO.

If you want to know why people don't like it, that info is easily obtained without the sort of rudeness we have seen.

If you saw my latter post, I clarified that I am for expansion with components that fit the overall message and theme of the park or land they will become a part of. I didn't say that earlier because I figured that was understood. Apparently I was wrong.

Either way, I never called you a "hater" nor did I think I bordered on any sort of nastiness. My posts were simply making observations based on my readings in this thread. You yourself proclaim that you are "firmly" anti-Avatar, so I'm not sure how to address said crowd aside from using the term "opposers" with all due respect intended. And I thought I initially asked you very politely for your reasons as to why you don't want Avatar. I might not agree with them, but I respect them.

If you have to get rude and nasty on an internet discussion board because you disagree with another's opinion of a theme park, then I don't know what to say. There are more important things in life then arguing on and on about the positives and negatives of a project that isn't even known in its entirety yet.

 

[luv]

If you saw my latter post, I clarified that I am for expansion with components that fit the overall message and theme of the park or land they will become a part of. I didn't say that earlier because I figured that was understood. Apparently I was wrong.

Either way, I never called you a "hater" nor did I think I bordered on any sort of nastiness. My posts were simply making observations based on my readings in this thread. You yourself proclaim that you are "firmly" anti-Avatar, so I'm not sure how to address said crowd aside from using the term "opposers" with all due respect intended. And I thought I initially asked you very politely for your reasons as to why you don't want Avatar. I might not agree with them, but I respect them.

If you have to get rude and nasty on an internet discussion board because you disagree with another's opinion of a theme park, then I don't know what to say. There are more important things in life then arguing on and on about the positives and negatives of a project that isn't even known in its entirety yet.

I'm on board with "opposers."

When you say you don't understand "the loathsome and flat-out hatred", I immediately think, "that's because there is no hatred, loathsome or not." And it put me in mind of other people who have made nasty comments. I don't hate Avatar. I just don't want it in the AK. I am not generally a "hater", either, but have been called such already several times by posters slightly less sensible than yourself. I know you didn't go that far.

And I'm totally in agreement with that final paragraph.

 

[spacemt354]

I'm on board with "opposers."

When you say you don't understand "the loathsome and flat-out hatred", I immediately think, "that's because there is no hatred, loathsome or not." And it put me in mind of other people who have made nasty comments. I don't hate Avatar. I just don't want it in the AK. I am not generally a "hater", either, but have been called such already several times by posters slightly less sensible than yourself. I know you didn't go that far.

And I'm totally in agreement with that final paragraph.

I said "loathsome and seemingly flat-out hatred" 1.) because another poster had used the term "loathe" regarding Avatar and 2.) Seemingly flat-out hatred, not because there is hatred, but because I've observed 200+ thread pages containing mostly negative retorts regarding the Avatar addition.

Nevertheless, everyone is entitled to an opinion regarding this project, and it is interesting to read all the opinions as long as the discussion stays cordial

 

[PeterAlt]

After thinking long and hard about this, I really do think Disney should just shelve this whole Avatar project altogether. Disney has properties of their own to explore (Lucasfilm, Marvel, etc) Avatar is not a Disney owned brand and therefore I don't think its necessary for Disney to spend millions upon millions on building a whole land worth of attractions on a franchise that isn't rightfully theirs, that's something the folks over at Universal does best. It's all under James Cameron's doing, for whatever reason (I heard it has to do with him wanting a bigger budget to go into the project) he's been stalling on the project and if he continues to go down this route, he's just going to end up losing. I just hope Imagineering are coming up with secondary options and if push comes to shove with Cameron, Disney can just turn it around and say "Hey, we've been very cooperative and understanding of your needs and demands, Mr. Cameron. But I think we've come to terms in passing on this project, good luck with your franchise." And let that be the end of the brewing Disney/Cameron relationship.

As I said, Disney has more than enough of their own material to capitalize from. I would love to see Animal Kingdom receive attractions based off of Indiana Jones or Kraven the Hunter, there are many possibilities! Avatar though, while the movie looked amazing visually but the story itself sucked and by the information of attractions I've read, "Pandora" seems to be Cameron and Disney's version of their own Jurassic Park (IOA)... and we don't want/NEED that!

Okay, you said a lot here, so forgive me for focusing on the parts of that post made hit reply. First, Disney paid an undisclosed amount of money (in other words, something obscenely steep, probably in the hundreds of millions, maybe a billion dollars or more) for the world-wide exclusive Avatar rights, including ALL of its sequels. SO, the rights are theirs and they ponied up the big bucks for it. They can't return it for a refund or exchange it for the rights for Terminator, for example.

Second, just because we haven't heard anything doesn't mean they're having problems or its not happening. No one heard about Hyperion Warf for a long time after it was announced, but it turned into the much bigger and more ambititious Disney Springs, for example. Disney announced a couple of years ago a project called Flamingo Crossing. I heard people compare Avatar to that project, saying, like Flamingo Crossing, Avatar is dead. Truth is Flamingo Crossing is anything but dead. They had to announce it much earlier than normal because of a legal complication that forced them to disclose their plans for that far in advance. The truth is development takes time and Flamingo Crossing, like Avatar, were in the very early planning phase when announced.

It kills me each time when I see people here just assume an announced project was dead just because they haven't heard developments on it for a while. No leaks even. Well, hasn't anyone figured out that maybe security has been tightened? Apple has doubled down on security in an effort to stop leaks. Disney's CEO is also Apple's chairman of the board of directors. Iger was definately in the room when Apple decided to double down security. Don't you think he probably thought, "Hmm, we need to do the same thing at Disney..."? I would wager on it, considering we here think leaked information is "normal". It's far from normal. It's illegal and we here encourage it!

 

[George]

Surely if the attraction is good enough the IP comes second?

And that's a massive "if".

Exactly correct. Now, can we all go out and get some milkshakes, on this the first warm day of 2013 and have a big group discussion?

 

[luv]

What is the IP?

I keep seeing those letters. Usually, after reading something in context a number of times, I figure it out. I even got TPFKATDMGMS (or however it goes.)

But I cannot figure out IP and its been driving me nuts.

Help!

 

[danlb_2000]

Okay, you said a lot here, so forgive me for focusing on the parts of that post made hit reply. First, Disney paid an undisclosed amount of money (in other words, something obscenely steep, probably in the hundreds of millions, maybe a billion dollars or more) for the world-wide exclusive Avatar rights, including ALL of its sequels. SO, the rights are theirs and they ponied up the big bucks for it. They can't return it for a refund or exchange it for the rights for Terminator, for example.

Second, just because we haven't heard anything doesn't mean they're having problems or its not happening. No one heard about Hyperion Warf for a long time after it was announced, but it turned into the much bigger and more ambititious Disney Springs, for example. Disney announced a couple of years ago a project called Flamingo Crossing. I heard people compare Avatar to that project, saying, like Flamingo Crossing, Avatar is dead. Truth is Flamingo Crossing is anything but dead. They had to announce it much earlier than normal because of a legal complication that forced them to disclose their plans for that far in advance. The truth is development takes time and Flamingo Crossing, like Avatar, were in the very early planning phase when announced.

It kills me each time when I see people here just assume an announced project was dead just because they haven't heard developments on it for a while. No leaks even. Well, hasn't anyone figured out that maybe security has been tightened? Apple has doubled down on security in an effort to stop leaks. Disney's CEO is also Apple's chairman of the board of directors. Iger was definately in the room when Apple decided to double down security. Don't you think he probably thought, "Hmm, we need to do the same thing at Disney..."? I would wager on it, considering we here think leaked information is "normal". It's far from normal. It's illegal and we here encourage it!

I highly doubt that Disney paid anywhere near a billion dollars for these rights. As for "return it for a refund" that would depend on how the contract is written. I would assume there are escape clauses in the contract so that if Disney decided not to build something within a certain time period they would loose exclusive rights and would only pay a certain amount.

I don't believe any of our more reliable insiders have ever said the project is dead, just that it was having difficulties. Also, Iger is not Apple's chairman of the board, he is just on the board's audit committee.

 

[unkadug]

IP=Intellectual Property

 

[luv]

IP=Intellectual Property

Oh, my God. THANK YOU!!

 

[PeterAlt]

I highly doubt that Disney paid anywhere near a billion dollars for these rights. As for "return it for a refund" that would depend on how the contract is written. I would assume there are escape clauses in the contract so that if Disney decided not to build something within a certain time period they would loose exclusive rights and would only pay a certain amount.

I don't believe any of our more reliable insiders have ever said the project is dead, just that it was having difficulties. Also, Iger is not Apple's chairman of the board, he is just on the board's audit committee.

You're right. I just looked it up. I thought he was. In any case, he was in the board room meeting when they decided that.

 

[steve2wdw]

The fact that the Avatar attraction keeps pushing forward makes me believe that this is an ego driven project, and not an Iger ego, but a Cameron ego. Didn't he put a boat load of $ into Titanic when it was in budgetary trouble? It wouldn't surprise me if Cameron was ponying up the $ to get this attraction into DAK. If WDI really doesn't like the concept, but it's still moving forward, I'd guess that that is the scenario. If you were in the theme park business, and someone was handing you a half billion dollars to put in an attraction based on your movie, would you turn it down, especially when it's going to help drive attendance. We're just the 1/2 of one percent that finds any fault with this project, yet the Joe Q Public's (who greatly outnumber us) are going to love it. And if Cameron gets his way, I'm sure it will be spectacular. While I'm still on the fence about this one (at DAK), I remember watching the movie while I was on the treadmill at home and thinking, "I'd love to be able to visit Pandora at a theme park". I really thought that Universal would be getting the rights to this, then it was just a week later that Disney made its announcement.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The fact that the Avatar attraction keeps pushing forward makes me believe that this is an ego driven project, and not an Iger ego, but a Cameron ego. Didn't he put a boat load of $ into Titanic when it was in budgetary trouble? It wouldn't surprise me if Cameron was ponying up the $ to get this attraction into DAK. If WDI really doesn't like the concept, but it's still moving forward, I'd guess that that is the scenario. If you were in the theme park business, and someone was handing you a half billion dollars to put in an attraction based on your movie, would you turn it down, especially when it's going to help drive attendance.

This is an interesting thought and not at all without precedent. Attraction sponsors have a long history of giving input into their attraction(s). If this were the case, then I would really hope the attraction(s) would be placed over at the Disney-MGM Studios where there can be an acknowledgment of the techniques that brought Pandora to life.

 

[RSoxNo1]

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.

Here's the thing, Disney seems to have concluded that many of the "good" mythical animals would now be seen as copying The Lost Continent and The Wizarding World of Harry Potter. Personally, I think that if Avatar didn't exist and Disney decided to team up with James Cameron for a new mythical animal land called Pandora, people would be far more excited. It actually seems like that's the direction they're going. Rumors have the Avatar component being shrunk down to a single attraction. That could potentially mean that the land could house other mythical animal concepts.