AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[hurricanepat]

This sounds interesting and I look forward to seeing how this plays out. I hope it is more of an immersion into the fictional world of Pandora and less of an Avatar atmosphere. What I mean by this I hope they really incorporate the idea of creatures or animals from another planet and what they possibly could look like. The sky is the limit in this project and I hope to see Disney creating truly an other worldly experience.

 

[zooey]

Email them and tell them how you feel

If you hate or (somehow) love this announcement, tell them. Don't be a passive consumer. Tell Disney what you want. Don't go into diatribes. Be clear, concise, and to the point. Do you have concerns? Tell them. Make your voice heard.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive E-mail Addresses:
Bob Iger, Vice President of Operations, Walt Disney World
Robert.A.Iger@email.disney.com

John Lasseter, Chief Creative Officer of Walt Disney/Pixar, Principal Creative Advisor of Walt Disney Imagineering
jl@pixar.com

Meg Crofton, President Walt Disney World Resort
meg.crofton@disney.com

Thomas O Staggs, Chairman Walt Disney Parks & Resorts
Tom.Staggs@disney.com

Jay Rasulo, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
jay.rasulo@disney.com

Barry Carlson, GM of Operations
barry.r.carlson@email.disney.com

Kris Piser, DTD Finance Manager
Kristine.piser@email.disney.com

Walt Disney World Guest Communications
wdw.guest.communications@disneyworld.com

 

[zooey]

This sounds interesting and I look forward to seeing how this plays out. I hope it is more of an immersion into the fictional world of Pandora and less of an Avatar atmosphere. What I mean by this I hope they really incorporate the idea of creatures or animals from another planet and what they possibly could look like. The sky is the limit in this project and I hope to see Disney creating truly an other worldly experience.

If this actually happens, I would think that it has too. They can't have much of a sci-fi element, it would just conflict too much I think. I also hope the actual blue aliens don't show up much either.

 

[Bairstow]

it's a stretch when you think about explaining that we're traveling to a distant planet. Why would we have to travel to a different planet to explore and learn from something similar to our own American Indian cultures? Why can't we just go to America?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory

 

[Crazy Harry]

I'm curious how they will transition us to Pandora... I trust imagineering along with James Cameron, will do it right...

Let's take Wall-E... Ok, there is an overall conservation theme to Wall-E... A movie that takes place on a spacecraft, not a planet... When they are on earth, earth is a garbage dump, collapsing buildings, trash piled as high as skyscrapers... For the simple fact that Wall-E takes place on a spacecraft and not on a planet eliminates Wall-E despite the conservation theme... if they wanted to put Wall-E in the Land pavilion, fine... In AK, no...

As for Avatar, the movie may take place in outer space, but it takes place on a planet, not in a spaceship or space station... The movie showcases a beautiful scenic planet... A planet that has life on it.. Unlike the Earth of Wall-E... Conservation is a theme of the movie as well... However, Avatar does differ from Wall-E in the aspect I described...

And if you want to make this about animals only and ignore the conservation theme, then ok.. avatar has animals in it, even though these animals are from a different planet...

Any way you slice it, Avatar fits... Whether it is the conservation theme or the animal theme... it fits...

Ok, very well made points, but please don't be offended if I disagree with them, that is part of the fun

And I hope however passionate that all take this in good fun, because it really is just about discussing and expressing view points.

Again, if Wall-E is not valid just based on conservation, then this also goes for Avatar and we have to take all aspects of it into consideration. Is it nessisary that Wall-E take place on Earth for most of the movie? Part of Wall-E does take place on the earth. The reason they are in space is they did not take care of the earth, which caused the natural environment and animals to suffer. This is the same idea of Avatar only it is preventative rather than after the fact. The skyscrapers of trash is the result of lack of conservation, so are you saying preventing it is a more fitting theme than acknowleging the results? The reason we believe in conservation in the first place is because we know what the results are and have seen them.

So are we really going to say that the validity of using a movie property in AK should be determined by the amount of time a movie spends in a simulated natural environment? And in fact both movies contain space flight and robotic technology, regardless of the screen time each receives. So can we have a themed land with a beautiful 'natural' environment and ignore that it is a land not found on this earth (thematically speaking of course). That it takes space flight to get there? Again, I just don't see how you go from Asia and Africa to Pandora. While we are at it, let's bring back Alien Encounter and make a alien petting zoo based on Flight of the Navigator (points to whoever knows what that is) since absolutely any animals are fair game regardless of the means in which their existence is determined.

How do the natural environements of Earth fit with an alien world? Just because it looks simular? You know, some people believe that Mars once supported life. Should we create a land about what the Martian landscape and animals would have been like? That would be about the same difference as Avatar. As neat as that sounds to me, I don't believe that it would fit thematically.

 

[janoimagine]

Those transitions are extremely well done and very deliberate (well, Tomorrowland to Fantasyland's isn't, but that's also a very fanciful view of the future). Do you remember the sea cabs at the Living Seas? Do you know why they did those? Because thematically it made little sense and was very jarring (as it is now) to simply walk in a large building and suddenly be in an underwater station. The story had to lead you in. With Pandora, you're talking about traveling light years or whatever away to an entire new PLANET. I'm saying that these are theme and story issues. Now, if they just don't address it at all, then they've pretty much failed on making that cohesive. John Hench called it reassurance.
I'm also not saying that they CAN'T do it right, but I don't see how it can be without some kind of transition experience.

Again, friend, I think your overthinking the whole thing.

Yes, I do remember the hydrolaters, the sea cabs and the even the retransition to reality when you left the pavilion by reboarding the hydrolator. I also remember that Tomorrowland was also not the Tomorrowland we have today but a sleeker Saarinen style land (that looked better than what we have now, but thats for another time) that transitioned from Fantasyland... my point is ... Disney will make the transition and backstory believeable ... but in reality you can shoot holes in just about anything you want too.

Hench did many lectures at USC on reassurance, but he also prefaced it by saying that reassurance requires heart ..... and imagination.

 

[Xethos]

I agree. Disney obviously won't focus on the aspects that make the movie PG-13.

I agree, and theres still two movies yet to be seen, at least one will be out by the time this opens, possibly both. I think the environment that James Cameron created opens tons of possibilities for Disney.

 

[Bairstow]

 

[Prototype82]

I'm honestly devastated by this. I can deal with NOT visiting this stupid land when it eventually opens, but it just shows how out of touch the Disney company is with their base. They have no idea what we want, and more so, they want to force this garbage on us. They want to appeal to boys with a PG-13 movie about blue aliens who have ______ with their hair. Just appalling. I don't see this happening as they presented it today. How can they be so stupid? How can they be so out of touch? They could put that money into beastly kingdom or another one of their own properties, or South America, or Australia, and they give us this trash! Something nobody wanted. The gall.

You so butthurt. xD

Really? The theme's all there. It was a renowned film. Sure the theme was blunt and obvious but it was a solid one. CONSERVATION. Symbiosis. Do you really think dragons and unicorns would convey this message better? A franchise will be solid. It's the only way anything's going to get funding. Besides, Animal Kingdom was intended to incorporate fictional and real world elements. Do you think a 3D show about talking bugs is more relevant? I don't see you complaining about that flagship attraction. There's no doubt this land of fantasy will be a quality experience. Something nobody wanted? Huh...I'm sure that's why message boards and blogs are jumping for joy over this upcoming expansion.

 

[S.E.A.]

I normally don't do this but in the spirit of argument...

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.

it doesn't take away from the creative intent at all but from an average park goer's point of view, they expect that something called the Tower of Terror would be something scary, and within a theme park for movies, it makes sense that horror would be represented.

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.

but Everest, at face value, is a mountain that has a legendary animal in it, it fits in with the overall theme of animal kingdom being about animals.

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.

yeah but the roadside carnival heavily showcases Dinosaurs, it at least communicated that it's about Dinosaurs. It fits because we as a people all know what dinosaurs are and why they would be relevant to a park about animals.

At least with Pandora, there's decent intent in the land's placement and (most likely) some incredible execution.

how do you know it will have incredible execution? we haven't even seen any concept art or any real details.

 

[S.E.A.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory

I get that it's an allegory but why bother with one? Why not just directly convey the message through actual American Indian attractions?

 

[S.E.A.]

Ok, very well made points, but please don't be offended if I disagree with them, that is part of the fun

And I hope however passionate that all take this in good fun, because it really is just about discussing and expressing view points.

Again, if Wall-E is not valid just based on conservation, then this also goes for Avatar and we have to take all aspects of it into consideration. Is it nessisary that Wall-E take place on Earth for most of the movie? Part of Wall-E does take place on the earth. The reason they are in space is they did not take care of the earth, which caused the natural environment and animals to suffer. This is the same idea of Avatar only it is preventative rather than after the fact. The skyscrapers of trash is the result of lack of conservation, so are you saying preventing it is a more fitting theme than acknowleging the results? The reason we believe in conservation in the first place is because we know what the results are and have seen them.

So are we really going to say that the validity of using a movie property in AK should be determined by the amount of time a movie spends in a simulated natural environment? And in fact both movies contain space flight and robotic technology, regardless of the screen time each receives. So can we have a themed land with a beautiful 'natural' environment and ignore that it is a land not found on this earth (thematically speaking of course). That it takes space flight to get there? Again, I just don't see how you go from Asia and Africa to Pandora. While we are at it, let's bring back Alien Encounter and make a alien petting zoo based on Flight of the Navigator (points to whoever knows what that is) since absolutely any animals are fair game regardless of the means in which their existence is determined.

How do the natural environements of Earth fit with an alien world? Just because it looks simular? You know, some people believe that Mars once supported life. Should we create a land about what the Martian landscape and animals would have been like? That would be about the same difference as Avatar. As neat as that sounds to me, I don't believe that it would fit thematically.

let me just say that that was very nicely put.:sohappy:

 

[Prototype82]

I get that it's an allegory but why bother with one? Why not just directly convey the message through actual American Indian attractions?

Are the American Indians funding it? xD

 

[janoimagine]

it's a stretch when you think about explaining that we're traveling to a distant planet.

But why does everything have to be overexplained??? Since when does everything have to be so black and white???

Honestly, this is being way overthought, way to early in the creative process. :lol:

We have two of the most brilliant creative agencies (Cameron and WDI) in the world today working on it, I am sure they will bring it full circle, and explain it in a way that will make everyone get it.

What if they transplanted a bit of Pandora to Earth created a Pandora Greenhouse??? ... brought them across the galaxy??? Seriously ... does it need to be this literal right now?

 

[Bairstow]

I get that it's an allegory but why bother with one? Why not just directly convey the message through actual American Indian attractions?

1. Because moral messages, particularly those that are difficult to understand or frustrating to realize, are often better received when digested slowly, or even subconsciously.

2. Because allegories are fun. They invite the use of fanciful or even impossible environments and characters to tell human stories. The exotic coats the mundane with its spice and keeps our interest.

How much fun would Splash Mountain be if it were just a modern city block that tells the story of young man that leaves home, gets into trouble, and decides to come back? I don't think that would sell much plush, if you get my drift.

 

[dr_teeth90210]

"Avatar"?!?! Seriously, Disney? You can get any movie franchise you want and you pick "Avatar"?!?!

In the words of Norm Macdonald... "What the "H"?

 

[Tim Lohr]

:shrug:first off, I don't get see how you could turn Avatar into a whole land, but if they do, I just hope they make all the Avatar stuff easy to remove from the park

DUDE. WHY??? It fits the bill perfectly...

I guess what I mean is it seems a little premature to build a whole "land" on the strength of a single movie...

anyway here's my point, about 15 years ago there was this movie called "The Matrix" it was this really big hit, that made tons of money and everybody thought it was AWESOME!!! it had this clever story about this guy who plugs his brain into some kind of machine and then his consciousness is transferred into this other world where has super powers, blah,blah,blah... the story wasn't important, because the thing that everyone thought was AWESOME! was the brand new CGI SPECIAL EFFECTS and all the cool ACTION SCENES...

So the Matrix was such a big hit movie, they decided to do not 1 but 2 Sequels, the problem with that was that the first movie had kind of a flimsy story, and lots of other movies began copying those really cool CGI Special Effects... long story short, most people though the sequels weren't very good, actually they ended up being kind of a joke

So my point is I guess it's a good thing nobody decided to build a Matrix-land on the strength of the first film alone, because Disney is "assuming" Avatar 2 and 3 are going to be as good as the first, which seems a just tad risky to me

 

[Prototype82]

how do you know it will have incredible execution? we haven't even seen any concept art or any real details.

I would not be surprised if James Cameron helps direct this project, as Rowling was closely involved in the creation of the Wizarding World and Michael Bay with Transformers.

 

[Figment571]

You so butthurt. xD

Really? The theme's all there. It was a renowned film. Sure the theme was blunt and obvious but it was a solid one. CONSERVATION. Symbiosis. Do you really think dragons and unicorns would convey this message better? A franchise will be solid. It's the only way anything's going to get funding. Besides, Animal Kingdom was intended to incorporate fictional and real world elements. Do you think a 3D show about talking bugs is more relevant? I don't see you complaining about that flagship attraction. There's no doubt this land of fantasy will be a quality experience. Something nobody wanted? Huh...I'm sure that's why message boards and blogs are jumping for joy over this upcoming expansion.

Dinoland USA isn't one that is preachy and telling you to recycle it is about the natural creatures that once roamed the Earth. An area of AK doesn't have to be about conservation. A land that incorporates mystical creatures from our storied past makes much more sense then a land that is based on a movie from a few years back that takes place in another freakin solar system. Many of the blogs are doing the opposite of "jumping for joy" just look at the Facebook responses that Inside the Magic is getting from folks.

 

[S.E.A.]

1. Because moral messages, particularly those that are difficult to understand or frustrating to realize, are often better received when digested slowly, or even subconsciously.

2. Because allegories are fun. They invite the use of fanciful or even impossible environments and characters to tell human stories. The exotic coats the mundane with its spice and keeps our interest.

How much fun would Splash Mountain be if it were just a modern city block that tells the story of young man that leaves home, gets into trouble, and decides to come back? I don't think that would sell much plush, if you get my drift.

yeah but then why keep a mundane Africa as a land? Why not dress it up in some fanciful allegory of a movie, they could've easily just made a Lion King land. Or Why just another mundane version of Asia? Why not make a Mulan land instead? That's a more fun allegory than just asia.