AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[RSoxNo1]

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.

Animal Kingdom is as close to Tokyo Disney Sea as any stateside park. The entirety of DisneySea is incredible with Mysterious Island and American Waterfront being the two best lands. Africa and Asia hold up to anything in DisneySea, and I wouldn't trade Africa for any single land anywhere in the world.

 

[BrianLo]

Animal Kingdom is as close to Tokyo Disney Sea as any stateside park. The entirety of DisneySea is incredible with Mysterious Island and American Waterfront being the two best lands. Africa and Asia hold up to anything in DisneySea, and I wouldn't trade Africa for any single land anywhere in the world.

Before anyone mistakes what I want... what WDI did (and spent) in TDS is not the best move for many Disney resorts that are financially struggling.

WDW, where they bring in money had over fist? I shed no tears with what they are (and should) be spending. They charge accordingly, so I hardly flinch when they actually spend accordingly, for once...

 

[flyerjab]

Animal Kingdom is as close to Tokyo Disney Sea as any stateside park. The entirety of DisneySea is incredible with Mysterious Island and American Waterfront being the two best lands. Africa and Asia hold up to anything in DisneySea, and I wouldn't trade Africa for any single land anywhere in the world.

I concur. We were in DAK yesterday from 10 AM to 4:30 PM. It was fantastic, and we only went on 1 ride, quite possibly the best E ticket on property - Kilamanjaro Safaris. We went to The Nomad Lounge and had food and drinks from the lounge menu, and then walked the trails. The park is more beautiful than any other park in Orlando. I even put it above DA in UNI. It truly isn't even a comparison for me.

I mean seriously, this is just a small sample, but the effort in design and aesthetics in this park is jaw-dropping. And so many miss out on it cause there main concern is rides and more rides. We spent 15 minutes at the Komodo Dragon exhibit learning about how it hunts and attacks its prey. The educational aspects of this park alone are worth the visit. But that is their prerogative I suppose.

This park fills me with anticipation of what Avatar will be like. I expect this same level of attention to detail.

 

[GoofGoof]

I concur. We were in DAK yesterday from 10 AM to 4:30 PM. It was fantastic, and we only went on 1 ride, quite possibly the best E ticket on property - Kilamanjaro Safaris. We went to The Nomad Lounge and had food and drinks from the lounge menu, and then walked the trails. The park is more beautiful than any other park in Orlando. I even put it above DA in UNI. It truly isn't even a comparison for me.

View attachment 182549
View attachment 182551
View attachment 182553
View attachment 182556
View attachment 182558

I mean seriously, this is just a small sample, but the effort in design and aesthetics in this park is jaw-dropping. And so many miss out on it cause there main concern is rides and more rides. We spent 15 minutes at the Komodo Dragon exhibit learning about how it hunts and attacks its prey. The educational aspects of this park alone are worth the visit. But that is there prerogative I suppose.

This park fills me with anticipation of what Avatar will be like. I expect this same level of attention to detail.

It always made me laugh when people called AK a 1/2 day park, but to each their own. The fastpass commandos just want to hit rides as fast as possible without ever stopping to enjoy the surroundings.

 

[Kman101]

It always made me laugh when people called AK a 1/2 day park, but to each their own. The fastpass commandos just want to hit rides as fast as possible without ever stopping to enjoy the surroundings.

Exactly. I can spend hours at AK and not do a single ride. I never even got near Everest during one visit.

You could even make DHS a full day if you tried hard enough.

Yeah they both really need more rides but there's still plenty to do. It's just most of us have done all of it and the shows at DHS are 20+ years old.

 

[GoofGoof]

Exactly. I can spend hours at AK and not do a single ride. I never even got near Everest during one visit.

You could even make DHS a full day if you tried hard enough.

Yeah they both really need more rides but there's still plenty to do. It's just most of us have done all of it and the shows at DHS are 20+ years old.

In its state today, sadly DHS is pretty much a 1/2 day park. If you wanted to do every show and ride plus spend some time actually enjoying every detail of the temporary exhibits like SW Launch Bay it could probably still take a full day, but for regular visitors it's easy to blow through in half a day without missing a whole lot. Luckily change is coming...soon...maybe soonish

 

[Kman101]

In its state today, sadly DHS is pretty much a 1/2 day park. If you wanted to do every show and ride plus spend some time actually enjoying every detail of the temporary exhibits like SW Launch Bay it could probably still take a full day, but for regular visitors it's easy to blow through in half a day without missing a whole lot. Luckily change is coming...soon...maybe soonish

Well, yeah, I don't disagree about DHS. Like I said, if you tried hard enough and did everything, stayed for the fireworks and then Fantasmic it's probably a full day but not everything appeals to everyone either so I can agree it's a 1/2 day park.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

I concur. We were in DAK yesterday from 10 AM to 4:30 PM. It was fantastic, and we only went on 1 ride, quite possibly the best E ticket on property - Kilamanjaro Safaris. We went to The Nomad Lounge and had food and drinks from the lounge menu, and then walked the trails. The park is more beautiful than any other park in Orlando. I even put it above DA in UNI. It truly isn't even a comparison for me.

View attachment 182549
View attachment 182551
View attachment 182553
View attachment 182556
View attachment 182558

I mean seriously, this is just a small sample, but the effort in design and aesthetics in this park is jaw-dropping. And so many miss out on it cause there main concern is rides and more rides. We spent 15 minutes at the Komodo Dragon exhibit learning about how it hunts and attacks its prey. The educational aspects of this park alone are worth the visit. But that is there prerogative I suppose.

This park fills me with anticipation of what Avatar will be like. I expect this same level of attention to detail.

It seemed like DAK had improved with its themeing since the last time we visited the park a few years ago. Even my wife made comments about how beautiful it looked. Even the ROL area blended right in there. Love the trails to explore. The ToL projection show was a highlight.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The reason Avatar's popularity is relevant is because it is directly related to why the land is being built. The property was chosen because of its box office, not its storytelling potential.

 

[GoofGoof]

The reason Avatar's popularity is relevant is because it is directly related to why the land is being built. The property was chosen because of its box office, not its storytelling potential.

That may be at least partially true, but it really doesn't matter at this point why they chose to build an Avatar Land. The current popularity of the Avatar franchise will have little impact on the ultimate success or failure of the land. Execution is what matters now.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That may be at least partially true, but it really doesn't matter at this point why they chose to build an Avatar Land. The current popularity of the Avatar franchise will have little impact on the ultimate success or failure of the land. Execution is what matters now.

It impacts how the success will be viewed and how future projects will be selected. The experience will not be considered as part of that assessment.

 

[GoofGoof]

It impacts how the success will be viewed and how future projects will be selected. The experience will not be considered as part of that assessment.

The box office success of Avatar very well may have had a significant impact on deciding to buy the theme park rights to the franchise and build Avatar Land. At this point that ship has sailed. The debate on whether this project was a good idea to pursue or not is over now that it's too late to turn back. In fanboy land the debate will rage on forever, but at this point the only thing that matters to me is whether the land is good or not.

As far as future projects, the more successful Pandora is the more likely new projects will be green lit. If the land fails to live up to financial expectations the board isn't going to equate the failure to the decrease in popularity of Avatar, they will just buckle down on spending on most future projects which is a bad thing for anyone who is a fan of the parks. If Pandora succeeds it will increase the likelihood of future projects being green lit. I do acknowledge that it could add to the "Harry Potter effect" making Disney even more IP dependent on future expansion. I still don't see that as a good enough reason to hope for failure.

 

[flyerjab]

The box office success of Avatar very well may have had a significant impact on deciding to buy the theme park rights to the franchise and build Avatar Land. At this point that ship has sailed. The debate on whether this project was a good idea to pursue or not is over now that it's too late to turn back. In fanboy land the debate will rage on forever, but at this point the only thing that matters to me is whether the land is good or not.

As far as future projects, the more successful Pandora is the more likely new projects will be green lit. If the land fails to live up to financial expectations the board isn't going to equate the failure to the decrease in popularity of Avatar, they will just buckle down on spending on most future projects which is a bad thing for anyone who is a fan of the parks. If Pandora succeeds it will increase the likelihood of future projects being green lit. I do acknowledge that it could add to the "Harry Potter effect" making Disney even more IP dependent on future expansion. I still don't see that as a good enough reason to hope for failure.

I feel like at this point, with Iger and now Chapek on board - someone experienced in moving merchandise- the ship has firmly sailed on original content in the parks. If they base their approach on what will generate the most revenue for the board, shareholders and Wall Street in general, what model provides a better chance of success? Original content in a handful of parks around the world that is exposed to what, 170 million people a year? Or, original content via a movie, TV show or streaming over the internet that can be immediately exposed to hundreds of millions of people worldwide? Obviously it is the latter of the two, with the bonus being 'hey, if you pay us a ton of money, you can also see our most popular IP in our parks.'

To me, I see their business approach and why they would choose that path. Unfortunately, for the die-hard theme park fans, this crushes our hopes for original park content. I will be amazed if anything original rears its head in the Epcot redo where Chappie had asked the Imagineers to dream big.

The reason I took to Avatar is that at least it was something different. This is a partnership with Lightstorm and Cameron. I always believed that with Cameron and Rohde on board, that we will end up with an eye popping land with great rides. As of now I believe that is what we are getting. I have no problem with a simulator as the big E ticket (I am fully aware that others do). I also don't mind a 4 minute boat ride as long as it impresses, which I also believe it will do. For DAK, the theme and artistic effort is what I really appreciate in this park, and I think it is absolutely clear that we are getting that in this expansion.

 

[twebber55]

i disagree with people who claim avatar was only chosen for its box office although that certainly was a reason
i believe the three reasons are
1. Box office
2. Themes of movie match DAK themes
3.nighttime possibilities and the ability to keep DAK open up longer at night

but like others have said who cares at this point, im very bullish on this expansion and expect it to be very successful

 

[GoofGoof]

I feel like at this point, with Iger and now Chapek on board - someone experienced in moving merchandise- the ship has firmly sailed on original content in the parks. If they base their approach on what will generate the most revenue for the board, shareholders and Wall Street in general, what model provides a better chance of success? Original content in a handful of parks around the world that is exposed to what, 170 million people a year? Or, original content via a movie, TV show or streaming over the internet that can be immediately exposed to hundreds of millions of people worldwide? Obviously it is the latter of the two, with the bonus being 'hey, if you pay us a ton of money, you can also see our most popular IP in our parks.'

To me, I see their business approach and why they would choose that path. Unfortunately, for the die-hard theme park fans, this crushes our hopes for original park content. I will be amazed if anything original rears its head in the Epcot redo where Chappie had asked the Imagineers to dream big.

The reason I took to Avatar is that at least it was something different. This is a partnership with Lightstorm and Cameron. I always believed that with Cameron and Rohde on board, that we will end up with an eye popping land with great rides. As of now I believe that is what we are getting. I have no problem with a simulator as the big E ticket (I am fully aware that others do). I also don't mind a 4 minute boat ride as long as it impresses, which I also believe it will do. For DAK, the theme and artistic effort is what I really appreciate in this park, and I think it is absolutely clear that we are getting that in this expansion.

I agree with mostly all of this. I may just be an optimist and unrealistic, but I still think there's a shot for something new at EPCOT that isn't IP based. I fully agree that the momentum has swung in favor of IP, but there could still be a non-IP based attraction built in EPCOT or possibly even AK. Just a stand alone attraction not a whole land.

I agree with you point on bringing in Cameron and Lightstorm especially for this attraction which seems to be in their wheelhouse.

 

[GoofGoof]

i disagree with people who claim avatar was only chosen for its box office although that certainly was a reason
i believe the three reasons are
1. Box office
2. Themes of movie match DAK themes
3.nighttime possibilities and the ability to keep DAK open up longer at night

but like others have said who cares at this point, im very bullish on this expansion and expect it to be very successful

I 100% agree with this. It's why I said it was only partially true. I think #3 is of particular interest since the whole AK project was billed as an attempt to make AK a nighttime park opening up huge revenue streams from food sales and light up merchandise. The project is more than just Avatar but that's the biggest piece of the puzzle.

 

[Kman101]

I've always said the overall message/theme fits AK, it's just people letting their dislike of the movie's plot get in the way of appreciating what looks to be an amazing, immersive land, though many have admitted the land itself will be impressive. I get the wariness/concern towards the actual attractions, but they seem like they'll be top notch from what we've been previewed on. It's too bad some choose to use the length of the boat ride or the simulator for flight of passage as an excuse to knock them.

 

[Mike S]

I concur. We were in DAK yesterday from 10 AM to 4:30 PM. It was fantastic, and we only went on 1 ride, quite possibly the best E ticket on property - Kilamanjaro Safaris. We went to The Nomad Lounge and had food and drinks from the lounge menu, and then walked the trails. The park is more beautiful than any other park in Orlando. I even put it above DA in UNI. It truly isn't even a comparison for me.

View attachment 182549
View attachment 182551
View attachment 182553
View attachment 182556
View attachment 182558

I mean seriously, this is just a small sample, but the effort in design and aesthetics in this park is jaw-dropping. And so many miss out on it cause there main concern is rides and more rides. We spent 15 minutes at the Komodo Dragon exhibit learning about how it hunts and attacks its prey. The educational aspects of this park alone are worth the visit. But that is their prerogative I suppose.

This park fills me with anticipation of what Avatar will be like. I expect this same level of attention to detail.

You do still need rides to appeal to a wider range of people. Also to pull people away from MK.

The box office success of Avatar very well may have had a significant impact on deciding to buy the theme park rights to the franchise and build Avatar Land. At this point that ship has sailed. The debate on whether this project was a good idea to pursue or not is over now that it's too late to turn back. In fanboy land the debate will rage on forever, but at this point the only thing that matters to me is whether the land is good or not.

As far as future projects, the more successful Pandora is the more likely new projects will be green lit. If the land fails to live up to financial expectations the board isn't going to equate the failure to the decrease in popularity of Avatar, they will just buckle down on spending on most future projects which is a bad thing for anyone who is a fan of the parks. If Pandora succeeds it will increase the likelihood of future projects being green lit. I do acknowledge that it could add to the "Harry Potter effect" making Disney even more IP dependent on future expansion. I still don't see that as a good enough reason to hope for failure.

Damned if it does, damned if it doesn't.

i disagree with people who claim avatar was only chosen for its box office although that certainly was a reason
i believe the three reasons are
1. Box office
2. Themes of movie match DAK themes
3.nighttime possibilities and the ability to keep DAK open up longer at night

but like others have said who cares at this point, im very bullish on this expansion and expect it to be very successful

Lets not forget the original announcement implied more parks than just DAK but that ship seems to have also sailed.

 

[doctornick]

You do still need rides to appeal to a wider range of people. Also to pull people away from MK.

I do think this is true. Look, I love DAK and do not agree with any "half day park" quips, but it is reasonable to make any theme park resonate with the greatest number of people. That DAK allows for a guest to spend a lot of time just exploring and taking everything in is a huge point in its favor, but adding a few more rides (beyond Pandora) could help to create more widespread appeal while staying true to the park's vibe. The park actually has pretty good headliners, but adding some a few C- and D-ticket rides would be welcome.

I think this is particularly an issue when the park finally does realize extended hours regularly but might lose some of the animal trails and other options in the dark. Having a few more rides will help to keep more people in the park for longer hours (and, yes, potentially help to decompress MK).

 

[GoofGoof]

I do think this is true. Look, I love DAK and do not agree with any "half day park" quips, but it is reasonable to make any theme park resonate with the greatest number of people. That DAK allows for a guest to spend a lot of time just exploring and taking everything in is a huge point in its favor, but adding a few more rides (beyond Pandora) could help to create more widespread appeal while staying true to the park's vibe. The park actually has pretty good headliners, but adding some a few C- and D-ticket rides would be welcome.

I think this is particularly an issue when the park finally does realize extended hours regularly but might lose some of the animal trails and other options in the dark. Having a few more rides will help to keep more people in the park for longer hours (and, yes, potentially help to decompress MK).

I agree the park could use some more C and D ticket rides. I don't know if that would really be the general consensus here though. A lot of people would say they want that but then complain when it happens. In today's theme park world it's all about e-tickets. Look at the boat ride in Pandora. People are losing their minds over the fact that it's only 4 mins long when it was always billed as a C ticket from the start. FLE gets a lot of negative reviews because it lacks an e-ticket. Toy Story Land is generally discounted by most people here because it's just a few C/D ticket rides. I agree with your point that the park has good headliners but needs a little more meat to fill it out, but in recent history people seem to be only interested in E-ticket rides or lands with an e-ticket anchor.