AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[Atomicmickey]

THIS. YES. Anyone wonder why Disney doesn't pay attention to the rabid fans? THIS. Nicely done.

As a fan base, do WE really know what we want?

We want a major expansion.
But not FLE because that caters too much to princess & little girls.
We didn't like the fact that nothing major was mentioned at D23 back in August.
There isn't enough for older kids in the parks.
Avatar caters too much to older kids in the parks.
We need more Disney-oriented expansions.
But FLE isn't good enough.
Get rid of Stitch & Zazu from the Tiki Room. Now they're gone...but the show isn't what we wanted.
We want Cars Land...but we don't want too much Pixar!
We miss retro-Epcot. Why did they bring back Captain EO?
We want a clone of Tokyo DisneySea for WDW. But we want WDW to stay original and not spounge off other parks...

If you're a Disney exec...stay the hell away from internet forums. It's just not worth it.

 

[S.E.A.]

Because Walt Disney Imagineering is so inept at explaining where the guest is and what she is supposed to be experiencing.
Oh, wait, no. They're the world leaders at that.
Think for a moment about the first 2 minutes of any Disney attraction you've ever been on.
With the possible exception of Pirates of the Caribbean where the mystery and confusion is intentional, the guest knows what's up.

but it's easier to explain if it is just one attraction, how do you explain something so complicated for an entire land without creating some sort of gridlock?

 

[JustInTime]

Theres an amazing amount of potential here weather you liked the films or not. i just wonder if theyre gonna put the spirit tree in the land?
one things for sure, the next D23 will be interesting

I don't see why not! I mean, we got 2 trains. One for everest and one for the Conservation station. I think if done right, all will be fine.

 

[Captain Chaos]

If they did consult me they wouldn't be making terrible decisions that will backfire on them in a few years when the sequels don't perform and Avatar plushies don't sell.

HAHAHAH ok, whatever floats your boat... That is why you don't make these decisions... No business sense at all.. this is a very good business decision by Disney, and this is coming from someone who is critical of their business decisons...

 

[zooey]

Waterworld bombed in 1995.
Universal Singapore opened a multi-million dollar Waterworld-themed stunt show THIS YEAR in its new park.
Why? Because it's a cool idea for an attraction.

aaaand because they want to make a generic theme park.

 

[Bairstow]

How is this arbitrary? The whole point of a theme park is to stick with a theme whether over arching or not. Magic Kingdom works because each land is distinctly different. The themes are more specific to the area than the overall park. There is no suggetion in the name of the park that the park specifically pertains to the past, especially since so many of the attractions have unreal aspects. It is a magical place as implied by the name.

If rules of theming are arbitrary, then why stick to any theme at all? This would defeat the whole purpose of a theme in the first place. We could also include a land in AK about the space program and trying to discover life on other planets. If there should be no rule of theming this would be fine. But if there is an abscence of rules, then there is an abscence of theme, because sticking to one in itself is a rule, and the arguement about conservation makes no difference because we don't need to stick to a theme in the first place.

Let's put skyscraper in the Jungle Cruise and fill the haunted mansion with only live people. If you admit this is stupid, then there are rules to theming after all.

What's arbitary is saying that we can't have fictional animals that weren't made up more than 10 years ago, which was the viewpoint I was arguing against when I made my post.

You seem to be making my point. Avatar fits nearly perfectly with the thematic rules of the park so far, probably better than Beastly Kingdommmmeee would have.

 

[cheezbat]

http://d23.disney.go.com/news/2011/...eron-to-bring-avatar-to-life-at-disney-parks/

Magic Kingdom is the park of mountains. Animal Kingdom the park of trees. Really big trees!

then they'd better be getting ready to move Expedition Everest over to the Magic Kingdom....lol

 

[S.E.A.]

HAHAHAH ok, whatever floats your boat... That is why you don't make these decisions... No business sense at all.. this is a very good business decision by Disney, and this is coming from someone who is critical of their business decisons...

as a business decision, it's brilliant, from a creative standpoint, not so much.

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

It's not like the land is a direct translation of Agrabah though. There's elements of it, but again, it's more of a general "Arabian Nights" theme using Aladdin as an anchor of sorts. It's like saying Ariel's Undersea Adventure doesn't belong in the new Fantasyland because Prince Eric's Castle is in the middle of the woods rather then facing the ocean coast.

I don't think that argument works. Fantasyland contains tents and okay re-creations of classic stories (often European stories or fairy tales) as told by Disney. Peter Pan's Flight takes place in a tent, as does Snow White (for now). Ariel is getting one of the more elaborate sets, but being in Fantasyland does not obligate a 100% accurate interpretation of place. And besides, Eric's Castle is getting a water feature, so the area will definitely have that immersive feel to it even though the forest is nearby.

In Aladdin's case however, the connection is that Aladdin takes place somewhere in Arabia, which has a coast, which relates to the sea. That's no better than Avatar taking place in a lush environment with mythical (but unreal) animals and a message of conservation, relating to Animal Kingdom's theme of animals (living, extinct, and imaginary) and overarching message of conserving the environment and our unique biodiversity. There's also the awful placement of Toy Story Mania in DisneySea. Toy Story barely makes sense in the land they placed it in, and it's an enormous stretch for a sea-based (or adventure-based) park.

Even within AK itself, I think Dinoland is the one land that really messes things up in terms of cohesion. With its hodgepodge of Finding Nemo (marine life in modern-day Australia), time travel, and its roadside carnival/trailer trash theme (Restaurantosaurus literally has a trailer to eat in), Dinoland is the black sheep in AK's collection of lush, foliage-laden lands (which Pandora will likely join in a few years).

 

[zooey]

What's arbitary is saying that we can't have fictional animals that weren't made up more than 10 years ago, which was the viewpoint I was arguing against when I made my post.

You seem to be making my point. Avatar fits nearly perfectly with the thematic rules of the park so far, probably better than Beastly Kingdommmmeee would have.

Beastly Kingdom was based in our cultural myths and creations that we, as humans, have created over millenia. This continues the very reality based themeing that the majority of the park maintains. Pandora is a crazy planet that has a stupid-sounding mineral where people bone with their hair.
The two are not even in the same ballpark as far as ethos, aesthetics, importance, the list goes on.

 

[Shelby's Dad]

Here is what I don't get!!

Whether you like idea of Avatar at AK or not why announce it on a random Tuesday, Sept 20th. Why not announce this at 40th celebration Day of Oct 1 or wait three weeks after D23 Parks Event. Yes i know Oct 1st is Mk Anniversary, but it was also the kick off to WDW and this could have been folded into that. Just seems random to me. Unless it was about to leak.
Thoughts?

 

[imagineer boy]

You're right. It's impossible. Why even try? Stop now.:shrug:

Great idea!

Joe Rhode: Hey everyone, we're sorry about the whole Avatar land thing. We don't know what we were smoking when we came up with that. So we're going to build Beastly Kingdom instead, which will be far more worthwhile obviously.

 

[Bairstow]

but it's easier to explain if it is just one attraction, how do you explain something so complicated for an entire land without creating some sort of gridlock?

I imagine that this very question is employing several people with art school experience and engineering degrees right now. This is the kind of thing WDI does best.

 

[S.E.A.]

Even within AK itself, I think Dinoland is the one land that really messes things up in terms of cohesion. With its hodgepodge of Finding Nemo (marine life in modern-day Australia), time travel, and its roadside carnival/trailer trash theme (Restaurantosaurus literally has a trailer to eat in), Dinoland is the black sheep in AK's collection of lush, foliage-laden lands (which Pandora will likely join in a few years).

I find the original themeing to dinoland before the carnival moved in to be quite wonderful actually, it's a tribute to Paleontology as a culture with long camp outs in deserts for their digs, which transitions nicely to the Dino Institute, where you finally have time travel to see actual live dinosaurs. it's all very sicency.

I also always found the nemo show to be separate from Dinoland.

 

[zooey]

as a business decision, it's brilliant, from a creative standpoint, not so much.

I wouldn't say it's brilliant. It doesn't take a business genius to say, hey lets take something that made alot of money and exploit it further so we can more more money. How is that brilliant?

Brilliance comes in doing something daring that will last for decades, speaking to every generation of fans.

This is my opinion (neon lights here) I think Avatar will be a failure for Disney in that it doesn't offer anything for merchandising, and the theme could very well fall flat. How do we GET to a new planet after walking out of Africa? There is no imagineering portal capable of accomplishing that well. Does Pandora have gift shops and counter service restaurants? Doesn't this conflict with the anti-colonization theme of the film? This list goes on as well.
In the end, I think it is the wrong franchise, especially because it has not proven itself as having lasting appeal like so many others Disney and non-Disney, and am saddened by the lack of understanding when it comes down to the core base.

 

[Bairstow]

Beastly Kingdom was based in our cultural myths and creations that we, as humans, have created over millenia. This continues the very reality based themeing that the majority of the park maintains. Pandora is a crazy planet that has a stupid-sounding mineral where people bone with their hair.
The two are not even in the same ballpark as far as ethos, aesthetics, importance, the list goes on.

Sez you.

Pandora poses the question of future conservation, and whether the balance of nature is a moral good to be pursued even after mankind has left our home planet and is no longer immediately threatened with repercussions to our own environment. The movie is a parable (a really, really obvious parable, actually) of the advancement and encroachment of technology, human needs, and arguably western culture on an ever-widening horizon of conquest and manifest destiny.

The more I think about it, the more I see just how well it's going to mesh with the overarching theme of Animal Kingdom in general.
All we need is to bring back the poachers into the safari ride.

 

[S.E.A.]

I wouldn't say it's brilliant. It doesn't take a business genius to say, hey lets take something that made alot of money and exploit it further so we can more more money. How is that brilliant?

from a purely business point of view, you have the highest grossing movie of all time, taking up an entire land in a park that seriously needs big draw attractions. It's a no brainer, from a pencil-pushing perspective.

 

[janoimagine]

The Chicago Tribune is quoting a Disney Company executive as stating it's budgeted at $500 Million.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/enter...ld-avatar-attraction-20110920,0,5799455.story

I didn't see that, thanks for the link ... But I just have a hunch about this ... having known many people who have worked with Cameron on various things all the way back to Titanic ... he is a perfectionist and extremely hands on ... the man is brilliant, however, often the tech isn't ready for his vision and has to be created on the fly (He actually wrote the software Digital Domain used for the CG people in Titanic ... and designed, by himself, several underwater cameras that have set the standard for deep sea exploration.)

I think they may start at 500 million, but I would not be at all suprised to see that number double before this is said and done.

 

[imagineer boy]

Sez you.

Pandora poses the question of future conservation, and whether the balance of nature is a moral good to be pursued even after mankind has left our home planet and is no longer immediately threatened with repercussions to our own environment. The movie is a parable (a really, really obvious parable, actually) of the advancement and encroachment of technology, human needs, and arguably western culture on an ever-widening horizon of conquest and manifest destiny.

Which we've be lectured to about a thousand times in countless other movies...

 

[FigmentJedi]

Even within AK itself, I think Dinoland is the one land that really messes things up in terms of cohesion. With its hodgepodge of Finding Nemo (marine life in modern-day Australia), time travel, and its roadside carnival/trailer trash theme (Restaurantosaurus literally has a trailer to eat in), Dinoland is the black sheep in AK's collection of lush, foliage-laden lands (which Pandora will likely join in a few years).

Theater in the Wild isn't considered part of Dinoland. Flawed as Dino-Rama is, the idea behind it basically goes with the various roadside attractions one would find nearby some major fossil sites out west, though in a very over the top fashion. There's definitely better ways to expand Dinoland that could easily involve replacing Chester and Hester's though.