RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
That is absolutely the case.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom
- Thread starter DocMcHulk
- Start date
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
It's easier to sell to stupid people?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I'd still be turned off by this hypothetical for the reasons I've explained. I dislike the idea of purely fictional animals being showcased at the park.
Where are you seeing these rumors? I keep seeing stories of a land that will only comprise a single attraction, a single eatery and a single shop. Just a really small land.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
I'm not speculating that what opens in 2016/2017 will be a fully fleshed out mythical land, just that this land could evolve into that.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
That just sounds disjointed to me as the Na'vi are not mythical, they're fictional. Maybe it could evolve to include stuff like more aliens as @RandySavage postulated.
misterID
Well-Known Member
After reading this thread I can safely say that the opposition to Avatar has now degenerated into a 2-year-olds tantrum of plugging their ears and screaming, "NO!"
When you're dissecting the word "Imaginary" like a lawyer trying to get a starlet off DUI charges, and that the word ONLY means what you want it to mean... There lies the problem. It has become all about you, not the park. And the fact you share that park with other people.
It's a theme park, at the end of the day, there are things in every park that won't appeal to certain people. Accept it or don't, but it is not as apocalyptic as people are trying to make out.
Apparantly not visiting something you don't like isn't good enough. Just the mere existence of a section of park ruins everything. That's silly, childish, and ridiculous.
Maybe it's the fact the park has stayed stagnant for so long that some people have some type of OCD attachment where any change is bad.
When you're dissecting the word "Imaginary" like a lawyer trying to get a starlet off DUI charges, and that the word ONLY means what you want it to mean... There lies the problem. It has become all about you, not the park. And the fact you share that park with other people.
It's a theme park, at the end of the day, there are things in every park that won't appeal to certain people. Accept it or don't, but it is not as apocalyptic as people are trying to make out.
Apparantly not visiting something you don't like isn't good enough. Just the mere existence of a section of park ruins everything. That's silly, childish, and ridiculous.
Maybe it's the fact the park has stayed stagnant for so long that some people have some type of OCD attachment where any change is bad.
LOL when i was reading what people were posting about the definition of imaginary i thought the same thing.. the only thing we can go by are the numbers so when this opens up lets see if avatar ruins the park or gives it s jolt in attendance..im betting on the latter
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
At what point does mythical turn into fictional?
when people begin to like the IP
although i do agree with lazyboy that your idea ,to me, is a little disjointed but i could be convinced depending on what it was
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
To me it is the place in culture. Avatar is pop culture, but I don't think it and the Na'vi has had a broad and meaningful impact. The yeti, just as a symbol, has had a very real impact on life of the people's living in the Himalayas. That is what the museum and the extensive research into the project are all about. The same was true of the animals selected for Beastlie Kingdom. They were a part of life, even just as symbols. Can you really say that about the Na'vi, or aliens in general or other animals that were just made up recently?
furthermore disney uses the word imagined more so than mythical
furthermore again lol, i ve always believed that these ideas could be very successful without the movie..you dont even need the movie if it is done properly....just teh eye candy and some basic story is all you need to have a successful land (cars anyone)
furthermore again lol, i ve always believed that these ideas could be very successful without the movie..you dont even need the movie if it is done properly....just teh eye candy and some basic story is all you need to have a successful land (cars anyone)
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
Really it comes down to age. Tying back to greek mythology is logical. Tying back to more primitive cultures where the mythical animals were based largely on oral tradition is really what you're looking for. I'm inclined to agree, but I could see blending work in an all encompassing mythical land. If the park is not going to be divided by continent with the mythical animals rolled in (beyond Everest), I think the Mythical Animal Land can work. The argument now is which "mythology" to derive these mythical animals from. Avatar can be considered a mythology, but they could just as easily focus on the dragon like creatures and most people would be none the wiser.
We can look at the two words as interchangeable in this case, can't we? There is no definitive proof that Yeti's exist or ever existed. As such, they are imagined creatures whose existence is based on mythology. A myth by it's very definition is something that isn't true/imagined.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The issue I take with this is that I believe it discounts the very different perceptions that used to/do exist regarding these creatures. Greek mythology was not fictional stories to the ancient Greeks. It was very much a part of their lives. I think that is a big part of what Expedition Everest's queue tries to teach us. Regardless of whether or not there is a physical creature, the yeti is a very real part of the life of these people. I'd be against Mouseton in the park for the same reasons because even though The Walt Disney Company has treated Mickey Mouse as though he is very real, we've never widely taken that view of the character.
Along with this, I also take issue with the idea of extraterrestrial subjects in the park as I believe there is a strong focus on this planet. The idea of Martians has existed for some time and I think a Mars land (with or without Mr. Carter) would be similarly inappropriate. As would a Star Wars land like an Ewok village, as has been suggested on this forum a few times.
Even something as grand as Journey to the Center of the Earth is something that I think would be very much dancing on that cultural-mythical/fictional line. Verne definitely wanted his stories to be plausible and the mid-19th century definitely has its share of eccentric geological and evolutionary theories that were considered to be of at least some possible merit, but I think the Disney take on the subject may have stepped just a bit far into the realm of fantasy.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
So in your mind, the mythical component should be creatures that us as humans believed existed at some point? That makes sense, and conceptually is something I can get behind. Having said that, it looks like Avatar is happening in some way shape or form so your idea will probably not be reflected by the future direction of the park.
FigmentJedi
Well-Known Member
In contrast, I'd be all for a small Mouseton area as a Toontown alternative. A Gottfredson comics inspired ride would be pretty sweet, especially if it involved the Blot as an antagonist and I'm in agreement with Passport to Dreams Old and New that Toontown has done nothing but dilute the idea of what sort of setting Mickey and friends live in.
http://passport2dreams.blogspot.com/2012/09/lightning-in-bottle-storybook-circus.html
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Exactly. I can also see how the conservation message of Avatar makes sense. It was my first thought when the project was announced. My position on the animals only really came about after reading other people (mostly here) use Beastlie Kingdom and Expedition Everest as precedents for more fantastic creatures.
As I have said, my biggest fear with Avatar is that if it is successful that Disney will not see the commonality with the park as a key to that success, just that it is [Big Franchise A]. And to make the park more successful tossing in some [Big Franchise R] and [Big Franchise L] would work just as well. Disney's corporate culture is one that loves formulas. I know its the slippery slope argument but it is one I really see Disney going down. That is where I really think Avatarland can reek havoc on the park, because its success (I don't doubt Cameron will insist on an outstanding attraction) will be interpreted through Disney's twisted corporate culture.
Cosmic Commando
Well-Known Member
My thunder has been stolen, but I also would have drawn the line at "animals that adults used to think were real at some point". I am, however, willing to accept Avatar if it's good. No sense in stretching the park's theme for a "meh". Regardless of dedication plaques, history has shown us that a park is a living thing and we sometimes have to change the way we think about it. With this Avatar thingy, I keep thinking back to the very first new land-- New Orleans Square. Before that, the lands were more like film genres or sections in a bookstore... Western, Sci-Fi, Fairy Tales, Adventure. Even MSUSA was sort of like a musical waiting to happen in a nondescript, small town. Then, all of a sudden, you have a whole land dedicated to a single, very real city? It was probably a bit of a shock, but it worked because the land was beautiful and they opened two of the best attractions ever there shortly after the land opened.
As glum as it was seeing those people in the floaty chairs, I still view Wall-E as a positive movie. At the end, the people left their comfortable existence on the Axiom to live a "real" life fixing and repopulating the Earth. A Wall-E attraction could be set 100 or 200 years after the Axiom returns to Earth... I could totally see Tomorrowland being the settlement that the people from the Axiom built.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
There was some New Orleans-esque architecture before New Orleans and the land was built as part of Frontierland with the city described as the "gay Paris" of the frontier.
Nothing wrong with a park evolving, but it needs to be evolving. I think most of Walt Disney World's parks have been devolving.
would you rather have an avatar land with soarin 10.0, the boat ride, and vekoma bike coaster
or
would you rather have an avatar land with soarin 10.0, the boat ride and a night time show like WOC featuring all of animal kingdom
and please have the maturity to not say neither..we get it
or
would you rather have an avatar land with soarin 10.0, the boat ride and a night time show like WOC featuring all of animal kingdom
and please have the maturity to not say neither..we get it
I choose Option A, as there is not enough to do at DAK to actually entice me to stay around late enough for a night time show.
I am, however, mature enough not to turn down my nose at Option B, if that is all we get.