AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Mike S said:
Fallon
Volcano Bay
Avatar

Fallon is slated for Spring and I can't see Avatar shooting for June 1st if Universal makes that date on VB.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/trav...ano-bay-20160621-story,amp.html?client=safari
Click to expand...
I would think June 1st would be a drop dead date for VB. It would be a disappointment to have a new water park open and miss the peak summer season. I agree with your order although Avatar looks further along than I expected so I wouldn't rule out a June/July opening. If VB does slip Avatar could open first or around the same time.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
unkadug said:
However, Superman continues to be a marketable costume 80 some odd years later. The TMNT still sell costumes after 30 years.

Just saying that some characters have lasting appeal, while others fizzle and die.
Click to expand...
How many Brer Rabitt costumes do you see around these days? Does that take anything away from Splash Mountain being a fantastic ride? I know it's a tired old rebuttal to a tired old argument but hopefully it will be put to bed in 6 months or so when the land and rides actually open.
 
Daveeeeed

Daveeeeed

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
How many Brer Rabitt costumes do you see around these days? Does that take anything away from Splash Mountain being a fantastic ride? I know it's a tired old rebuttal to a tired old argument but hopefully it will be put to bed in 6 months or so when the land and rides actually open.
Click to expand...
Splash Mountain has made a name for itself mainly due to the ride itself and the majority put the ride as the ride like Haunted Mansion, or Space Mountain, so it's kind of two different things because basically no one has seen the film. I have personally, but I guarantee you most have no idea.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
David2319 said:
Splash Mountain has made a name for itself mainly due to the ride itself and the majority put the ride as the ride like Haunted Mansion, or Space Mountain, so it's kind of two different things because basically no one has seen the film. I have personally, but I guarantee you most have no idea.
Click to expand...
That's the whole point. The argument against Avatar Land is that the IP is not a popular enough to carry a land, but you just listed 3 rides that are incredibly popular despite not being based on a popular IP. Ever since Harry Potter Land debuted there's a flawed logic that anything new has to be based on a popular IP or it will fail. If the rides are good and the land is well done the fact that kids aren't wearing Avatar costumes will be completely irrelevant.
 
Daveeeeed

Daveeeeed

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
That's the whole point. The argument against Avatar Land is that the IP is not a popular enough to carry a land, but you just listed 3 rides that are incredibly popular despite not being based on a popular IP. Ever since Harry Potter Land debuted there's a flawed logic that anything new has to be based on a popular IP or it will fail. If the rides are good and the land is well done the fact that kids aren't wearing Avatar costumes will be completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Precisely. They both work. I love great uses of ips like Tot, and I also love the Haunted Mansion. You do both properly and everyone is happy.
 
RoysCabin

RoysCabin

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
That's the whole point. The argument against Avatar Land is that the IP is not a popular enough to carry a land, but you just listed 3 rides that are incredibly popular despite not being based on a popular IP. Ever since Harry Potter Land debuted there's a flawed logic that anything new has to be based on a popular IP or it will fail. If the rides are good and the land is well done the fact that kids aren't wearing Avatar costumes will be completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I agree with your overall point, that quality is more important than whether or not the used IP is already very popular or not, but I don't think we should ignore the difference between a single attraction and a complete "land" anchored by that single property. Splash Mountain thrives due to how high quality an attraction it is, even if most people don't know a lot about Song of the South anymore; however, Splash is not expected to define the theming and the overall atmosphere of the entirety of Frontierland, so it has the luxury of being more self-contained in that way (though obviously they did want it to at least blend in with the surroundings of Frontierland). When discussing an entire themed area, the requirements to make the whole theme work become a lot tougher to meet.

However, you're still right that the IP's overall popularity doesn't have to define how successful the land is; I'd just argue that a lot of it also comes down to how well that IP can shape a larger themed experience. Potter and Simpsons work so well because of how big the fictional worlds their characters inhabit are (books, movies, side stories, comics, even fan works and ideas, etc.), and how detailed those worlds are concerning things like architecture, mis en scene/atmosphere, familiar locations, even small things like food and drinks you associate with their worlds. I'm personally concerned that Avatar may not really fit that bill, but it doesn't mean the land they wind up creating at AK can't be well done, either.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
RoysCabin said:
I agree with your overall point, that quality is more important than whether or not the used IP is already very popular or not, but I don't think we should ignore the difference between a single attraction and a complete "land" anchored by that single property. Splash Mountain thrives due to how high quality an attraction it is, even if most people don't know a lot about Song of the South anymore; however, Splash is not expected to define the theming and the overall atmosphere of the entirety of Frontierland, so it has the luxury of being more self-contained in that way (though obviously they did want it to at least blend in with the surroundings of Frontierland). When discussing an entire themed area, the requirements to make the whole theme work become a lot tougher to meet.

However, you're still right that the IP's overall popularity doesn't have to define how successful the land is; I'd just argue that a lot of it also comes down to how well that IP can shape a larger themed experience. Potter and Simpsons work so well because of how big the fictional worlds their characters inhabit are (books, movies, side stories, comics, even fan works and ideas, etc.), and how detailed those worlds are concerning things like architecture, mis en scene/atmosphere, familiar locations, even small things like food and drinks you associate with their worlds. I'm personally concerned that Avatar may not really fit that bill, but it doesn't mean the land they wind up creating at AK can't be well done, either.
Click to expand...
I hear what you are saying about the difference between a land and a ride, but in this case Pandora as a fictional environment has some very iconic landmarks that translate well into a theme park land. In a lot of ways the physical environment of Avatar translates into a theme park land better than Star Wars since the most iconic parts of Star Wars tend to be ships, the Death Star and characters as opposed to physical landscapes. The floating mountains and jungle environment should create a very immersive theme park land. Yes, you won't have butterbeer, wands or sorting hats to sell but again, everything does not have to be compared back directly to Harry Potter.

Here's another way to look at this. What if they called this land Beastly Kingdom instead of Pandora and if the simulator ride was a journey on the back of a generic dragon through a made up land not based on any IP. If they kept everything else constant would the land work better? I think people would be gushing over that concept (as they do over the old Beastly Kingdom concept art) but a lot of people somehow have a hard time accepting Pandora because it's based on a movie that they don't think is a classic or stacks up to Harry Potter.
 
RoysCabin

RoysCabin

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
I hear what you are saying about the difference between a land and a ride, but in this case Pandora as a fictional environment has some very iconic landmarks that translate well into a theme park land. In a lot of ways the physical environment of Avatar translates into a theme park land better than Star Wars since the most iconic parts of Star Wars tend to be ships, the Death Star and characters as opposed to physical landscapes. The floating mountains and jungle environment should create a very immersive theme park land. Yes, you won't have butterbeer, wands or sorting hats to sell but again, everything does not have to be compared back directly to Harry Potter.

Here's another way to look at this. What if they called this land Beastly Kingdom instead of Pandora and if the simulator ride was a journey on the back of a generic dragon through a made up land not based on any IP. If they kept everything else constant would the land work better? I think people would be gushing over that concept (as they do over the old Beastly Kingdom concept art) but a lot of people somehow have a hard time accepting Pandora because it's based on a movie that they don't think is a classic or stacks up to Harry Potter.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on Star Wars; it's another property where I have concerns that it won't necessarily translate well to a themed land, given that so much of it, as you say, is set on starships and then involves a lot of planet hopping. Maybe if it was going to be themed to Tatooine it'd work since that's the most common location in the series, but that's obviously not the plan right now.

On the second point, I think a reason you'd get more excitement over Beastly Kingdom is that people wouldn't go into it expecting to only run into a single IP; instead, it'd be a hodgepodge...a tied-together, well themed one, I'd hope, but each experience could be its own thing, not tied down to an overarching property that not everybody may be excited by. That change alone makes for a major change in the theming of the area and a major shift in guest expectations; rather than a general sense of "this is an area of fantasy creatures, so anything could happen", it's "this is set in a movie universe, so we're operating within that universe." Doesn't mean the latter will be bad, of course, but it simply shifts expectations and the guest mindset upon entering that land.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
RoysCabin said:
I'm with you on Star Wars; it's another property where I have concerns that it won't necessarily translate well to a themed land, given that so much of it, as you say, is set on starships and then involves a lot of planet hopping. Maybe if it was going to be themed to Tatooine it'd work since that's the most common location in the series, but that's obviously not the plan right now.

On the second point, I think a reason you'd get more excitement over Beastly Kingdom is that people wouldn't go into it expecting to only run into a single IP; instead, it'd be a hodgepodge...a tied-together, well themed one, I'd hope, but each experience could be its own thing, not tied down to an overarching property that not everybody may be excited by. That change alone makes for a major change in the theming of the area and a major shift in guest expectations; rather than a general sense of "this is an area of fantasy creatures, so anything could happen", it's "this is set in a movie universe, so we're operating within that universe." Doesn't mean the latter will be bad, of course, but it simply shifts expectations and the guest mindset upon entering that land.
Click to expand...
It's only 2 rides. I think that would be more of an issue if it was a whole park.

For Star Wars they are planning it as a generic location based on the movies as opposed to a direct replica of a movie set like Harry Potter. I think it gives them some freedom to be more creative. If the land was based on Tatooine instead of a generic spaceport than if they wanted to build a "Cantina" people would expect a replica of Mos Eisley Cantina. Making it a generic spaceport gives them the freedom to make the Cantina anything they want it to be. You'll still know you are in the Star Wars Universe since it will have the Flacon and the CMs dressed to match.
 
T

twebber55

Well-Known Member
RoysCabin said:
I agree with your overall point, that quality is more important than whether or not the used IP is already very popular or not, but I don't think we should ignore the difference between a single attraction and a complete "land" anchored by that single property. Splash Mountain thrives due to how high quality an attraction it is, even if most people don't know a lot about Song of the South anymore; however, Splash is not expected to define the theming and the overall atmosphere of the entirety of Frontierland, so it has the luxury of being more self-contained in that way (though obviously they did want it to at least blend in with the surroundings of Frontierland). When discussing an entire themed area, the requirements to make the whole theme work become a lot tougher to meet.

However, you're still right that the IP's overall popularity doesn't have to define how successful the land is; I'd just argue that a lot of it also comes down to how well that IP can shape a larger themed experience. Potter and Simpsons work so well because of how big the fictional worlds their characters inhabit are (books, movies, side stories, comics, even fan works and ideas, etc.), and how detailed those worlds are concerning things like architecture, mis en scene/atmosphere, familiar locations, even small things like food and drinks you associate with their worlds. I'm personally concerned that Avatar may not really fit that bill, but it doesn't mean the land they wind up creating at AK can't be well done, either.
Click to expand...
to paraphrase @BrianLo
to experience a land based off of a weak IP using an updated version to a ride system already in place with incredible visuals and themeing would be great
he wasnt talking about Avatar he was talking about Mysterious Island at Disney Sea considered maybe the best land in the world

hey @BrianLo help me out on that quote
 
BrianLo

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
twebber55 said:
to paraphrase @BrianLo
to experience a land based off of a weak IP using an updated version to a ride system already in place with incredible visuals and themeing would be great
he wasnt talking about Avatar he was talking about Mysterious Island at Disney Sea considered maybe the best land in the world

hey @BrianLo help me out on that quote
Click to expand...

Yup, they share a scary amount of principles.

Extremely expensive rock work, budgets that were out of control. An E-ticket that is essentially a 2.0 version of a ride people had issues with. Limited to two attractions. Complaints that one attraction is too short and really just features one impressive AA. An IP that generationally is forgotten to time (granted a two book world versus a single movie). People call it vapid with nothing else to do except a restaraunt and gift shop (and one overly popular food cart!).

And yet people beg for what they know to come to AK and shirk what they don't.

At least AK's land has conservation/environmentalist overtones, better walking paths and a presumed superior night lighting package.

Mysterious Island would easily blow a billion dollars too in today's WDI landscape. Tokyo Disney Sea is amazing, but it shares the same problems that we are seeing more prevalent today. Diminishing returns of quality over loss of quantity and $$$. Animal Kingdom is however getting its first Disney Sea level land in terms of flourish and embellishments. This is what people have been begging for and now they don't want it. They see what TDS took to realize: huge budgets and limited attractions for the cost.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom