AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[hibbsofep]

No one in my family had the slightest desire to see the blue freaks of Avatar so I can't imagine setting foot in this attraction--and I do NOT get why it should be in AK!!! Is AK not becoming the dumping ground for random ideas? It's getting to be a mish-mosh mess.

 

[Prototype82]

About merchandise...

If the Wizarding World sells http://www.noblecollection.com/index.cfm?fa=products.catagory&catid=21,

I hope Animal Kingdom Pandora sells http://www.noblecollection.com/index.cfm?fa=products.catagory&catid=86

Sure it's pricey stuff, but browsing over this stuff in a themed shop would sick.

 

[Dinoman96]

If you remember me, I was the person who lost all hope for AK getting anything, even to the point I declared it a dead park. Guess I was wrong...

But still, while I'm glad TDO/Disney actually still does acknowledge AK as a working theme park, I don't think I kinda like the sound of this...

It's not that I hate Avatar or anything, and Pandora could make a neat theme park experience, but...

1. I thought Animal Kingdom was basically a celebration of all animals on our earth. The ones alive now, the ones extinct like dinosaurs, and mythological creatures. Why are we representing the Na'vi's planet?

2. Why is it that basically all of Disney's recent theme park projects have to be based on an IP? (Star Tours 2, The Fantasyland make over, Carsland in California Adventure) Yeah, I know it's DISNEY World, but I sorta miss when they made more original attractions, like Journey into Imagination, Expedition Everest, Alien Encounter etc. And before you say "Well, people will only ride rides based on things they only know about!", no one knew what the hell the characters from Splash Mountain were from and that is one of Magic Kingdom's most popular attractions.

But overall that's what I liked about Animal Kingdom. Unlike the other parks filled with characters like Nemo and Cinderella, Animal Kingdom's attractions didn't need any recognizable character (I don't count "Dinosaur" and if you knew the history of that ride you'd know why).

3. I'm not sure if this even belongs in AK.

..ok, yes, yes, AK has a recurring theme of trees and conservation, as does Avatar. But the lands in AK were more grittier and realistic than the usual Disney fare. Let's have a look, shall we?

ASIA

A bunch of ancient artifacts and antiques in amidst of a rain forest.

DINOLAND USA

An old get together for paleontologist with a rusty old 50s restaurant and a dinosaur museum. also has a run down amusement park on the other side of the road.

AFRICA

An old rotten village filled with festive villagers near an African Preserve.

PANDORA LAND OR WHATEVER

A really colorful jungle with a bunch of blue people and futuristic technology.

My point is is that we're gonna have a cartoony jungle place in a park where all the other lands have this realistic old world charm...

 

[HMF]

While Iger's got a lot of issues, he's not entirely at fault here. Doing Avatar was Tom Staggs' idea after all.

I regret praising him for the Fantasyland re-think. Never trust money-men in jobs that require a creative mind.

 

[Prototype82]

Iger is just a normal businessman. He does not care about the Disney Legacy or that Avatar makes no sense in Animal Kingdom all he sees is $$$$$$$$$$!

This is your opinion.

 

[GLaDOS]

Was there a leak recently about Transformers coming to USF?

Yup.

It's going to be a good time to be an Orlando theme park fan. And I would hope people from both sides give each company it's fair shake, although I think it's obvious from some of the responses in the thread that won't happen.

 

[Prototype82]

I swear, Iger has little to no regard for Disney at all. For its legacy, for its properties, for Walt, for ANYTHING.

Well, everyone here knows how I feel about outside properties being stuck into the parks. I HATE it. And it's just STUPID. Avatar is a only one movie. How the heck does it rate for an entire "land"?

Iger is a fool. JMHO.

Why is everyone being so closed-minded about this? Did Walt write Tom Sawyer? Of course not. Did he want to bring it to life in tangible form? Yes. Same with many of his classics. Why should this be any different? It's a work of fiction but it fits perfectly with the morals and themes of Animal Kingdom. That's what they want the land to revolve around. You're allowed to have your opinions, but I just don't see why people aren't seeing this as an exciting new frontier.

 

[Prototype82]

I regret praising him for the Fantasyland re-think. Never trust money-men in jobs that require a creative mind.

If he is responsible for this, I will praise him even more for doing something this bold and this exciting.

 

[zooey]

Why is everyone being so closed-minded about this? Did Walt write Tom Sawyer? Of course not. Did he want to bring it to life in tangible form? Yes. Same with many of his classics. Why should this be any different? It's a work of fiction but it fits perfectly with the morals and themes of Animal Kingdom. That's what they want the land to revolve around. You're allowed to have your opinions, but I just don't see why people aren't seeing this as an exciting new frontier.

Because when it comes to the Disney BRAND; heart, cute, silly, fun, warming, truthful, classic--Avatar does not fit into ANY of these things. There are people who love theme parks because of their cutting edge attractions and all that, and there are people who love DISNEY theme parks because they love the Disney brand. I'm guessing you're in the latter, and that's why you see this as such an amazing thing. There are people who are in the former and do not see this as being relevant to the brand, and is even undermining it.

If you don't care about the brand (something the company used to work very hard to maintain) then of course this is great news. You have to be open to understanding the reasons people like the same things you like. They're different reasons than yours, meaning when something challenges their reasons for liking the parks, even though it doesn't conflict with your own reasons, they're going to be upset. Let them be upset for awhile.

 

[cookiee_munster]

I cant believe something as big as this has been kept under wraps so well, and not really hinted at.

Its just so random though. Avatar at Animal Kingdom. It still hasnt sunk in. Yeah, avatar at Hollywood Studio's i would agree with, but in animal kingdom? Its just so odd...

I need to sit down.

EDIT - i was kinda hoping that now that the lost continent has pretty much been devoured by Potter especially most of the medieval european stuff, Disney could go back to their beastly Kingdom concept. Or even a mysterious island type area like at Disney Sea...

 

[bigeternity]

Wait and see...

 

[Crockett]

What does pointing this out mean? I'm pretty sure he knows it's just his opinion...

Because after reading however many pages of replies this thread holds, it is apparent that there are many who get confused between fact & their opinion. (Ex: "I did not like the movie Avatar...so therefore it is a bad film").

p.s. Zooey Thanks for the list of Disney contact email addresses you submitted earlier in this thread. I will be sure to email the company thanking them for this decision which will help DAK grow!

 

[ChrisFL]

Because when it comes to the Disney BRAND; heart, cute, silly, fun, warming, truthful, classic--Avatar does not fit into ANY of these things. There are people who love theme parks because of their cutting edge attractions and all that, and there are people who love DISNEY theme parks because they love the Disney brand. I'm guessing you're in the latter, and that's why you see this as such an amazing thing. There are people who are in the former and do not see this as being relevant to the brand, and is even undermining it.

So I suppose you also are not a fan of the Tower of Terror or Dinosaur, since those also do not fit into the "heart, cute, silly, fun, warming, truthful, classic" ideas, am I right?

Honestly I think Avatar had a lot of heart and warming, truthful meaning to it.

 

[ChrisM]

It makes sense to Iger. It makes no sense to me at all.

Avatar was high-tech special effects married to a lousy preachy story IMO. As a concept, it has yet to prove itself as a franchise. So why the HECK is Iger ignoring jungle-themed Disney movies like The Jungle Book and the Lion King as possible rides/lands for AK and instead sticking in a "land" based on a movie by another studio?

I swear, Iger has little to no regard for Disney at all. For its legacy, for its properties, for Walt, for ANYTHING.

Well, everyone here knows how I feel about outside properties being stuck into the parks. I HATE it. And it's just STUPID. Avatar is a only one movie. How the heck does it rate for an entire "land"?

Iger is a fool. JMHO.

Wait, wait, wait - you are criticizing Avatar as a film and holding up The Jungle Book as a superior example as a story and as a film? You've completely lost your senses.

While Avatar is a modern repackaging of a well worn story and theme, and hardly perfect in terms of narrative or execution, it is so vastly superior in execution to The Jungle Book, I can only chuckle at statement as it complete destroys any shred of credibility you may have had. Leaving aside the fact that The Jungle Book is a complete and utter bastardization (some would even call it a mockery) of the original Kipling stories, it's really a rather ham-handed effort and outside of the fabulous "I Want To Be Like You" song, is almost impossible to get through outside of the nostalgia it invokes. Let's be honest here folks, many Disney movies, no matter how groundbreaking they may have been in their day, are simply bad movies and their narrative and characterization is poor even for a children's movie.

The real meat of Avatar is the amount of effort that went into the design of the Pandoran world. An immense effort was placed into making the world, creatures, and ecosystem as scientifically feasible as possible, even down to the futuristic technology being utilized.

I think what we are seeing here is a schism between Disney enthusiasts and Theme Park enthusiasts. I'm most definitely the latter, and enjoy Disney because they generally provide the highest quality theme park experience, while simultaneously recognizing that their original creative properties aren't necessarily anything to crow about; heck most of the resonance of their animated properties comes from it's establishment in folklore or other outside sources.

In short, keep stomping your feet Disney purists; you just end up looking petulant and foolish.

 

[bigeternity]

Amen.

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

So I suppose you also are not a fan of the Tower of Terror or Dinosaur, since those also do not fit into the "heart, cute, silly, fun, warming, truthful, classic" ideas, am I right?

Honestly I think Avatar had a lot of heart and warming, truthful meaning to it.

I thought the exact same thing. Kick Tower of Terror out of the park. Add more Mater - he represents all of those things! :brick:

Honestly, the Disney brand is a lot more than just cutesy little princesses and talking cars. Disney is an enormous media empire, and the theme parks are a culmination of Disney's power to create, design, and operate.

I love Disney. I love Disney's theme parks (not other theme parks). I can live with this announcement. Disney has to do what it thinks will benefit the parks most. And no matter how you feel, a Jungle Book c-ticket wouldn't have gotten anyone excited at all.

 

[Crockett]

So I suppose you also are not a fan of the Tower of Terror or Dinosaur, since those also do not fit into the "heart, cute, silly, fun, warming, truthful, classic" ideas, am I right?

For the win! ^
:ROFLOL::sohappy:

 

[erasure fan1]

Avatar at Animal Kingdom. It still hasnt sunk in. Yeah, avatar at Hollywood Studio's i would agree with, but in animal kingdom? Its just so odd...

I kind of agree. I see this as more of an answer for the studios more so than the AK. I really think Avatar is a surprising choice, for the simple fact of the infancy of the IP. I enjoyed the movie and I think a Pandora theme will look awesome, its just a very surprising choice. To me, for a long time Disney has taken the safe path with all of its major decisions regarding the parks. To me this is the complete opposite of that and thats why its surprising. If the land is amazing and the sequels are good this could be a huge roll the dice and win big for Disney.

 

[Doctor Seeker]

Because when it comes to the Disney BRAND; heart, cute, silly, fun, warming, truthful, classic--Avatar does not fit into ANY of these things. There are people who love theme parks because of their cutting edge attractions and all that, and there are people who love DISNEY theme parks because they love the Disney brand. I'm guessing you're in the latter, and that's why you see this as such an amazing thing. There are people who are in the former and do not see this as being relevant to the brand, and is even undermining it.

Tower of Terror and Dinosaur have been mentioned as counterexamples, but what about Haunted Mansion, a project that Walt Disney oversaw. I don't think this fits the category of cute, silly, or fun, but I believe that almost anyone who loves the Disney brand has this ride on their top 5 best rides at Disney World.

I say let's wait and see until we have some kind of blue plan or model of what this land will look like and consist over before we start making snap judgements.

 

[Thrill Seeker]

From a Disney fan's perspective, this is a very random and not the big announcement everyone wanted. Disney has plenty of properties they created that would be better suited for a major expansion project such as this. Not only that, but I am not the biggest fan of the film Avatar. Visually, it was stunning, but the story and acting performances weren't impressive.

From a logistics perspective, this makes a lot of sense. Disney was able to grab an up and coming property on it's way up (the original film is the highest grossing film of all time) with two sequels on the way and it does in a sense fit with the theming of the park that badly needs an expansion. I see how Avatar fits with DAK and how it could be amazing, but we'll know more about that in 5 years...

For this to be as amazing as we hope it could be, Disney needs to do the following:

1. Focus on the world of Pandora and it's abstract beauty, rather than try to shamelessly promote the movies.

2. Anchor the land with a state of the art thrill ride ala Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey. I'd love to see something that is in the same vein as Dinosaur, but a bit more advanced. Maybe in 3-D? With Soarin' like flying sequences? The sky's the limit here.

3. Build more than just a ride, a shop and a restaurant. DAK is a park that is in dire need for more rides. They basically have 6 total, not including shows or the Planet Watch train. We don't want this to turn out like Jurassic Park at IoA and be a one ride land. I'd like to see multiple attractions here, with a thrill ride as the anchor. Even a walk through of the world of Pandora would be something interesting...

4. Although I wish this could be done sooner, once Pandora/Avatar Land opens, take Everest down for a major refurb and fix the Yeti once and for all!

Can it be done effectively? Absolutely! We have 5 years to wait before this thing finally opens and over a year before construction even begins! I'm gonna take a wait and see approach here. I have faith Imagineering will do a great job, but I really hope they can blow my mind with this. We'll just have to wait it out and see.