Jimmy Thick
Well-Known Member
^ Brilliant!!!
Seriously, we're getting a whole new themed land in AK with multiple new attractions. Why can't people enjoy it?
Jimmy Thick- Some beyond help?
-
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
^ Brilliant!!!
Seriously, we're getting a whole new themed land in AK with multiple new attractions. Why can't people enjoy it?
Jimmy Thick- Some beyond help?
You misunderstood. I commented about the fact there is no mention of it since that (the anchor) was the big hang up of the project. Well, the biggest hang up anyway. Disney didn't want to pay for it.
Is there some outside factor at 200ft that it stops there?
Legal requirement for aircraft safety lighting. Hence Hollywood Tower is 199ft, Thunder Mountain is 197ft etc.
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
Because it hasn't been built yet (hasn't even started being built yet), won't be completed until 2017 (at earliest, and there's no guarantee even of keeping THAT timeline) AND there's no guarantee whatsoever that it won't be value engineered to mediocrity. I enjoy the artistry of the concept art, but there's every chance the project itself (like New Fantasyland) won't live up to it. There's no reason to assume this is going to be amazing OR terrible at this point. It could go both ways, or somewhere in between, too early to tell anything. I don't blame people for being worried though. Not everyone likes to buy into Disney's hype only to be let down in the end (again like New Fantasyland).
My bad, sorry. So it sounds like Cameron lost that skirmish and conceded to Disney's terms then? I just hope they don't try to cut back on the rest of it (which is why i'm not getting any hopes up, it happens all the time now). I'm glad they kept the boat ride (again, AK needs this IMO even if it's not considered an E Ticket).
Can they build higher than that if they put proper lighting up there? I'm sure they won't (and I doubt there would be a need to), they can accomplish a lot with a bit of forced perspective. But i'm just curious.
Last edited:
WDWFREAK53
Well-Known Member
Aside from exterior aesthetics...
Haunted Mansion in New Orleans Square (Nothing to do with Pennsylvania)
Haunted Mansion in Tokyo is in Fantasyland (Nothing to do with Pennsylvania)
They shoehorned Haunted Mansion into Liberty Square. The original is in New Orleans and cloned for Liberty Square. For the most part, the only changes are to the exterior facade to make it fit but the theme is the same. Viking ghosts are in this thing. What does that have to do with Liberty Square? Don't get me wrong, I love the attraction (it's my favorite!), but it clearly wasn't designed for Liberty Square...and it doesn't really fit with the rest of the look of Liberty Square. They wanted the attraction at WDW, and since it really didn't "fit" anywhere else in the park, they themed the outside to blend in with Liberty Square.
Lets look at the other things in Liberty Square...and you tell me which one fits the least.
1. Hall of Presidents
2. Liberty Bell
3. Liberty Tree with the 13 lanterns representing the original colonies
4. Liberty Square Riverboat
5. Haunted Mansion
6. All of the other architecture is colonial.
You also never touched on Splash Mountain.
Aesthetically, Pandora is a place that I really want to visit based on that concept art. If they push forward the message of conservation on Pandora and how we need to bring that focus to Earth, it's a win and complete perfect fit for DAK. Alien planet/aliens aside...the message of DAK remains true if they focus on conservation.
Disney's problem with Animal Kingdom was that people viewed it as a half-day park and the place was empty at park closing most days. Putting in a nighttime show wouldn't be enough because either people would hold off getting there at park opening and go later in the day, or they would leave at the same time and not stay and kill time waiting for the nighttime show. Avatar is the answer. It's a land that can be explored, brings in at least one E-ticket...brings in a much-needed family boat ride...and is an interesting place to explore. But wait, at night it's a DIFFERENT experience. Let's go explore that land again before the nighttime show!
I'm sure I'll get beat up over this one...but hear me out.
Pandora is a better theme park land than a Star Wars Land. Now before you jump on me, let me say that I'd prefer to go on Star Wars attractions and visit/meet with Star Wars characters. But...as a LAND...Star Wars would be very hard to pull of because of all of the different locations that had important scenes. Pandora will be one cohesive environment and Star Wars could very well feel "disjointed."
AdventureHasAName
Well-Known Member
I don't really care about Tokyo, but HM in NOS fits because of the ghost/voodoo culture prevalent all over New Orleans and because the Mansion exterior is an excellent representation of New Orleans architecture.
You're right. It's arguably my least favorite attraction in MK and your argument seemed to be that there were no mountains in the American frontier circa 1850. I didn't feel like debating the common height of natural landmarks in the 19th century.
The "disjointed" Star Wars feel is easily rectified by making the exterior placemaking of the land focused on one planet, not 10. You know how many planets the first Star Wars film takes place on? One (two if you count the Death Star as a "planet" and three if you count the 1 minute ceremony at the end of the film).
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Disney's Animal Kingdom is about man's connection to this world and its other inhabitants. How we directly relate to our world. Pandora is not this world.
Last edited:
Suspirian
Well-Known Member
I guess it's all in interpretation. From the dedication, I got that DAK is an opportunity to encounter all creatures no matter where the come from and to lie in harmony with all creatures which the world of Pandora fits. I like to look at Avatarland as a representation of the the possibilities of organic life on other planets since that's a pretty popular topic these days.
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
Correct. If TDO wants a fantasy version of what you described, then the proper inhabitants would be dragons (Eastern and Western), manticores, elves, unicorns, gryphons, gnomes, trolls, etc. Legendary creatures of THIS planet, not Cameron's. Besides, his critters are lame. ALL of them. Not just the blue kitty cats.
Atomicmickey
Well-Known Member
So, the arguing about whether Avatar is a good movie, or isn't,
or is appropriate for DAK, or isn't, or whether Beestlie Kinggdommee
is going to be built, or isn't . . . .
. . . . would all seem to be moot, at least in the context of the coming expansion?
Or am I missing something?
or is appropriate for DAK, or isn't, or whether Beestlie Kinggdommee
is going to be built, or isn't . . . .
. . . . would all seem to be moot, at least in the context of the coming expansion?
Or am I missing something?
Disneyfanatic247
New Member
Did anybody else notice how the timeline increased from 2016 opening to 2017 opening? Also, If you guys don't remember, there's a reason Disney hasn't started building AL yet. When they announced it, if I remember correctly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but they said they won't start building until the sequel of Avatar comes out in 2015?
Suspirian
Well-Known Member
There's plenty of legendary creatures that came from other worlds. The Pegasus resided in Olympus with Zeus until Zeus turned him into a constellation and Chinese dragons were believed to live in the heavens. Animal Kingdom represents man's fascination with animals, and although Cameron's world was made by him and his team, it still represents our love for the furry things (or the slimy glowy things)
fractal
Well-Known Member
So you would have been against Beastly Kingdom as well?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I see no futility in analyzing and discussing the built.
Beastly Kingdom was about animals that were very much apart of the human experience with this planet.
SirLink
Well-Known Member
Wrong those are folklore beasts use to explain how the world worked. There is a distinction between beasts born of our world to explain our world. Than raiding the local by "4 limbs get 2 free" world of Pandora - it feels fake. Also more people have had exposure to tales of dragons and unicorns, and with TWDC love of cloning attractions and lands it would of been easier for even OLC to maybe buy into the hype of Mythological creature land in Disney Seas than Avatar ever will be.
unkadug
Follower of "Saget"The Cult
It's not even built yet...how can it feel fake?
danlb_2000
Premium Member
No, when it was announced they said construction would start in 2013:
"We’ve just begun the design phase on our Animal Kingdom project and we expect to begin construction in 2013" (http://www.wdwmagic.com/attractions/avatar.htm)
I doubt they will wait for the next movie to start construction, they will probably start next year.
Suspirian
Well-Known Member
Valid point, and don't get me wrong, is much rater have beastly kingdom than avatar, but even with the fact that they explain things of our world, I don't get where you guys get the earth thing from. Why can't DAK partially represent our fascination with living worlds outside our own and what wildlife may inhabit those areas. In fact, there's even a study of such life called astrobiology which studies life on this earth as well as the possibility of extraterrestrial life forms.