AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[RSoxNo1]

I'm a mite disappointed in you , Sir. Tweets are not what you should be following tonight.....

I'm still catching up. I've been at the parks, then the airport, then a plane (who would have guessed that followed the airport) and now I'm home. I did splurge and spent $5 on wireless internet on the plane. While in the parks I was trying to catch up on my phone - this is a huge deal - Dare I say it's on par with the DCA announcement several years ago - the money may not be the same but that speaks more to what was "wrong" with the respective parks.

I didn't love Avatar, I liked the Harry Potter movies more, and I'd say that Cars and Avatar was a push. But in terms of what land I'd most want to visit, Pandora is by far the most intriguing.

My hope is that the focus is on the land of Pandora as opposed to the characters and the stories found within. I'm sure details will emerge in the coming months/years, and I'm sure in March of 2013 we'll all start whining when the only think revealed at the 3rd D23 Expo is a partial ride through of Pandora's signature attraction.

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

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

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.

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.

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.

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

In the spirit of argument...

I think a park limited to one buzzword is stupid, especially a buzzword like animal. Lions are animals, birds are animals, dinosaurs are animals (but they're extinct), yetis are animals (that don't exist). When you get specific, humans are animals. How does Pandora mess that up? Pandora contains many animals that don't exist. Oh, but Pandora isn't based on millennia of earth traditions and mythology. But when did "earth" become a buzzword for Animal Kingdom? Why does earth have to be a limiting factor? Because the other settings take place on earth? Well, Dinoland is the only land based on extinct animals. Why isn't "alive" a qualifying buzzword? After all, AK would be more cohesive without dinosaurs. Again, every animal at AK can be living, extinct, or imaginary. By bringing in Pandora, Disney is finally filling in that third void that had been empty for so long (and was addressed with a now dysfunctional yeti).

Plus, AK wouldn't be the park that it is without its underlying themes and messages. Conservation is one of them. Exploration of exotic, natural locales is another. Camping out with Disney toons and playing carnival games with dinosaurs is another. Animal Kingdom is limited by nothing except precedent, and I don't see anything wrong with taking steps outside of that precedent.

And I don't know for sure that the land will be executed incredibly. But when Disney picks up an ambitious project and is willing to establish a price tag to match ($400 million seems to be floating around) and work with someone like James Cameron (even as someone who hasn't seen the movie, I know that the visuals and special effects were outstanding), I don't think my high expectations are unwarranted.

 

[Figment571]

Hey if they wanted to create a land about a planet that needs to be protected and use conservation why don't they just build Barsoon from John Carter?

 

[S.E.A.]

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.

I have no doubt that it will be amazing on its own, but I just can't see it fitting in with the rest of Animal Kingdom.

 

[Bairstow]

...
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
...

And yet, even after 3 godawful Star Wars prequels I can still enjoy Star Tours.

 

[S.E.A.]

In the spirit of argument...

I think a park limited to one buzzword is stupid, especially a buzzword like animal. Lions are animals, birds are animals, dinosaurs are animals (but they're extinct), yetis are animals (that don't exist). When you get specific, humans are animals. How does Pandora mess that up? Pandora contains many animals that don't exist. Oh, but Pandora isn't based on millennia of earth traditions and mythology. But when did "earth" become a buzzword for Animal Kingdom? Why does earth have to be a limiting factor? Because the other settings take place on earth? Well, Dinoland is the only land based on extinct animals. Why isn't "alive" a qualifying buzzword? After all, AK would be more cohesive without dinosaurs. Again, every animal at AK can be living, extinct, or imaginary. By bringing in Pandora, Disney is finally filling in that third void that had been empty for so long (and was addressed with a now dysfunctional yeti).
.

well that's not fair, if you start thinking that way then why bother with a theme at a theme park at all? The unifying theme of Animal Kingdom was animals so if they are going to stretch that idea that much then you may as well have no theme for the park.

 

[janoimagine]

And yet, even after 3 godawful Star Wars prequels I can still enjoy Star Tours.

Ain't that the truch.

 

[Prototype82]

Hey if they wanted to create a land about a planet that needs to be protected and use conservation why don't they just build Barsoon from John Carter?

I haven't read the series...But I'm planning on it over the holidays. Do animals feature in it?

 

[hurricanepat]

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.

I guess to elaborate on my point a bit more, and yes I do agree with you on yours. We have most parts of the world represented within these lands. What they could do with Pandora is re-instill a sense of wonder and awe. Spark the imagination as to what could possibly lie out there in our universe and just go with it. Your creating a whole representation for an echo system that is only limited by the imagination and with James Cameron aka Mr. Perfectionist at the helm I see Disney doing wonders with this new land.

 

[Crazy Harry]

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.

But there is a difference between making up creatures for a movie, and knowing they are not real, vs mythology of various cultures which believed various creatures were real for various reasons. Native American culture for example has a lot of mythology pertaining to animals. Are you saying that their mythology is just as valid as a movie or vise virsa?

Not to mention yeti which are mythological in some respects but also possibly real in many respects concidering so many cultures have them in different forms. There is some truth to mythology were there is no truth to Avatar.

The whole of Animal Kingdom takes place on earth with animals of earth, how does an alien planet with alien animals fit at all with the current theme?

 

[Figment571]

I haven't read the series...But I'm planning on it over the holidays. Do animals feature in it?

Yes, much as in Avatar.

 

[Bairstow]

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.

Sometimes it's fun to make things fanciful, sometimes it's more interesting not to.
Not every ride has to be a boat ride.
Not every restaurant has to serve chicken fingers.
Not every Animal Kingdom area has to be set on Earth.

 

[Bairstow]

But there is a difference between making up creatures for a movie, and knowing they are not real, vs mythology of various cultures which believed various creatures were real for various reasons. Native American culture for example has a lot of mythology pertaining to animals. Are you saying that their mythology is just as valid as a movie or vise virsa?

Not to mention yeti which are mythological in some respects but also possibly real in many respects concidering so many cultures have them in different forms. There is some truth to mythology were there is no truth to Avatar.

The whole of Animal Kingdom takes place on earth with animals of earth, how does an alien planet with alien animals fit at all with the current theme?

So... they can't build anything else?
Bummer.

 

[S.E.A.]

Sometimes it's fun to make things fanciful, sometimes it's more interesting not to.
Not every ride has to be a boat ride.
Not every restaurant has to serve chicken fingers.
Not every Animal Kingdom area has to be set on Earth.

well then why bother with a theme for animal kingdom at all? You're making it seem like the unifying theme of animal kingdom is foliage.

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

well that's not fair, if you start thinking that way then why bother with a theme at a theme park at all? The unifying theme of Animal Kingdom was animals so if they are going to stretch that idea that much then you may as well have no theme for the park.

I'll use DisneySea as a starting point.

Everyone praises DisneySea. It's so well-themed, it's an amazing journey, and oh the details! The unifying theme is the sea, water, rivers, oceans, underwater, etc.

And yet, Aladdin has a growing presence in the park. Aladdin has nothing to do with the sea, with the exception of the fact that it takes place in Arabia which has a coast (even if that coast is far from the Aladdin universe).

The Indiana Jones attraction has nothing to do with the sea. But hypothetically, Indiana Jones could take place near a lost river delta. There, connection made.

Toy Story has nothing to do with the sea at all, and yet TSM is being built in the park. Well that's okay, because Toy Story is American, and the attraction is based on a boardwalk midway. And American boardwalks are near the sea.

Not everything in the park fits the word "sea," yet the attractions fit the more general idea of adventure and exploring exotic ports of call.

Animal Kingdom is no different. Not every attraction has to relate to "animals that have a foundation in millennia on earth." Technically, the yeti was created at one point by people, just like the animals in Avatar. But Avatar still works well with Animal Kingdom's other ideas, such as conservation and exploring an exotic location. And yes, there are animals in Pandora.

If anything, Kali River Rapids needs to be removed from AK. It was originally supposed to include tigers, but the tigers were never included. Now, that attraction has no animals. It doesn't fit. Every single thing in AK has to directly involve and showcase animals!!!!!! :fork:

 

[Crazy Harry]

Sometimes it's fun to make things fanciful, sometimes it's more interesting not to.
Not every ride has to be a boat ride.
Not every restaurant has to serve chicken fingers.
Not every Animal Kingdom area has to be set on Earth.

Let's have a world showcase pavillion for Pluto (the declassified planet, not the dog). After all, it is a world, and does every pavillion in the world showcase have to be a country on Earth?

 

[RadioHead]

well then why bother with a theme for animal kingdom at all? You're making it seem like the unifying theme of animal kingdom is foliage.

You do realize there's a freakin' dragon on the logo? If Beastly Kingdom had it's way, we'd have whole land based off Dragons, and Unicorns, and other mythical beasts.

It's obvious the whole "Animal" theme was loose from the get go. Avatar is no more looser than mythical creatures if you ask me.

 

[Prototype82]

Yes, much as in Avatar.

Then my real answer is because Disney doesn't know if their film adaptation of John Carter will be a blockbuster yet. It's a business, yet in doing so they wish to be relevant. I think this will work. It could be a lot worse after all. Take Ellen and Nemo in Epcot for instance...

 

[Figment571]

I think its looser in the sense that it was manufactured and not an intrinsic part of the culture and that it takes place on another flippin planet.

 

[Crazy Harry]

So... they can't build anything else?
Bummer.

As interesting as the earth animals (mythological or otherwise) are, you think that nothing can be built in AK unless it is Avatar based? I think you need to get out more

I think the animals and environments of our planet, as well as the mythology of many cultures as they pertain to animals are more than interesting enough and fit the current theme of Animal Kingdom.