AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[DonaldDoleWhip]

Maybe it should be called Nations of the World Showcase. Why are there so many implied themes here and not AK. How do you see the two as different. World showcase has time travel (American Adventure), talking ducks, and trolls. There are only set peramiters here and not AK because of your own perception. The peramiters for both are identical. How is adding a different planet to World showcase different than adding Pandora to AK. Isn't this using imagination and setting prescidence?

After all, the name World Showcase no more sets peramiters by name than Animal Kingdom by your definition. If we use your arguement, what part of World Showcase implies nation of Earth? In fact, it is both in name and in content.

And I ask, camp minnie mickey and Dinoland don't take place on earth?

All pavilions in World Showcase represent a non-fictional nation or a region (African Outpost is the one that isn't a nation). That's 11 nations, and nothing else contradicts that. What happens inside those pavilions differs, but you can't add Marsland to World Showcase and expect it to make any sense.

In Animal Kingdom, there are 2 continent lands, a "hub" land, a land devoted to conservation, a glorified zoo land, a land devoted to dinosaurs and carnival attractions, and a collection of huts in a cartoonish land. There's no overarching theme (besides "earth"). But again, if AK opened without dinoland, then the precedent would've been living animals only (even though the dedication also includes ancient and imaginary). Dinoland is the exception to living. Avatarland/Pandora will be the earth vs. not-earth exception. Since AK's lands don't follow an overarching theme (only Africa and Asia make cohesive sense, and that's only 2/7 lands), Pandora really isn't disrupting too much IMO. That's my opinion. You're not convincing me otherwise, and vice versa.

 

[Crazy Harry]

Also: dragons exist in mythology from various places (Europe, China, etc). I don't think I'm being insulting in saying that I don't think dragons are real. As of right now, they're imaginary. Yet they're welcome in AK if Beastly Kingdom were to be built (not happening, I know), just like the animals of Avatar IMO (sci-fi is simply a branch of "imaginary").

If I were Chinese and told my culture was as relevant as Avatar, I would be insulted. And I don't want to open a can of worms, but large reptiles could easily have been the inspiration for dragons, and that is all I will say. Mythology has some basis in reality. Other sea creatures were mistaken for mermaids for example.

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

WOW you're saying that coming up with an original property based on the cultures of Australia or the Americas is not creative!? And working with a director on his own property is? Just WOW.:hammer:

Announcing Australia or South America wouldn't have been a huge surprise. It would've been a surprise to me in the sense that I didn't think AK was getting anything big. But in terms of content, these projects have been rumored and speculated for years. Lots of people have already anticipated them.

Nobody anticipated Avatar for Animal Kingdom. For proof, see the first page of this thread. And Disney is going to have to employ a lot of creative energy to immerse its guests in a fictional planet; it just so happens that Pandora is beautiful, lush, and perfect for an immersive theme park setting.

 

[Tim Lohr]

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.

But Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Twilight Zone, had all been around for years BEFORE they got turned into rides, and shows

These Avatar movies HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN MADE YET!!! HELLLOOOOO, THIS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA!!!! THIS IS A BAD IDEA

 

[Captain Neo]

So true

"Come on, I want more Cars 2 attractions. At least Cars 2 is a Disney product. I mean, a whole land based on a James Cameron film? What's next, Lucasland?! Disney has no more creativity :fork:"

Well whats funny is that these people suddenly embrace Pixar as Disney. By that logic, they should embrace Marvel as well since both were acquired. So I guess Spider-Man swinging around DAK and Up characters in Kali river rapids is ok but a separate land dedicated to Avatar? NOPE


In the late 80s/early 90s when I was growing up during the Disney renaissance nobody cared wether Twilight Zone tower of terror or Star Tours were Disney. People just wanted badass rides and were willing to line up 3 hours for them. I hope Disney sees past these complainers, while I do agree that Disney should make an effort to create more original rides again (like Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean) to say that they would rather have Carsland over a fully realized alien planet supervised by Joe Rhode and James Cameron is just crazy talk!!

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

So now you're saying the basis for adding attractions to the parks should be surprise and unpredictability? Okay....

Look at how many posts the topic has generated. If Disney wanted a reaction, they got it. Also, you're putting words in my mouth. Surprise and unpredictability aren't 100% of the basis. They aren't most of the basis at all. But if the announcement had bored us and told us something we already knew, I don't think there would've been nearly as much buzz. In this case, two big names (Disney and Avatar) are being brought together, and it was a shocker to everyone, even the people who claim to know Disney's inner workings best. IMO, it's a good thing, because to a large number of people, this was an incredible surprise and already has them excited about 2017 in Animal Kingdom (a park that hasn't received anything big since 2006).

For something like this to be moving forward, there has to be market research. Disney wouldn't be investing in a $400 million expansion if they didn't expect a benefit from it. In fact, I'm sure Disney analyzed the benefits to "Australia" or "South America" as well. In the end, this decision is the one that Disney thought would be most worth it. Even though I would've loved to see Australia, I am still happy with the news.

If I were Chinese and told my culture was as relevant as Avatar, I would be insulted. And I don't want to open a can of worms, but large reptiles could easily have been the inspiration for dragons, and that is all I will say. Mythology has some basis in reality. Other sea creatures were mistaken for mermaids for example.

You're putting words in my mouth. A dragon is imaginary. The world of avatar is imaginary. Obviously, a dragon is much more significant to Chinese culture than Avatar is significant to anyone's culture. Saying that both are imaginary is not me insulting anyone. Would you be insulted if I told you that Santa Claus is imaginary? He has some basis in reality (a real saint), yet I don't think it's unfair to say he's imaginary. And in daily conversation, I don't feel the need to provide a disclaimer that Santa Claus might be real and is based on reality even though he's clearly not flying around the world delivering presents. :xmas:

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

Well whats funny is that these people suddenly embrace Pixar as Disney. By that logic, they should embrace Marvel as well since both were acquired. So I guess Spider-Man swinging around DAK and Up characters in Kali river rapids is ok but a separate land dedicated to Avatar? NOPE


In the late 80s/early 90s when I was growing up during the Disney renaissance nobody cared wether Twilight Zone tower of terror or Star Tours were Disney. People just wanted badass rides and were willing to line up 3 hours for them. I hope Disney sees past these complainers, while I do agree that Disney should make an effort to create more original rides again (like Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean) to say that they would rather have Carsland over a fully realized alien planet supervised by Joe Rhode and James Cameron is just crazy talk!!

Original rides are obviously awesome. Mansion, Space Mountain, EE, Soarin', etc. I can see why Disney has moved away from original rides, since they're a bit more of a risk without a recognized brand attached to them. I'd be happy to see more original attractions, but given the recent glut of Pixar everywhere, this is an exciting change to me.

 

[Crazy Harry]

All pavilions in World Showcase represent a non-fictional nation or a region (African Outpost is the one that isn't a nation). That's 11 nations, and nothing else contradicts that. What happens inside those pavilions differs, but you can't add Marsland to World Showcase and expect it to make any sense.

In Animal Kingdom, there are 2 continent lands, a "hub" land, a land devoted to conservation, a glorified zoo land, a land devoted to dinosaurs and carnival attractions, and a collection of huts in a cartoonish land. There's no overarching theme (besides "earth"). But again, if AK opened without dinoland, then the precedent would've been living animals only (even though the dedication also includes ancient and imaginary). Dinoland is the exception to living. Avatarland/Pandora will be the earth vs. not-earth exception. Since AK's lands don't follow an overarching theme (only Africa and Asia make cohesive sense, and that's only 2/7 lands), Pandora really isn't disrupting too much IMO. That's my opinion. You're not convincing me otherwise, and vice versa.

Nothing in Animal Kingdom contradicts animals or the earth despite the content within those lands (i.e. canival games which does fit in the first place), just like World Showcase is based on real countries despite the content. And what happened to imagination and presedance?

ANd lets not be wishy washy about reasoning. First you say Animal Kingdom is not descript enough to only include Earth content, then you say the title World Showcase is descript enough not to include other planets despite the mention of such in the title. Which is it? If it has to be Animl Earth Kingdom, then it has to be World Nation Showcase.

Your dinosaur arguement has no basis. Living or dead they are animals of the earth. Later inclusion sets no presendance. Nothing in the name "Animal Kingdom" implies in anyway that an animal need be currently living to be included.

The hub land is related to all animals (tree of life) and bugs, and dino land is about dinosaurs, and concervation is certainly related to animals and their environments on the Earth. While not siting specific locations, they are still about animals of this Earth. Why is a listing a specific location nessisary for cohesive theming? Camp Minnie Mickey is a glorified meet n greet and not nessisary for this discussion. The theme is still obviously present, with no justification for alien planets and blue people within sight.

 

[Captain Neo]

and seriously this debate boggles my mind. Have any of you people been following Disney for any period of time? DAK was always supposed to represent 3 sets of animals (The Real, The Extinct, The imaginary). The imaginary portion of the park (beastly kingdom) was cut from the park opening due to the rampant budget cutting of the Pressler era and was moved to a vague "phase two" expansion. So the park opened with the real (Africa) and the extinct (dinoland USA) but it left hints that the imaginary would come someday (Dragon and unicorn symbols, fire breathing dragon on the boat ride, etc.) In 2006 they finally introduced there first imaginary creature to the park (The Yeti) in Expedition Everest. Over the years the plans for Beastly Kingdom have changed but at one time or another they were:

-The original concept with a dragon themed roller coaster, a Disneyland Paris style hedge maze that would lead to the lair of a Unicorn, a boat dark ride based on fantasia, and some kind of coliseum where guests could see imaginary creatures perform (unicorns, heffalumps, etc.). The original version got cut, they tried again by tying it to Reign of Fire which flopped, they tried again by tying it to Harry Potter (didn't get the rights) which led to...

-A modified version of Tokyo Disneysea's Mysterious Island this version would be based around imaginary creatures themed around victorian fantasy like giant squids and magma worms. From what I understand, it was supposed to include modified versions of Journey to the center of the earth and 20k under the sea. You'll have to ask an insider for more details (Martin would probably know more). Obviously Disney decided against this version which led to....

-Yesterday! When Disney decided that they would base Animal Kingdom's fantasy area not on mythical creatures of ancient times, not on victorian fantasy, but on a modern mythology of today: alien races, the exotic flora and fauna of a distant world, a concept that has already proven to be popular with audiences worldwide.

So as you can see Disney has been trying for years to get imaginary creatures into the parks and they have finally succeeded with this take.

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

Nothing in Animal Kingdom contradicts animals or the earth despite the content within those lands (i.e. canival games which does fit in the first place), just like World Showcase is based on real countries despite the content. And what happened to imagination and presedance?

ANd lets not be wishy washy about reasoning. First you say Animal Kingdom is not descript enough to only include Earth content, then you say the title World Showcase is descript enough not to include other planets despite the mention of such in the title. Which is it? If it has to be Animl Earth Kingdom, then it has to be World Nation Showcase.

Your dinosaur arguement has no basis. Living or dead they are animals of the earth. Later inclusion sets no presendance. Nothing in the name "Animal Kingdom" implies in anyway that an animal need be currently living to be included.

The hub land is related to all animals (tree of life) and bugs, and dino land is about dinosaurs, and concervation is certainly related to animals and their environments on the Earth. While not siting specific locations, they are still about animals of this Earth. Why is a listing a specific location nessisary for cohesive theming? Camp Minnie Mickey is a glorified meet n greet and not nessisary for this discussion. The theme is still obviously present, with no justification for alien planets and blue people within sight.

Animal Kingdom's dedication mentions living, extinct, and imaginary animals. There is no mention of earth, and Avatar's animals are imaginary.

World Showcase is clearly a celebration of our world - its flagship fireworks show is called Reflections of Earth. The concept that one pavilion = one nation really isn't difficult for anyone to grasp - all you have to do is look at a park map to realize that. In AK, the lines are much more blurred as to what qualifications are necessary to be a land.

And my dinoland example was a hypothetical. If dinoland hadn't existed right away, then the precedent would've been living animals. Adding dinoland contradicts that because it implies time travel, especially in the case of Dinosaur (and to some extent Dino-Rama with the theme of Primeval Whirl). AK is allowed to have exceptions to patterns; the pattern at AK is living animals, the exception is Dinoland. Adding imaginary animals does not contradict the park's dedication, and actually goes along with the park's original intention. The issue seems to be that Avatar takes place in a different time and planet. Dinoland also incorporates a different time, so the real problem seems to be setting. I can't explain why I'm okay with it, but I am. And if you're not okay with it, unless enough of you boycott all Disney parks, then Disney really couldn't care less.

 

[Kramerica]

Does anyone happen to know the cost for the new cars land or the fantasyland expansion? Just so we have a representation of how large this project is to be?

 

[PeterAlt]

Cool. Cameron's team is a perfect match to collaborate with Disney Imagineering! Now, with the addition of Avatar rights for theme park use, my idea of a "Disney Space" theme park is taking shape! Disney Space would be entirely indoors, with air conditioned hallways and tunnels connecting all the attractions, shops, and services, but themed to create the illusion that you're aboard a busy intergalactic space port, complete with window portals of the star-lit spaceviews outside.

Attractions could include multiple versions of Space Mountain, with various track layouts, destinations, and effects; a sci-fi version of Mission Space (with an alien world destination); Star Tours II; Buzz Light Year; Alien Encounter; an attraction based on Marvel's sci-fi characters; Wall-E attraction; The Black Hole thrill ride; and a Tron ride.

 

[Spike-in-Berlin]

Goodness gracious, this is the bloody H-bomb among the threads. Blew up to 1264 comments in less than ONE day. Bloody hell.

Am I the only one how thinks that Avatar-land is totally misplaced in DAK? What does this have to do with ANIMALS? Worst idea ever for an expansion of DAK.
Put it into DHS, that's where an Avatar-land belongs.

 

[thelookingglass]

While I still find it somewhat of a stretch to fit in with DAK, and I don't even care for Avatar that much, I will say this:

This is so, SO much better and cooler than Carsland or other Pixar stuff. and I love Pixar.

 

[Spike-in-Berlin]

While I still find it somewhat of a stretch to fit in with DAK, and I don't even care for Avatar that much, I will say this:

This is so, SO much better and cooler than Carsland or other Pixar stuff. and I love Pixar.

Why don't you like Carsland? Radiator Springs Racers seems to the the first real E-Ticket in an American Disney park for years (even EE was considerably downsized and we don't have to talk about the Yeti). It sounds and looks awesome.

 

[steampunkwillie]

Now that a whole land...

Now that a whole "land" is being devoted to a non-disney property, I'm hoping that this fast tracks a muppet-land and a lucas-land over in the studios.

 

[TP2000]

Does anyone happen to know the cost for the new cars land or the fantasyland expansion? Just so we have a representation of how large this project is to be?

Cars Land is widely rumored to have used half of the 1.2 Billion Dollar DCA Extreme Makeover Budget. Or, roughly 600 Million for Cars Land. Radiator Springs Racers is widely rumored to have crested the 300 Million Dollar mark for that one Mega E-Ticket alone.

Fantasyland Expansion is rumored to have a budget of roughly 300 Million Dollars. Lee or one of the other Florida insiders can correct me if I'm wrong on that one, please.

 

[GoofyFan1]

Well, there's one part of AK I will never set foot in...

I agree. If you want the message that Avatar sends, why not create something around Pocahantas?

 

[Scuttle]

So true

"Come on, I want more Cars 2 attractions. At least Cars 2 is a Disney product. I mean, a whole land based on a James Cameron film? What's next, Lucasland?! Disney has no more creativity :fork:"

Disney has plenty of creativity left trust me. For all of those people who are blasting this decision remember this is strictly to compete with Potter. This is the "Potter Swatter" that we have been talking about for over a year. There are plenty of amazing ideas in the imagineering department. If these were public knowledge I don't think you would be saying Disney has no more creativity. I honestly think this is the best thing to happen to WDI in years and years. This is really going to push the envelope for new innovative ride technology and Audio Animatronics. Personally I am extremely excited about this and the sky really is the limit on a project like this.

 

[jtizzle1023]

I love it, I love the fact that disney is bringing a huge brand into the parks, as of latley there has not been any big disney movies. Its not like they could take it from one of there own films. Plus, Beastly Kingdom would have been cool but from what I read it didnt have any disney based characters just generic mythical creatures. I love how they took the positives from IA and are applying it to there own park