AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[Cosmic Commando]

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.

I know they were developing New Orleans Square as part of Frontierland for a while before they decided to make it its own land; thanks for reminding me. My mother-in-law actually has a plate from Disneyland sometime in the 60's (my guess is '63-'64?) with the castle in the middle and the lands ringing the outside. Frontierland is represented by the Mark Twain with the facade for the Mansion visible on the far shore. I've sort of been coming around on the placement of Splash and BTMRR in MK, too. I love the 2010 True Grit movie. It looks very "Old West", but it takes place (mostly?) in Arkansas... not exactly Tombstone, Arizona. It's interesting to think of a time when the frontier was just out of the Eastern time zone.

About evolving/devolving: I think you're right. With the semi-recent closures and no replacements, I believe both Epcot and DAK have fewer attractions than they did in 2006. DAK I actually feel pretty frustrated with; I think it has the "bones" of a really special park and most anything cool or unique about has been downgraded in some way since it opened. FotLK with the enclosed theater is about the only thing I can think of that hasn't been touched in a negative way. Safari has the botched zebra ending and the Wild Africa Trek buildings on the savannah, Kali has lost effects, Everest has a broken yeti, Tree of Life has nets under it, and Dinosaur has a laundry list of lost effects.

 

[doctornick]

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

Option B and it's not even close IMHO. A night time show would be a huge addition to DAK and, while I'd be more than happy to see the bike coaster, I don't think it's a big "need" in a park where most of the existing rides are height restricted/thrill types (or bumpy).

As I've said before, I really hope the boat ride is back in the plans because it would fill a big void and be a big draw if well executed with AAs (and with Cameron on board, I would expect a high quality).

if they do go for a WoC show, I'd much prefer it be animal/nature based not just Avatar.

Edit: I'd also add that I think 2 rides plus dining is the perfect amount for Avatar. Enough to make it into a full fledged independent "land" so the stuff isn't shoehorned into another more general land. And because more than 2 and Avatar would start to dominate the character of the park.

 

[NoChesterHester]

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

Option B, because while I'd love more rides a new state of the art night time show would be a vacation changing addition for me. A night time show is something I plan around, I just ride on attractions during my day at the park.

 

[BlackCauldron]

Forgive me if this has been raised before but - didn't have time to read through 228 pages of posts

My main question is - out of all the possibilities - WHY Avatar? I enjoyed the movie as much as the next guy, but in terms of the franchise - can it even stand on its own 2 feet? The original movie was a success, but there's no telling if the sequels will be (Jaws 3,4,5 anyone?). The decision to develop that space to Avatarland seems premature at best. And I understand the movie's (loose) message of conservation and it's heavy focus on mythology, but an entire land based on a movie seems better shoe-horned into DHS.

We only know one thing for certain - Disney has indicated it is ready, willing and able to finally develop that plot of land into something else. So - why not Beastly Kingdomme? The land was pretty close to being finalized, so why not just finish it, give the fans what they really want, and fulfill the original concept of what AK was supposed to be in the first place?

And if not Beastly Kingdomme, why not Austrialia? South America? There are a plethora of possibilities that don't invovle putting all your eggs into the basket of a franchise that has yet to prove itself.

 

[luv]

Forgive me if this has been raised before but - didn't have time to read through 228 pages of posts

My main question is - out of all the possibilities - WHY Avatar? I enjoyed the movie as much as the next guy, but in terms of the franchise - can it even stand on its own 2 feet? The original movie was a success, but there's no telling if the sequels will be (Jaws 3,4,5 anyone?). The decision to develop that space to Avatarland seems premature at best. And I understand the movie's (loose) message of conservation and it's heavy focus on mythology, but an entire land based on a movie seems better shoe-horned into DHS.

We only know one thing for certain - Disney has indicated it is ready, willing and able to finally develop that plot of land into something else. So - why not Beastly Kingdomme? The land was pretty close to being finalized, so why not just finish it, give the fans what they really want, and fulfill the original concept of what AK was supposed to be in the first place?

And if not Beastly Kingdomme, why not Austrialia? South America? There are a plethora of possibilities that don't invovle putting all your eggs into the basket of a franchise that has yet to prove itself.

I'd much rather see Austrailia or Beastly Kingdomme.

Avatar should have gone to DHS.

But it looks like they may actually stick this thing in the AK. Sad, sad, sad.

 

[Tim_4]

Forgive me if this has been raised before but - didn't have time to read through 228 pages of posts

My main question is - out of all the possibilities - WHY Avatar? I enjoyed the movie as much as the next guy, but in terms of the franchise - can it even stand on its own 2 feet? The original movie was a success, but there's no telling if the sequels will be (Jaws 3,4,5 anyone?). The decision to develop that space to Avatarland seems premature at best. And I understand the movie's (loose) message of conservation and it's heavy focus on mythology, but an entire land based on a movie seems better shoe-horned into DHS.

We only know one thing for certain - Disney has indicated it is ready, willing and able to finally develop that plot of land into something else. So - why not Beastly Kingdomme? The land was pretty close to being finalized, so why not just finish it, give the fans what they really want, and fulfill the original concept of what AK was supposed to be in the first place?

And if not Beastly Kingdomme, why not Austrialia? South America? There are a plethora of possibilities that don't invovle putting all your eggs into the basket of a franchise that has yet to prove itself.

Avatar hasn't proven itself as a franchise but Beastly Kingdom has? I'm missing your logic.

Largest box office of all time. Ever. Avatar grossed almost as much as The Avengers and Harry Potter 7.2 COMBINED, and each of those movies had other films functioning as prequels and hype machines. There are creative and theming arguments against Avatar, which I think luv is alluding to, but "unproven" isn't one of them.

 

[djlaosc]

Avatar hasn't proven itself as a franchise but Beastly Kingdom has? I'm missing your logic.

Largest box office of all time. Ever. Avatar grossed almost as much as The Avengers and Harry Potter 7.2 COMBINED, and each of those movies had other films functioning as prequels and hype machines. There are creative and theming arguments against Avatar, which I think luv is alluding to, but "unproven" isn't one of them.

I would guess that the logic would be wondering how much of Avatar's success was due to people liking the film, and how much was due to it being "The 3D Film that you should see to see the new technology".

Harry Potter had 10 years, 6 books and 4 films before WWOHP was announced, Avengers has had decades of "popularity", currently has 7 films, no attractions announced. Avatar has had 1 film, four years ago. As for Beastlie Kingdomme, the mythology surrounding dragons and unicorns has been around for hundreds of years - they have "stood the test of time". Fantasia is almost 73 years old.

If Avatar 2 had been released before the land was announced, and it had done as well as The Avengers or Harry Potter 7.2, then there probably would be less questions about it's appeal and longevity as a franchise.

Disney's big mistake regarding Avatar was announcing it in 2011 - if, one day in 2013, the walls went up in Africa to move FOTLK, but no one knew why, and then at D23 they announced that Avatar Land would begin construction in 2013 to open in 2017, with concept art, then half of the conversations over the last two years wouldn't have needed to happen.

 

[SirLink]

Avatar hasn't proven itself as a franchise but Beastly Kingdom has? I'm missing your logic.

Largest box office of all time. Ever. Avatar grossed almost as much as The Avengers and Harry Potter 7.2 COMBINED, and each of those movies had other films functioning as prequels and hype machines. There are creative and theming arguments against Avatar, which I think luv is alluding to, but "unproven" isn't one of them.

It hasn't entered the zeitgeist yet when it does and people can quote the movie fine it was a good move, anything else is being premature that popularity is equal to curiosity.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Avatar hasn't proven itself as a franchise but Beastly Kingdom has? I'm missing your logic.

This comment represents so much of what is wrong with the project. Choices for theme parks shouldn't be based on which franchise (not sure one film, regardless of box office, constitutes a franchise) has generated more money. But that is a big part of why Avatar was chosen. It should be about what is the best story, franchise or not, for the medium of themed entertainment.

 

[BlackCauldron]

I would guess that the logic would be wondering how much of Avatar's success was due to people liking the film, and how much was due to it being "The 3D Film that you should see to see the new technology".

Harry Potter had 10 years, 6 books and 4 films before WWOHP was announced, Avengers has had decades of "popularity", currently has 7 films, no attractions announced. Avatar has had 1 film, four years ago. As for Beastlie Kingdomme, the mythology surrounding dragons and unicorns has been around for hundreds of years - they have "stood the test of time". Fantasia is almost 73 years old.

If Avatar 2 had been released before the land was announced, and it had done as well as The Avengers or Harry Potter 7.2, then there probably would be less questions about it's appeal and longevity as a franchise.

Disney's big mistake regarding Avatar was announcing it in 2011 - if, one day in 2013, the walls went up in Africa to move FOTLK, but no one knew why, and then at D23 they announced that Avatar Land would begin construction in 2013 to open in 2017, with concept art, then half of the conversations over the last two years wouldn't have needed to happen.

Thanks for that - THIS was exactly my logic.

 

[djlaosc]

Thanks for that - THIS was exactly my logic.

No problem!

 

[Tim_4]

This comment represents so much of what is wrong with the project. Choices for theme parks shouldn't be based on which franchise (not sure one film, regardless of box office, constitutes a franchise) has generated more money. But that is a big part of why Avatar was chosen. It should be about what is the best story, franchise or not, for the medium of themed entertainment.

I agree and I happen to think Pandora provides that rich environment.

I was just responding to a poster who wanted a " proven franchise" but then suggested beastly kingdom. There was a disconnect there.

 

[BlackCauldron]

You misconstrued my point - or perhaps I didn't voice it well enough.

I am not saying that I wanted a proven franchise or that Beastly Kingdomme was a better proven franchise than Avatar. My point was that IF they wanted to go with a proven franchise, Avatar is probably not the best option available to them.

IMHO I would rather not see an Avatarland. Perhaps a single ride - but not an entire land devoted to it.

 

[twebber55]

You misconstrued my point - or perhaps I didn't voice it well enough.

I am not saying that I wanted a proven franchise or that Beastly Kingdomme was a better proven franchise than Avatar. My point was that IF they wanted to go with a proven franchise, Avatar is probably not the best option available to them.

IMHO I would rather not see an Avatarland. Perhaps a single ride - but not an entire land devoted to it.

what franchise would you suggest for DAK

 

[jt04]

You misconstrued my point - or perhaps I didn't voice it well enough.

I am not saying that I wanted a proven franchise or that Beastly Kingdomme was a better proven franchise than Avatar. My point was that IF they wanted to go with a proven franchise, Avatar is probably not the best option available to them.

IMHO I would rather not see an Avatarland. Perhaps a single ride - but not an entire land devoted to it.

It has to be an entire land to work. I am quite sure a single attraction mini-land was never in the running. Makes no sense.

To me, the most logical choice for the next franchise at DAK is IJ. Unless they move the JC to DAK and put IJ in AdvLand.

 

[SirLink]

what franchise would you suggest for DAK

How amount NO franchises? ... I know controversial opinion right.

 

[twebber55]

How amount NO franchises? ... I know controversial opinion right.

im fine with that

people complain about avatar because they claim it has no staying power(not that i agree) ...but a non franchise could fall in the same boat

 

[twebber55]

It has to be an entire land to work. I am quite sure a single attraction mini-land was never in the running. Makes no sense.

To me, the most logical choice for the next franchise at DAK is IJ. Unless they move the JC to DAK and put IJ in AdvLand.

i agree with this..the environment is what sold people on this movie so want to see the environment..story of conservation is important but secondary in my opinion

 

[ctxak98]

I have searched around for franchises and honestly, AVATAR is the best one out there, in terms of fitting in with DAK! I think it is going to look amazing, if it is ever completed!

 

[twebber55]

I have searched around for franchises and honestly, AVATAR is the best one out there, in terms of fitting in with DAK! I think it is going to look amazing, if it is ever completed!

perfect for DAK