I think you're reading way too into it. You can say that it's a 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.
But most people will just see robots and aliens and monsters.
Most people probably don't recognize all the awesome Twilight Zone references in Tower of Terror, or know that many imagineers watched all Twilight Zone episodes at least twice for inspiration. That shouldn't take away from the creative intent.
Similarly, most guests who ride Everest just see a fast-paced thrill ride with a barely visible giant monkey at the end. There are still underlying themes of conservation and respecting nature in the attraction.
Finally, most guests in Dinoland wouldn't understand how the roadside carnival relates to dig sights out west. Many think the area looks cheap and tacky. Others think it's fun and a cute diversion. Still, as far as Disney (and other posters here) seem to think, it belongs in AK. If Dinoland fits, then I see no reason why Pandora won't work. If anything, Pandora could feature the lush environments and meaningful messages like the current Asia land does.
"Most people" leads to a very slippery slope, and it shouldn't take away from the fact that Avatar has valid ideas and messages that make sense in Animal Kingdom (and I haven't seen the movie, so this isn't coming from a diehard fan).
And p.s. This wouldn't have been my first choice for AK, as I would've loved to see Australia or South America added. But I can appreciate the strategy behind this decision, and furthermore, I'm looking forward to see the immersive themed result that makes AK a park that deserves more of my time. For the first time in a while, I don't feel like complaining about a Disney news announcement, and it feels good.
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.
The thing is, Dino-Rama has been the centerpiece of Dinoland for most of the park's history. It was added around 2001 or 2002, and it's likely here to stay. The intention might have been good, but execution was horrible. At least with Pandora, there's decent intent in the land's placement and (most likely) some incredible execution.
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.
I agree that Theater in the Wild shouldn't be part of Dinoland, but according to any park map, it is.
Even if Dino-Rama somehow makes sense in the park (I still think it conflicts sharply with the cohesive message of the other lands), it still represents a cheap, garish effort. I'd much rather have a Pandora than a Dino-Rama, simply because I expect the quality of the end result will be extraordinary in comparison.
