AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[No Name]

Animals have no clothes so does that mean I should be offended by watching Zootopia? I am not accustomed to animals with clothes.
It would be sad if Disney decides to change their costumes. Nothing wrong with human bodies much less than the Na'vi. How are the Na'vi creepy? It is just a movie character, wasn't a fan of the movie, but if you change it then you strip away Avatar's message.

Why would they change Jasmine's costume? Aladdin's is no different. Why is this even being talked about? People who get offended by it clearly cannot go to Europe, or the pool for that matter.

It is just a topic I was curious about since it's one of the few things that hasn't been discussed to death already. I am interested to hear others opinions, and you have clearly given yours, so thank you.

It also comes at a relatively interesting time because Disney has permitted themselves to clothe the characters how they feel is best rather than how is most accurate to the movie. So that makes me wonder whether they'll do the same for the Navi. Both Jasmine's and Aladdin's are both rumored to be changing, and Pocahontas's and Mulan's have already changed. Others' have received small changes. All changes that have their benefits but are more inaccurate to the movie.

I'm not "offended" by anything. And I shouldn't have even given my opinion. I am just wondering what everyone thinks and what everyone predicts.

 

[Daveeeeed]

It is just a topic I was curious about since it's one of the few things that hasn't been discussed to death already. I am interested to hear others opinions, and you have clearly given yours, so thank you.

It also comes at a relatively interesting time because Disney has permitted themselves to clothe the characters how they feel is best rather than how is most accurate to the movie. So that makes me wonder whether they'll do the same for the Navi. Both Jasmine's and Aladdin's are both rumored to be changing, and Pocahontas's and Mulan's have already changed. Others' have received small changes. All changes that have their benefits but are more inaccurate to the movie.

I'm not "offended" by anything. And I shouldn't have even given my opinion. I am just wondering what everyone thinks and what everyone predicts.

You're good, I just reread what I wrote and it came off as really rude. Sorry didn't intend it to be that way.

 

[Phantom Mickey]

It is just a topic I was curious about since it's one of the few things that hasn't been discussed to death already. I am interested to hear others opinions, and you have clearly given yours, so thank you.

It also comes at a relatively interesting time because Disney has permitted themselves to clothe the characters how they feel is best rather than how is most accurate to the movie. So that makes me wonder whether they'll do the same for the Navi. Both Jasmine's and Aladdin's are both rumored to be changing, and Pocahontas's and Mulan's have already changed. Others' have received small changes. All changes that have their benefits but are more inaccurate to the movie.

I'm not "offended" by anything. And I shouldn't have even given my opinion. I am just wondering what everyone thinks and what everyone predicts.

I have two thoughts on your second thought, how will they cloth the Navi.

My first thought goes back to the Monkey gymnists in Lion King...Their costumes are skin tight with colorful stripes, to give the appearance of natural creatures in the wild, goes with the story I guess. it makes for a great story and it does not offend.. I think it fits in perfectly as do the rest of the cast members costumes in the show.

In AVATARs show or land, even if they dress the Navi to the movies standard costumes, they are wearing more than the monkeys in Lion King. And they would look perfectly normal.
Just my thought, not really an opinion.

 

[Cesar R M]

Yes, but that isn't something that is specific to the story of the movie, it's an element of the world of Pandora and the Navi.

We dont know anything of the rest of the movies, still is a critical pat of the supposed story of the "focused tribe".

 

[Cesar R M]

I sure hope they don't go that route, there is no way a person in a costume can accurately reproduce the look of the Navi. They aren't just tall, they are proportionally larger then humans in all respects.

I would be surprised if they dont do the same trick they used to "portray" General Griveous.
Aka a guy in a black suit with a cloak, and using metal extenders to move "a puppet".
Very effective in the cosplays I've seen.

I am assuming that the cast members in this part of the park will be 'workers' from the Alpha Centuri Expeditions company, and will be there to act as our cultural guides. Looking at all of the work that went into creating the fabricated yeti expedition in the EE queue line, I have high hopes for similar experiences throughout this entire land.

And ironically, would fit in the whole AK's "exploration and safari" thing of the park.

 

[Cesar R M]

Your point?

This one would be called "Expedition Everest" anyway

nah.. keep it as FROZEN..
but little kids will go out terrified expecting Elsa

 

[Cesar R M]

Questions.

Do you think the Navi will be more covered up than those in the movie? I know there are a few well-covered Navi in the movie, but most wear loincloths and not much more. Even if there may not be Navi played by real people in the land, there will be animatronics as well as possibly on screen Navi.

And on that topic, do you think they should be more covered up than those in the movie?

I Dont know but I imagine them wearing suits similar to the Avatar Navis? At the end of the first movie. You can see a few of the full growth Navis with human heavy weapons and suits. Not tribal stuff.

Alternatively, they might be still naked but with no bits visible. (similar to how comics censor everything.. body parts there but nothing visible, as in replaced with more "muscle")

 

[Cesar R M]

What matters is the story. Haunted Mansion if they actually spent more time, money and talent on the script could have been fantastic. Tomorrowland flopped because it was just okay, but very disappointing for a movie starting a franchise. Expedition Everest, like the Haunted Mansion, has great source material, but the script is what matters the most. Look at POTC, the first one was incredible, the ones that followed lost its quality, because they weren't so focused on the story. Alice in Wonderland is a good example in a way. First one wasn't very good, but people went because Alice in wonderland is so popular. Alice into the looking glass flopped because people don't have a reason to see it because most people said it was about the same or worse, now if Alice into the looking glass had positive reviews by the public then it probably wouldn't have flopped.

I still do not get the hate towards Tomorrowland. I really liked it.
They said the "bad guy" was weak.. well he is because he was just a misguided dude.
Who knows, they might have given the orb a bad "A.I." theme and would probably make people happier to have a real hidden enemy.

 

[Daveeeeed]

I still do not get the hate towards Tomorrowland. I really liked it.
They said the "bad guy" was weak.. well he is because he was just a misguided dude.
Who knows, they might have given the orb a bad "A.I." theme and would probably make people happier to have a real hidden enemy.

Your entitled to your opinion, but most especially myself really wanted it to be a great movie and it really had nothing creative, or nothing daring. The far more interesting character was Frank and then they decide to show us Casey's story instead . We barely got to see Tomorrowland itself clearly because they didn't want to increase the budget even though when they showed us Tomorrowland it felt like we wanted to go see it. It had good dialogue though, but the story was nothing special. Action scenes were kind of bland especially for a Brad Bird movie. In Gravity they were able to have intense scenes even without a villain, so it is not abou having a villain or not, but if you are going to have a villian you have to make him interesting. Barbossa from is a great villian, the friendemy works great, not to mention geoffrey Rush's performance. Hugh Laurie did a great job, but David Nix (Tomorrowland's villian) really was flat, with a bland intention. You have to make characters interesting. Athena was cool, same with frank and even Casey, but the story was eh. Nothing darting like Interstellar, Alien, Pirates of the Caribeban: The Curse of The Black Pearl, or Star Wars: A New Hope. Those are movies that have phenomenal stories whether you like the end result or not. Tomorrowland was we go from point a to point b and nothing really interesting happens, and then at the end we set it up for a sequel that most people don't want to see.

 

[Phantom Mickey]

I still do not get the hate towards Tomorrowland. I really liked it.
They said the "bad guy" was weak.. well he is because he was just a misguided dude.
Who knows, they might have given the orb a bad "A.I." theme and would probably make people happier to have a real hidden enemy.

TOMORROWLAND was kind of cool. Futuristic and with everyone in a StarTrek and Star Wars world, Tomorrowland could be possible. But I had trouble trying to come up with a sequel to it.

 

[Daveeeeed]

TOMORROWLAND was kind of cool. Futuristic and with everyone in a StarTrek and Star Wars world, Tomorrowland could be possible. But I had trouble trying to come up with a sequel to it.

Tomorrowland sure is a cool and beautiful concept, but horribly executed so it is just mediocre movie. That is because they didn't develop the script enough. It is like sort of like the original way Zootopia was intended. They had to switch the main character to Judy Hopps to make it work. Problem was Tomorrowland they didn't feel a need to put effort into the story even though it needed it. Just because a concept is cool doesn't make the movie good as a whole. Look at The Phantom Menace, duel light sabers, pod racing, but still awful because the plot was so boring. Imagine how sad it would of been to waste Zootopia's potential, that is how I feel about Tomorrowland, and if you look at the reviews *most* people agree. On IMDb it has a 6.5/10 even though most movies that most people think are at least good have a 7/10 or higher. Look at Tron, it is so cool, but both Tron movies have dull plots.

 

[Mawg]

Well here's my opinion. I think the Navi are creepy and weird. So anything to make them look less creepy and weird is fine by me.

Tigger has no clothes. But he's an animal, and people are accustomed to and okay with animals not wearing any clothing (since they don't in real life). Tigger is also cute and friendly while I think the Navi are creepy. So it's a bit different.

I thought to ask because there are rumors that Disney is changing Jasmine's costume to be more covering. So even though the Navi are technically aliens, and they may only be animatronics, it's kind of a double standard.

And since they've been changing the princesses' park costumes to be different from what they wear in their movies, they've kind of set the precedent to make these changes, if you see what I mean.

But even I don't have a terribly strong opinion on it. I'm just wondering what everyone else thinks.

I always thought the Smurfs were a little underdressed too.

 

[Prototype82]

My understanding was that the time period we are "entering" takes place decades after the events of the movies. At this point in time, I thought that terraforming was occurring to make the environment tolerable to both Na'vi and humans. I don't know, maybe I made that up in my subconscious, but it sounds kinda good. No worse than an invisible oxygen dome.

I really like this concept. *claps*

 

[Cesar R M]

Your entitled to your opinion, but most especially myself really wanted it to be a great movie and it really had nothing creative, or nothing daring. The far more interesting character was Frank and then they decide to show us Casey's story instead . We barely got to see Tomorrowland itself clearly because they didn't want to increase the budget even though when they showed us Tomorrowland it felt like we wanted to go see it. It had good dialogue though, but the story was nothing special. Action scenes were kind of bland especially for a Brad Bird movie. In Gravity they were able to have intense scenes even without a villain, so it is not abou having a villain or not, but if you are going to have a villian you have to make him interesting. Barbossa from is a great villian, the friendemy works great, not to mention geoffrey Rush's performance. Hugh Laurie did a great job, but David Nix (Tomorrowland's villian) really was flat, with a bland intention. You have to make characters interesting. Athena was cool, same with frank and even Casey, but the story was eh. Nothing darting like Interstellar, Alien, Pirates of the Caribeban: The Curse of The Black Pearl, or Star Wars: A New Hope. Those are movies that have phenomenal stories whether you like the end result or not. Tomorrowland was we go from point a to point b and nothing really interesting happens, and then at the end we set it up for a sequel that most people don't want to see.

Well, as others said.. they expected it to open a franchise.
You always "tease" the land before you go full down on it.
Sad we wont see more of it. But I agree with you. Nix looked more like a bad administrator than a villain.
Besides, Geoffrey Rush isnt always as good. He also depends on the script( I made the mistake of seeing Gods of Egypt.. it was AWFUL)

 

[Daveeeeed]

Well, as others said.. they expected it to open a franchise.
You always "tease" the land before you go full down on it.
Sad we wont see more of it. But I agree with you. Nix looked more like a bad administrator than a villain.
Besides, Geoffrey Rush isnt always as good. He also depends on the script( I made the mistake of seeing Gods of Egypt.. it was AWFUL)

I was hoping and praying it be be a franchise starter too, but only Transformers has that honor to make billions even when each movie is awful. Character is more important like you said, so Hugh Laurie couldn't salvage the David Nix.

Anyway we're kind of off topic now so let's try to bring this back to Avatar.

 

[Cesar R M]

I was hoping and praying it be be a franchise starter too, but only Transformers has that honor to make billions even when each movie is awful. Character is more important like you said, so Hugh Laurie couldn't salvage the David Nix.

Anyway we're kind of off topic now so let's try to bring this back to Avatar.

yes, lets go back to talk about naked navis

 

[Daveeeeed]

yes, lets go back to talk about naked navis

They're not fully naked

 

[Cesar R M]

They're not fully naked

I can dream...

 

[Stripes]

Interesting.
http://www./2016/07/james-cameron-explains-why-we-are-getting-four-more-avatar-movies/

 

[Cesar R M]

Interesting.
http://www./2016/07/james-cameron-explains-why-we-are-getting-four-more-avatar-movies/

to resume.. he felt the $$$ calling and pulled a "the hobbit, battle of the five armies".