AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[flynnibus]

After this year plus haven't you guys gotten it through your thick skulls you are not going to change each other's minds on this yet you keep rehashing the same topics over and over.

Another thread ruined by those incapable of taking the higher ground and not taking the bait. If this is what the next four years of the forum is going to be like... Count me out

 

[doctornick]

After this year plus haven't you guys gotten it through your thick skulls you are not going to change each other's minds on this yet you keep rehashing the same topics over and over.

Another thread ruined by those incapable of taking the higher ground and not taking the bait. If this is what the next four years of the forum is going to be like... Count me out

Agreed. Everything has been said about the quality of Avatar, its cultural significant, whether it fits into DAK, etc. We get it and no now is changing anyone's mind. Fine.

Can we move on and discuss the actual concept art and the potential details on the theme park addition? I know there are not a lot of details at this point, but we do have more info than we did two days ago.

 

[Mr_Incredible]

Relevance isn't directly correlated to box office numbers. People knew the Uncle Remus stories as well as the still known "Zip-A-Dee-Do-Da."

So people living at that time knew stories and songs.....a catchy song is well known. So it means A+ attraction, right?

I know the Navi name. I know they are blue. I know the story is similar to Pocahantos. I know they have a tree that is their central nervous system. I know they love fiberoptive lights. I know they ride dragons by connecting their hair to them.

Relevancy!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Atomicmickey]

Thread=major buzzkill

No wonder Disney does not care what is said here. What a train wreck.

 

[Mr_Incredible]

I won't quote anyone in particular, I'll just say this:

Why do people think that since they "didn't" enjoy a movie....or it was not a "classic" or it is not "well received" that it has any kind of correlation to a successful theme park land?

A) Opinions are a beautiful thing, and they are all like buttholes......you know the rest

B) Stop looking at the plot, the script, the acting, the story or the movie itself.....look at what the THEME PARK LAND will take from that movie, and how it will transcend onto the Animal Kingdom theme park.....IE: fiber-optics lights, imaginary animals, floating islands, more E-ticket rides, another dark/boat ride, more night life entertainment, and a friggin reason to be at AK after 3pm

C) Its replacing......nothing. It's not taking out carousel of progress. Its not replacing spaceship earth.....its going unto a bullcrap camp minnie mickey meet and greet....and bringing an E-ticket, a boat ride and more....and people are still complaining....

D) Get over it. It's coming. I will buy tickets. You hilariously, will buy tickets....and you will feel dumb. You won't admit it, but you'll feel dumb. And once you do, remember this post.

You look at AK right now, today, and tell me its a better theme park than having the EVEN limited thought of whats coming for Avatar...and I'll point out a gosh darn liar.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

There is a correlation between brand popularity and theme park attraction popularity if the attraction itself can't stand on its own merits. But that doesn't have to be the case if the ride is just THAT good. A ride like Splash Mountain for instance is one that can stand on its own because of its inherent core objective quality (there are tons of people who never saw Song of the South, I hadn't seen it yet when I first rode it as a child and still adored it). If that's the case with AVATAR Land, where they build something truly awesome that can exist on its own merits and isn't bogged down by the film's issues (which is entirely possible), then i'm going to be cautiously optimistic about it.

But there's the big if. Concept art look lovely and exciting, but there's no telling whether what we see in the art is going to be indicative of the quality of the entire project (they may just half what we're not seeing in the art). Anything could happen there and I'm not comfortable making assumptions that the quality is inevitable. A lot of people thought the Little Mermaid ride was going to be something more special than what we got (turns out they just showed us some of the most impressive scenes while the rest of the ride was value engineered everywhere else). The Dwarf coaster is also going to be a shell of what they originally designed (it's shorter and is going to have fewer show scenes than the original concept posted by Lee).

 

[Mr_Incredible]

There is a correlation between brand popularity and theme park attraction popularity if the attraction itself can't stand on its own merits. But that doesn't have to be the case if the ride is just THAT good. A ride like Splash Mountain for instance is one that can stand on its own because of its inherent core objective quality (there are tons of people who never saw Song of the South, I hadn't seen it yet when I first rode it as a child and still adored it). If that's the case with AVATAR Land, where they build something truly awesome that can exist on its own merits and isn't bogged down by the film's issues (which is entirely possible), then i'm going to be cautiously optimistic about it.

But there's the big if. Concept art look lovely and exciting, but there's no telling whether what we see in the art is going to be indicative of the quality of the entire project (they may just half what we're not seeing in the art). Anything could happen there and I'm not comfortable making assumptions that the quality is inevitable. A lot of people thought the Little Mermaid ride was going to be something more special than what we got (turns out they just showed us some of the most impressive scenes while the rest of the ride was value engineered everywhere else). The Dwarf coaster is also going to be a shell of what they originally designed (it's shorter and is going to have fewer show scenes than the original concept posted by Lee).

Then thats on Disney and they should have to lay in the bed they make. Comcast is doing a good job highlighting these chips in the armor with Universals big leap forward...

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Then thats on Disney and they should have to lay in the bed they make. Comcast is doing a good job highlighting these chips in the armor with Universals big leap forward...

Agreed. Again, I personally happen to see some merit and potential with AVATAR working in a theme park. I'm not averse to it despite my feelings about the movie's plot, because I do enjoy the world and visuals the movie had. That to me CAN work well in a theme park under the right circumstances (and the art shows this IMO, it's gorgeous looking). It just needs the right budget and creative people working on it without any serious interference or problems from the bean counters. And THAT is a serious and realistic worry for me.

 

[MichWolv]

until budgets get cut!

 

[Mr_Incredible]

Agreed. Again, I personally happen to see some merit and potential with AVATAR working in a theme park. I'm not averse to it despite my feelings about the movie's plot, because I do enjoy the world and visuals the movie had. That to me CAN work well in a theme park under the right circumstances (and the art shows this IMO, it's gorgeous looking). It just needs the right budget and creative people working on it without any serious interference or problems from the bean counters. And THAT is a serious and realistic worry for me.

If we get Joe Rhodes detail like we got from Everest (Don't start the Yeti jokes) with Camerons perfectionism for Avatar and his creations....this land could be incredible. Throw in Universal SERIOUSLY pushing Disneys heels.....we could see a blockbuster addition to AK here.

Heres hoping.

 

[EPCOT Robot]

There is a correlation between brand popularity and theme park attraction popularity if the attraction itself can't stand on its own merits. But that doesn't have to be the case if the ride is just THAT good. A ride like Splash Mountain for instance is one that can stand on its own because of its inherent core objective quality (there are tons of people who never saw Song of the South, I hadn't seen it yet when I first rode it as a child and still adored it). If that's the case with AVATAR Land, where they build something truly awesome that can exist on its own merits and isn't bogged down by the film's issues (which is entirely possible), then i'm going to be cautiously optimistic about it.

But there's the big if. Concept art look lovely and exciting, but there's no telling whether what we see in the art is going to be indicative of the quality of the entire project (they may just half what we're not seeing in the art). Anything could happen there and I'm not comfortable making assumptions that the quality is inevitable. A lot of people thought the Little Mermaid ride was going to be something more special than what we got (turns out they just showed us some of the most impressive scenes while the rest of the ride was value engineered everywhere else). The Dwarf coaster is also going to be a shell of what they originally designed (it's shorter and is going to have fewer show scenes than the original concept posted by Lee).

Yes, the theme park expansion is going to be "bogged down" by the "film's issues." Like the issue of it being the most successful movie of all time. I'm sure that's going to be really holding it back just like that whole Harry Potter fiasco that bombed so badly.

 

[BaconPancakes]

James Cameron, is that you?

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Yes, the theme park expansion is going to be "bogged down" by the "film's issues." Like the issue of it being the most successful movie of all time. I'm sure that's going to be really holding it back just like that whole Harry Potter fiasco that bombed so badly.

The HP rides don't adhere to any particular plotlines from the movies or books, they just kind of take place in that general world and do their own thing. If Avatar does something like that (though hopefully with much less emphasis on the characters than even the HP rides had), then I think Disney may have a quality experience. Again assuming they don't do it on the cheap.

Harry Potter however doesn't have the reputation of a mediocre plot and bland characters like Avatar does in the first place (the books in particular are world renowned for their great writing/characters/plot in fact, and at least a fair few of the movies carried over some of those elements nicely), nothing in them that would bog the rides down. They do use the characters from the movies, but again the characters are very cool and interesting.

So Disney should forget the plot and characters and just focus on the environment detail (the things that were cool about the movie and appealed to people). The only character i'd be ok with seeing is Sigourney Weaver as Grace (she'd make a good narrator/guide for the Soarin like ride).

James Cameron, is that you?

I wish lol! I'd tell him to scrap the Avatar sequels and take over as writer/director for Terminator 5 and Prometheus 2.

 

[WDW1974]

From page 5 to now 32 based on three ambiguous renderings and another creepy group photo?

Boy, WDW fans sure are bored mindlessly with the place and will discuss tiny details ad nauseum. I am skipping right to page 32 to see what I am missing.

 

[WDW1974]

OK, not missing much at all. Please continue ...

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

From page 5 to now 32 based on three ambiguous renderings and another creepy group photo?

Boy, WDW fans sure are bored mindlessly with the place and will discuss tiny details ad nauseum. I am skipping right to page 32 to see what I am missing.

Oh trust me, you aren't missing anything. To sum things up- the discussion hasn't even been to dissect the details in the concept art. It's mostly just been the same old arguments about AVATAR's merits (or lack thereof) as a movie and whether it should or shouldn't be made into an attraction at AK. IE- the exact same crap we discussed in the other threads endlessly.

So you needn't concern yourself here, unless you're willing to throw us any bones relevant to the actual park project to have something relevant to discusss? (Budget, attraction roster, whether we should expect this to be value engineered or not etc)

 

[Matt_Black]

Like the issue of it being the most successful movie of all time.

That's a bit of a broad, sweeping statement. But I suppose that's fitting, since it won Best Picture and Best Director that year at the Academy Awards... Oh, waitasec, no it didn't. Granted, long term, awards don't mean much. After all, Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan, and now, 15 years or so later, which is the more fondly remembered film?

 

[Sped2424]

I won't quote anyone in particular, I'll just say this:

Why do people think that since they "didn't" enjoy a movie....or it was not a "classic" or it is not "well received" that it has any kind of correlation to a successful theme park land?

A) Opinions are a beautiful thing, and they are all like buttholes......you know the rest

B) Stop looking at the plot, the script, the acting, the story or the movie itself.....look at what the THEME PARK LAND will take from that movie, and how it will transcend onto the Animal Kingdom theme park.....IE: fiber-optics lights, imaginary animals, floating islands, more E-ticket rides, another dark/boat ride, more night life entertainment, and a friggin reason to be at AK after 3pm

C) Its replacing......nothing. It's not taking out carousel of progress. Its not replacing spaceship earth.....its going unto a bullcrap camp minnie mickey meet and greet....and bringing an E-ticket, a boat ride and more....and people are still complaining....

D) Get over it. It's coming. I will buy tickets. You hilariously, will buy tickets....and you will feel dumb. You won't admit it, but you'll feel dumb. And once you do, remember this post.

You look at AK right now, today, and tell me its a better theme park than having the EVEN limited thought of whats coming for Avatar...and I'll point out a gosh darn liar.

all very good points, and as I have said over and over again, how many on here knew song of the south before splash mountain? Im sure just a few ask the average guest and many don't even know that the ride is based on a film. The point is regardless of the IP, a classic ride can still be made, if the right effort and time is put into it.

 

[Captain Neo]

I think the last boat ride done (with animatronics, not including the early days of the boat at AK) at walt disney world that is, was maelstrom? Off the top of my head at least.

Yea I think so too which opened in the year 1988. I guess Splash Mountain too which opened in 1992 but that was a clone of Disneylands.

 

[Sped2424]

Yea I think so too which opened in the year 1988. I guess Splash Mountain too which opened in 1992 but that was a clone of Disneylands.

well thats a log flume, I was thinking just a boat ride with no drop! But then again maelstrom has drops, so I suppose the last e ticket at magic, and the last boat ride period was splash!