AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[SirLink]

Why don't you think it makes sense?

Well there is something I don't get the company that doesn't like spending money on external IP - they passed on James Bond, Rolling Stones and others because the cost was high.

Why not do the cheaper option and use dragons, unicorns, cyclops, hydras, etc.

 

[some guy]

what is the name of the boat ride in Avatar in the Animal Kingdom?

"it's a smurf world"

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Why don't you think it makes sense?

Because it's a fictional story, about a fictional planet, in which exactly one earth "animal" exists ... and that animal is a human being. It makes no more sense in Animal Kingdom than a Star Wars land or a Flash Gordon land - they are science fiction movies set on a different planet.

Disney can do one of two things: (a) They can build a attraction/land that people hear about and immediately say "Well, that just makes sense" (for example, a Brazilian pavilion in WS, or a Star Wars land in DHS, or a Snow White mine train in Fantasyland) ... or (b) they can decide they want to build something that does not instinctively make sense and go about the business of convincing the Disney fan community that if they squint real hard and cover one eye and only think about one minor aspect of the theme park, it kinda sorta fits.

In this instance, they have decided to go with option B because they panicked several years ago and spent money for an intellectual property and now they'd rather throw good money after bad than admit they made a mistake. The first step in "convincing the Disney fan community" is nice concept art coupled with zero discussion of the fact that it's a sci-fi film about aliens being shoehorned in their Earth-based animals zoological theme park.

 

[danlb_2000]

Because it's a fictional story, about a fictional planet, in which exactly one earth "animal" exists ... and that animal is a human being. It makes no more sense in Animal Kingdom than a Star Wars land or a Flash Gordon land - they are science fiction movies set on a different planet.

Disney can do one of two things: (a) They can build a attraction/land that people hear about and immediately say "Well, that just makes sense" (for example, a Brazilian pavilion in WS, or a Star Wars land in DHS, or a Snow White mine train in Fantasyland) ... or (b) they can decide they want to build something that does not instinctively make sense and go about the business of convincing the Disney fan community that if they squint real hard and cover one eye and only think about one minor aspect of the theme park, it kinda sorta fits.

In this instance, they have decided to go with option B because they panicked several years ago and spent money for an intellectual property and now they'd rather throw good money after bad than admit they made a mistake. The first step in "convincing the Disney fan community" is nice concept art coupled with zero discussion of the fact that it's a sci-fi film about aliens being shoehorned in their Earth-based animals zoological theme park.

But why does that make it invalid for Animal Kingdom? As I posted before, here is the beginning of the AK dedication: "Welcome to a kingdom of animals... real, ancient and imagined", it clearly says imagined animals. Also, as I pointed out, Avatar is more appropriate then other sci-fi movies because of the environmental themes in it and the fact that the animals play a major part in the story.

I would say Cars Land fits into category b, an entire land themed to one of Pixar's worst performing movies and one that didn't receive much critical praise either, and we all know how that turned out. Quite honestly I don't want things in the 'a' category, I want to be surprised by what they can come up with in the b category.

Also, are you saying that the conservation aspect on AK is a "minor aspect"? If so let me quote the official Disney web page for AK, right at the top of the page:

"Encounter exotic animals and exciting adventures at Disney’s Animal Kingdom park, the largest animal theme park in the world. Home to more than 1,700 animals across 250 species, the park reflects Walt Disney’s dedication to conservation and is committed to animal care, education and research."

 

[aladdin2007]

Imagination, Energy or Japan.

Take your pick.

Well, at least one of those would be nice but not holding breath on any of them. All three would be best.

 

[GoofGoof]

Because it's a fictional story, about a fictional planet, in which exactly one earth "animal" exists ... and that animal is a human being. It makes no more sense in Animal Kingdom than a Star Wars land or a Flash Gordon land - they are science fiction movies set on a different planet.

Disney can do one of two things: (a) They can build a attraction/land that people hear about and immediately say "Well, that just makes sense" (for example, a Brazilian pavilion in WS, or a Star Wars land in DHS, or a Snow White mine train in Fantasyland) ... or (b) they can decide they want to build something that does not instinctively make sense and go about the business of convincing the Disney fan community that if they squint real hard and cover one eye and only think about one minor aspect of the theme park, it kinda sorta fits.

In this instance, they have decided to go with option B because they panicked several years ago and spent money for an intellectual property and now they'd rather throw good money after bad than admit they made a mistake. The first step in "convincing the Disney fan community" is nice concept art coupled with zero discussion of the fact that it's a sci-fi film about aliens being shoehorned in their Earth-based animals zoological theme park.

I guess you would not have been a fan of Beastly Kingdom. The original concept of animal kingdom included animals currently living, extinct and mythical. Fictional animals are still animals. I'm not talking about the blue people from the movie. The simulator type ride will be Soarin on one of those flying dragon type things. The boat ride I suspect will contain a number of animals from the next movie which is partially based underwater. Even without the blue aliens it fits. Plus the whole conservation theme.

 

[Matt7187]

Imagination, Energy or Japan.

Take your pick.

Oh, wow. I don't think I can choose! That is too tough

 

[AdventureHasAName]

But why does that make it invalid for Animal Kingdom? As I posted before, here is the beginning of the AK dedication: "Welcome to a kingdom of animals... real, ancient and imagined", it clearly says imagined animals. Also, as I pointed out, Avatar is more appropriate then other sci-fi movies because of the environmental themes in it and the fact that the animals play a major part in the story.

If your argument is that any imagined animal is appropriate intellectual property for Animal Kingdom, then you are arguing the Predator films are appropriate for Animal Kingdom. The Alien films, a Chewbacca attraction, Men In Black, Pacific Rim, the Hunger Games, the Planet of the Apes, Independence Day, etc - they all fit. If you argue that anything living that you can "imagine" fits the theme of Animal Kingdom, then you are essentially arguing the park has no theme.

I would say Cars Land fits into category b, an entire land themed to one of Pixar's worst performing movies and one that didn't receive much critical praise either, and we all know how that turned out.

So would I, but I don't share your opinion as to "how that turned out". I believe ten years from now Carsland will be as irrelevant as Davey Crocketland or African Queenland or Cinderellaland. They made a severe error by themeing the entire land to a single film property (that isn't Star Wars) and they should have built a California-1960s-Car-Culture land that would have stood the test of time (like Main Street USA).

Also, are you saying that the conservation aspect on AK is a "minor aspect"? If so let me quote the official Disney web page for AK, right at the top of the page:

Yes I am. It's an amazing thing about official Disney promotional materials (like their websites) ... the text sometimes changes when what it originally said doesn't suit their current needs.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I guess you would not have been a fan of Beastly Kingdom. The original concept of animal kingdom included animals currently living, extinct and mythical. Fictional animals are still animals. I'm not talking about the blue people from the movie. The simulator type ride will be Soarin on one of those flying dragon type things. The boat ride I suspect will contain a number of animals from the next movie which is partially based underwater. Even without the blue aliens it fits. Plus the whole conservation theme.

I wasn't in love with it, but I can acknowledge that there's a difference between:

1. A land focused on mythological Earth creatures that at one time people (living on Earth) believed also lived on the Earth, and
2. A land focused on a fictional planet that has nothing to do with Earth.

I still think the Beastly Kingdom concept could be made to work, but now they'd have to incorporate it in the park by adding single attraction to the other lands (like the Yeti in Asia) rather than having a singular BK land.

 

[some guy]

The Alien films

True, despite their ability to cut the power, man, it is clearly stated that they're animals!

 

[danlb_2000]

If your argument is that any imagined animal is appropriate intellectual property for Animal Kingdom, then you are arguing the Predator films are appropriate for Animal Kingdom. The Alien films, a Chewbacca attraction, Men In Black, Pacific Rim, the Hunger Games, the Planet of the Apes, Independence Day, etc - they all fit. If you argue that anything living that you can "imagine" fits the theme of Animal Kingdom, then you are essentially arguing the park has no theme.

No, now you are twisting my argument. My argument is that just because the animals in a movie are fictional it doesn't automatically make it in-appropriate for AK. Avatar has elements that those other films don't that make it appropriate.

So would I, but I don't share your opinion as to "how that turned out". I believe ten years from now Carsland will be as irrelevant as Davey Crocketland or African Queenland or Cinderellaland. They made a severe error by themeing the entire land to a single film property (that isn't Star Wars) and they should have built a California-1960s-Car-Culture land that would have stood the test of time (like Main Street USA).


Yes I am. It's an amazing thing about official Disney promotional materials (like their websites) ... the text sometimes changes when what it originally said doesn't suit their current needs.

So you are claiming that the conservation element of AK was a new edition and put on their web site just to make Avatar fit?

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

I'd choose an Imagination redo if given the choice between the three Martin listed, if only one was an option and not all three. I'd love a new additional ride but I think they should fix what is fundamentally broken and horrid before thinking about much else. And Future Worlds needs serious help right now (World Showcase is still at least somewhat recognizable for the most part). Energy, while somewhat annoying with Ellen and company there, also still has some merits in the dinosaur part at least. Imagination though is actually so bad that I find almost every aspect of it offensive, it's a complete abomination that has virtually nothing of value to redeem it. It desperately needs another overhaul.

This is kind of offtopic though isn't it? Should we start another thread about EPCOT rumors? It's just going to get drowned out here in the AVATAR info (Steve separated the nighttime enhancements to the safari and tree of life to prevent the news from being forgotten in the wave of AVATAR art).

 

[djlaosc]

Does anyone have a breakdown of plot size or what we can expect to this expansion to be in acres?

Somewhere, I am sure that I have read 12 acres (I think that it said the same size as Cars Land).

However, I don't know where I read that, or whether Cars Land is even 12 acres...

 

[djlaosc]

Imagination, Energy or Japan.

Take your pick.

Can we have all three?

If only one, I would pick Japan, as at least the other two already exist in some form...

 

[djlaosc]

I guess you would not have been a fan of Beastly Kingdom. The original concept of animal kingdom included animals currently living, extinct and mythical. Fictional animals are still animals. I'm not talking about the blue people from the movie. The simulator type ride will be Soarin on one of those flying dragon type things. The boat ride I suspect will contain a number of animals from the next movie which is partially based underwater. Even without the blue aliens it fits. Plus the whole conservation theme.

There is a difference between mythical and fictional...

 

[ctxak98]

I agree that Avatar fits Animal Kingdom better then say Predator or Alien! Yes they are all fictional creatures made out of our imagination, But Avatar is based off a planet where as those creatures and the people who live on that planet, act very similar to humans. The creatures are very similar to animals here on earth just with a more alien bioluminescent aspect to them!

The whole idea is sort of genius because Dragons, unicorns, gryffons, and trolls have all been done in theme parks and UNI already uses so many dragons that it would be kind of a waste to do Beastly Kingdom now. Its something no one else has done and based off concept art it could be breathtaking. Only time will tell!

 

[doctornick]

Imagination, Energy or Japan.

Take your pick.

I'd prefer Imagination and Japan. Energy needs to be updated, but is still a somewhat interesting experience.

 

[some guy]

The whole idea is sort of genius because Dragons, unicorns, gryffons, and trolls have all been done in theme parks and UNI already uses so many dragons that it would be kind of a waste to do Beastly Kingdom now.

This is a good point.
Kaiju Kingdom (either Pacific Rim or Toho / Daiei / Tsuburaya Pro) could have been a good substitute monster land, too.

 

[DisneyChristian]

So I guess this means they actually plan on going through with this after all. I was really hoping this would end up being scrapped in favor of maybe an area dedicated to Australia or something that would fit better in Animal Kingdom. I just am unsure if Avatar is going to have that classic cult following like Star Wars that will be needed to keep Avatarland relevant. I guess we will just have to see how the second movie does. I felt like Avatar was a bit lame after watching it a second time. Time will only tell..

 

[AdventureHasAName]

So you are claiming that the conservation element of AK was a new edition and put on their web site just to make Avatar fit?

No, I'm arguing that the conservation element was always a very important element of a very small (and least attended) area of the park. I further argue that "conservation" only became of importance to Disney after the animal rights groups starting beating them to death during the initial construction phase in an effort to appease these groups. And finally, I argue that the park's prioritazation of "conservation" will take on more and more prominence in Animal Kingdom marketing as people like myself continue to point out that Pandora is counter-theme to Animal Kingdom as designed and implemented.

EDIT: Wall-E is about conservation ... is that an appropriate intellectual property for an Animal Kingdom land?