AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

Bairstow

Bairstow

Well-Known Member
RSoxNo1 said:
I did ask the question on Twitter earlier if this means that the Sigourney Weaver and Alien AA's in The Great Movie Ride will be fixed.
Click to expand...

They could at least unzip her jumpsuit a little more...:goodnevil

2497856175_dc77f51c61.jpg
1979alien001.jpg
 
Bairstow

Bairstow

Well-Known Member
tl77 said:
The first 3 Star Wars films were great, so great they built a ride, but Star Tours the ride, came before the prequels, so here's the math

Star Tours is 1 single attraction, that takes you on multiple rides, through 6 preexisting Films

Avatar is 1 single movie and they are going to build multiple rides for, plus there's going to be 2 other movies, that haven't even been made yet... but they're going to have rides too... uh? sounds kinda messy to me...

You think it might be a good idea to wait and see how the other movies turn out before they go building a whole themed land dedicated to them?
Click to expand...

You'd think...
IMG_4096.jpg
 
DonaldDoleWhip

DonaldDoleWhip

Well-Known Member
S.E.A. said:
that looks great and all, even moreso that the route 66 type of highway culture fits in in a park about California.
Click to expand...
Bugs also make sense in a theme park about California, and the little mermaid, and Monsters Inc. :ROFLOL:

Just like imaginary animals from a lush environment (like Asia) make sense in AK. Oh, wait. :brick:
 
Crazy Harry

Crazy Harry

Active Member
DonaldDoleWhip said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok, but let's look at the name of the park. If animal is going to be how you identify the park in the first place, then it is a nessisary part of the theming. Yes, concervation is important to protect animal species, so it is related, but it is more of a message than a theme. The theme of the park is obviously animals and their environment (kingdom) which is found virtually everywhere throughout the park.

To say that mythological creatures such as yetis do not exist is not enough. Yetis may well exist as evidence by their appearence in many cultures as well as current accounts. And mythology is more than just made up stuff, there is at least some truth to it. Someone may have misunderstood what they saw (or can't prove it) or a peoples way of explaining the world around them. This is more than just made up stuff, this is culture. Would you feel comfortable telling a native american that there culture is on the same level as Avatar?

And since the park currently contains only animals found on the Earth, then would the kingdom being refered to in the name of the park not be the Earth itself and its environment? That would be plenty reason for Earth as a 'buzz word.' Not to mention the use of Africa and Asia as lands. How does Pandora fit with them?

Yes, sometimes theming can be loose, but too loose is not a good thing. Do we really want AK to be like DCA, fill the park with attractions that are popular but disregard major aspects of the theme?
 
S.E.A.

S.E.A.

Member
DonaldDoleWhip said:
Just like imaginary animals from a lush environment (like Asia) make sense in AK. Oh, wait. :brick:
Click to expand...

yeah you're right, i can't wait for Predatorland in AK. i mean it's about imaginary animals (people are animals too!!!) from a lush environment.

The Mars pavillion is also gonna be amazing in World Showcase, since you know, it's a world.
 
DonaldDoleWhip

DonaldDoleWhip

Well-Known Member
Crazy Harry said:
To say that mythological creatures such as yetis do not exist is not enough. Yetis may well exist as evidence by their appearence in many cultures as well as current accounts. And mythology is more than just made up stuff, there is at least some truth to it.
Click to expand...
You're right. Unicorns may have existed, so they make sense (as originally planned in Beastly Kingdom). We all know that unicorns aren't real, but they are real enough because in our fantasies they live on earth.

Crazy Harry said:
And since the park currently contains only animals found on the Earth, then would the kingdom being refered to in the name of the park not be the Earth itself and its environment? That would be plenty reason for Earth as a 'buzz word.' Not to mention the use of Africa and Asia as lands. How does Pandora fit with them?
Click to expand...
So should the park be renamed "Disney's Earth Animal Kingdom"? Or what about "Disney's Animal Planet"? Would that get the message across? Again, just because fictional non-earth based animals weren't in the park, doesn't mean they can't be added. Before the yeti, no fictional animals existed in the park, so precedent would have dictated to leave out the yeti. If dinoland hadn't been around on opening day but was instead added later, then the park would have been all "living" animals until that point. Doesn't mean dinosaurs aren't allowed in the park. Eisner's dedication never limited the discussion of animals to earth, he said real, ancient, and imagined (basically anything goes). Maybe the "earth" aspect as assumed or implicit, but at this point it just represents a limit in creativity.

Crazy Harry said:
Yes, sometimes theming can be loose, but too loose is not a good thing. Do we really want AK to be like DCA, fill the park with attractions that are popular but disregard major aspects of the theme?
Click to expand...
We don't have a say in the matter, so Disney doesn't care what we want or how we would expand the parks. But I'm perfectly willing to embrace this change since it makes sense to me from a conceptual standpoint. Plus, I expect the end product to be immersive and include a great theme park attraction.

I bet the people complaining about Avatar are the same people still angry that Soarin' is in The Land at Epcot. It might not be the best fit, but Epcot is certainly more enjoyable to a lot of people now that Soarin' is in the park.
 
Crazy Harry

Crazy Harry

Active Member
DonaldDoleWhip said:
Bugs also make sense in a theme park about California, and the little mermaid, and Monsters Inc. :ROFLOL:

Just like imaginary animals from a lush environment (like Asia) make sense in AK. Oh, wait. :brick:
Click to expand...

DCA is an aweful example considering it is a theming nightmare.

As for Asia, it is a real environment, and yetis could quite possibly be real. There have been many personal accounts and they appear in many cultures. Certainly not fake like the inhabitants of Pandora. At least some truth to yetis, no truth to Pandora. Distinctions between mythology and sci-fi are needed.
 
DonaldDoleWhip

DonaldDoleWhip

Well-Known Member
S.E.A. said:
yeah you're right, i can't wait for Predatorland in AK. i mean it's about imaginary animals (people are animals too!!!) from a lush environment.

The Mars pavillion is also gonna be amazing in World Showcase, since you know, it's a world.
Click to expand...
World Showcase is clearly a different entity. To be a pavilion in World Showcase, you need to represent a nation (or perhaps a collection of nations, as Equatorial Africa was once considered). Still, the foundation of World Showcase is non-fiction and the parameters for entry are well-defined. That's never been a boundary for AK, where you can time travel to see living dinosaurs, shrink to the size of a bug, go camping with cartoon rodents, and face a yeti.

Perhaps if every land in AK had a direct theme that all tied together (Africa, Asia, North America, South America, Australia, etc), then Pandora would clearly be illogical. But with Dinoland and Camp Minnie Mickey in the mix, AK isn't limited in the same way as World Showcase.
 
DonaldDoleWhip

DonaldDoleWhip

Well-Known Member
Crazy Harry said:
DCA is an aweful example considering it is a theming nightmare.

As for Asia, it is a real environment, and yetis could quite possibly be real. There have been many personal accounts and they appear in many cultures. Certainly not fake like the inhabitants of Pandora. At least some truth to yetis, no truth to Pandora. Distinctions between mythology and sci-fi are needed.
Click to expand...
My point was actually that Pandora (the new land) could be very much like Asia (lush, jungles, animals, etc).

These conversations are circular. A couple hundred posts ago, someone mentioned that AK already has its own dose of sci-fi (time travel). If you can travel to the past at AK, why not the future?
 
Tim Lohr

Tim Lohr

Well-Known Member
Oh come on? Cars is a Disney-Pixar movie, they've got Pixar movie rides all over the world, and they're all really popular, plus they aren't paying 20th Century Fox and Jim Cameron to build Cars land.

I don't mean to be combative, I just can't believe how amped up people are about this rather vague Avatar idea, there's no guarantee that Avatar sequels will be successful, or that an Avatar land will be successful.

At least with Cars-land Disney is gambling on their own product, with an Avatar-land they are gambling on someone else's product.

I think Disney wants to expand Animal Kingdom, they should just do it themselves, because they're the ones taking all the risk
 
DonaldDoleWhip

DonaldDoleWhip

Well-Known Member
tl77 said:
Oh come on? Cars is a Disney-Pixar movie, they've got Pixar movie rides all over the world, and they're all really popular, plus they aren't paying 20th Century Fox and Jim Cameron to build Cars land.

I don't mean to be combative, I just can't believe how amped up people are about this rather vague Avatar idea, there's no guarantee that Avatar sequels will be successful, or that an Avatar land will be successful.

At least with Cars-land Disney is gambling on their own product, with an Avatar-land they are gambling on someone else's product.

I think Disney wants to expand Animal Kingdom, they should just do it themselves, because they're the ones taking all the risk
Click to expand...
My favorite rides (RnRC, ToT) are based on non-Disney properties. Some of my least favorite attractions (Stitch, MILF, Tiki Room when it was under new management, etc) are based on Disney properties. From that standpoint, some of Disney's best attractions don't have a tie-in to a Disney product (or are related to someone else's product).

Star Tours, Indiana Jones Adventure, Tower of Terror, etc - Disney can do great things with a large sum of money and someone else's idea.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom