AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[Gracy_hm]

People complain about something no matter what. I didn't care for the movie that much but I know the visual impact it has. I am excited DAK is getting anything and at a time where we wanted something Disney has delivered with a high budget heavily themed concept that is sure to be amazing. I don't care about the movie but I DO care about the land. I have read over 100 pages of people B%tching about this coming and I am blown away. This is the best news I've had all week and I will be there for the grand opening. Cameron is well known for being difficult and getting his way ensuring everything is over the top. This land will be beautiful and I am sure when construction is near complete those worrisome fan boys will shut up and enjoy it like the general public. I could be wrong but I won't be. Disney WILL not squander this because this licensing agreement is worth allot and could be worth even more in the future.

I respect everyones opinions but thought I'd share my own.

Looking forward to this.

Cheers,
Kyle

 

[Magenta Panther]

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.

There are people who only see the Disney parks as parks; nothing more. Disney or Universal or Six Flags or Busch Gardens - to them it's "Whatever. What kinda rides do they have?" They're ignorant of the Disney legacy, what Disney used to stand for, what Disney used to BE. What it never was under Walt was a company that was only about money and acquisitions. Disney was a studio apart at one time. I realize that that only happened because Walt was anything but a typical studio mogul, but his absence is no excuse for corporate hacks to destroy what his company used to stand for.

And as for the TIRED excuse of "Well, Walt Disney didn't create Pooh, Tom Sawyer, Mary Poppins", etc. - no, but he gave those properties the Disney magic and made them timeless and made them DISNEY. That involved creativity, artistry and oh yeah - the thing that Mr. Iger apparently fears most - RISK. The man's lost his nerve as well as his mind, IMO. This Avatar thing smacks of desperation. He wants a counter to Universal's Harry Potter attraction, but does he look into the Disney properties for a solution? NO, he buys the rights to a popular movie that Disney had nothing to do with! And you know why that's stupid? Look what happened over the weekend - the Lion King reissue KILLED at the box office, made 30 million dollars, way beyond what anyone expected or projected. And yet Iger has no faith in Disney creations. I repeat: he's a fool.

 

[thelookingglass]

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

The fact that nobody at all saw this coming probably means that this was a very, very recent decision.

 

[the-reason14]

I'm not too gung ho about this particular announcement but I can't see it as a devastatingly bad thing. I too would have preferred if they stuck with their own as this sounds like a beastly kingdom expansion or what could have been. I think if anything, the glaring obvious that it's to combat harry potter is what makes it a bit tainted. I have yet to see Avatar and have no interests in seeing it, but when this land opens I'm sure it'll be great. But still, other than pure speculation at this point, I understand why some think this is off since it's not a Disney property. Then again neither are Indiana Jones and Star Tours, and look what Disney was able to do with that. One great and amazingly themed dark ride in Disneyland. So, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

There are people who only see the Disney parks as parks; nothing more. Disney or Universal or Six Flags or Busch Gardens - to them it's "Whatever. What kinda rides do they have?" They're ignorant of the Disney legacy, what Disney used to stand for, what Disney used to BE. What it never was under Walt was a company that was only about money and acquisitions. Disney was a studio apart at one time. I realize that that only happened because Walt was anything but a typical studio mogul, but his absence is no excuse for corporate hacks to destroy what his company used to stand for.

And as for the TIRED excuse of "Well, Walt Disney didn't create Pooh, Tom Sawyer, Mary Poppins", etc. - no, but he gave those properties the Disney magic and made them timeless and made them DISNEY. That involved creativity, artistry and oh yeah - the thing that Mr. Iger apparently fears most - RISK. The man's lost his nerve as well as his mind, IMO. This Avatar thing smacks of desperation. He wants a counter to Universal's Harry Potter attraction, but does he look into the Disney properties for a solution? NO, he buys the rights to a popular movie that Disney had nothing to do with! And you know why that's stupid? Look what happened over the weekend - the Lion King reissue KILLED at the box office, made 30 million dollars, way beyond what anyone expected or projected. And yet Iger has no faith in Disney creations. I repeat: he's a fool.

You couldn't be more wrong. I've been to Universal once, Sea World twice, and Six Flags once. I have no real desire to return to any of them (except possibly Universal to see the impeccable storytelling of Harry Potter). I do appreciate the Disney legacy, I'm a fan of the parks and the studios, and I have been very critical when I thought Disney was making a negative choice.

This decision is a risk. Lots of people in this thread have pointed out that the second and third Avatar movies might not be successful, the public could lose interest by 2017, etc. The dissenters can't have it both ways - they can't complain that this might be unsuccessful, and then say Disney isn't taking enough risk. Again, I hate to say it, but Disney's core market isn't you. It isn't me either. We're hooked for life, and we'll be spending our money on Disney no matter what (whether it's at WDW, DL, etc). Disney wants more people to come. This will appeal to people currently outside of Disney's demographic. Families with teen guys, for example. Young adults. Sci-fi fans. The millions and millions of people who enjoyed this movie more than Winnie the Pooh. Even though the movie might be PG-13, I'm sure the land will be enjoyable to people of all ages (at least more enjoyable to young kids than Tower of Terror or Dinosaur). This will be an area that kids, teens, and adults can all enjoy - I'm sure of it. And that is Disney's legacy when it comes to the theme parks. Disney's not trying to build what you want. It's trying to satisfy a very general audience, so whoever happens to come to WDW can enjoy it together.

 

[HMF]

There are people who only see the Disney parks as parks; nothing more. Disney or Universal or Six Flags or Busch Gardens - to them it's "Whatever. What kinda rides do they have?" They're ignorant of the Disney legacy, what Disney used to stand for, what Disney used to BE. What it never was under Walt was a company that was only about money and acquisitions. Disney was a studio apart at one time. I realize that that only happened because Walt was anything but a typical studio mogul, but his absence is no excuse for corporate hacks to destroy what his company used to stand for.

And as for the TIRED excuse of "Well, Walt Disney didn't create Pooh, Tom Sawyer, Mary Poppins", etc. - no, but he gave those properties the Disney magic and made them timeless and made them DISNEY. That involved creativity, artistry and oh yeah - the thing that Mr. Iger apparently fears most - RISK. The man's lost his nerve as well as his mind, IMO. This Avatar thing smacks of desperation. He wants a counter to Universal's Harry Potter attraction, but does he look into the Disney properties for a solution? NO, he buys the rights to a popular movie that Disney had nothing to do with! And you know why that's stupid? Look what happened over the weekend - the Lion King reissue KILLED at the box office, made 30 million dollars, way beyond what anyone expected or projected. And yet Iger has no faith in Disney creations. I repeat: he's a fool.

People forget that he was Eisner's second in command during his last years.

 

[HMF]

There are people who only see the Disney parks as parks; nothing more. Disney or Universal or Six Flags or Busch Gardens - to them it's "Whatever. What kinda rides do they have?" They're ignorant of the Disney legacy, what Disney used to stand for, what Disney used to BE. What it never was under Walt was a company that was only about money and acquisitions. Disney was a studio apart at one time. I realize that that only happened because Walt was anything but a typical studio mogul, but his absence is no excuse for corporate hacks to destroy what his company used to stand for.

And as for the TIRED excuse of "Well, Walt Disney didn't create Pooh, Tom Sawyer, Mary Poppins", etc. - no, but he gave those properties the Disney magic and made them timeless and made them DISNEY. That involved creativity, artistry and oh yeah - the thing that Mr. Iger apparently fears most - RISK. The man's lost his nerve as well as his mind, IMO. This Avatar thing smacks of desperation. He wants a counter to Universal's Harry Potter attraction, but does he look into the Disney properties for a solution? NO, he buys the rights to a popular movie that Disney had nothing to do with! And you know why that's stupid? Look what happened over the weekend - the Lion King reissue KILLED at the box office, made 30 million dollars, way beyond what anyone expected or projected. And yet Iger has no faith in Disney creations. I repeat: he's a fool.

People forget that he was Eisner's second in command during his last few years as CEO. The apple does not fall far from the tree, folks.

 

[sweetpee_1993]

I'm still on vacation, no time for over 100 pages but really? Avatar? In Animal Kingdom? Really? Wouldn't a movie franchise-based 'land' be a better fit in a park that focuses on movies??? I don't get into science fiction or fantasy franchise type stories (got into HP books but no Lord of the Rings or Avatar or any of that). I guess I represent the portion of the world who doesnt keep up with those movies. Yes, we do exist. Lol! This Avatar stuff is perplexing to me. I see no logic here....well....other than the pimping-out of more WDW real estate to turn a quick trick...er...buck. So much feels so wrong nowadays with these cheapish unimaginative decisions. Is this Disney anymore? I'll tell ya, it sure doesn't feel like it. So sad.

 

[TalkingHead]

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.

Haunted Mansion isn't cute, silly, or fun?

But it's a top-five ride?

Why?


Short answer:

It's fun.

It's silly (a ghost who's drunk himself under the table?).

It may not be exactly fuzzy cute, but it's a very clever ride.

 

[sweetpee_1993]

The fact that nobody at all saw this coming probably means that this was a very, very recent decision.

Or a rash, not very well thought thru or planned decision. I'll be hoping this is one that gets reconsidered thoroughly.

 

[JustInTime]

Or a rash, not very well thought thru or planned decision. I'll be hoping this is one that gets reconsidered thoroughly.

What other theme park could house a lush green environment surrounded my mystical animals go in? It would seem out of place anywhere BUT Animal Kingdom. There is a reason why we are fans and they are Imagineers.

 

[Bairstow]

Fun, silly, and cute?
Gotcha covered.
[youtube]jnqThyieXSM[/youtube]

 

[wickedsoccer22]

I'd just like to point out to those who are arguing the general public doesn't care about Avatar anymore; the search "Avatar Theme Park" has been on Yahoo!'s Top Trending Searches for over a day now.

 

[bferrara16]

What other theme park could house a lush green environment surrounded my mystical animals go in? It would seem out of place anywhere BUT Animal Kingdom. There is a reason why we are fans and they are Imagineers.

Well since it was based on a movie, I'd say they could have gone with DHS:shrug:

 

[sweetpee_1993]

What other theme park could house a lush green environment surrounded my mystical animals go in? It would seem out of place anywhere BUT Animal Kingdom. There is a reason why we are fans and they are Imagineers.

Like I said, I've never seen Avatar and know nothing about it other than it's a James Cameron movie with heavy, well-done CGI. It's a movie. DHS has needs. Put it there. Plenty of other more on-topic nature-based things that could fill the voids at AK. Seems awkward and forced. Regardless of where it goes if at all Avatar has never interested me and wouldn't be anything I care to see. If built it'll be outdated and washed up in less than a decade. It'll be dependent on new sequels & releases by a franchise that doesn't belong to Disney to keep interest fresh. Doomed to fizzle & fade from the onset. Kinda a waste, really. I just don't get it. So much talent & potential in a company that has always prided itself in creativity and story but they do nothing with it. Instead they go purchase some rights because a movie was successful a year or so ago??? ((I don't even know when it was...like I said, I never bought into the hype or had any interest whatsoever. :shrug)

 

[bferrara16]

I'd just like to point out to those who are arguing the general public doesn't care about Avatar anymore; the search "Avatar Theme Park" has been on Yahoo!'s Top Trending Searches for over a day now.

Trending Worldwide on Twitter right now is "Forgetting Sarah Marshall".
I'm looking forward to Aldous Snow's Rockin Rollercoaster.

 

[sweetpee_1993]

Just mentioned this Avatar-land thing to my older brother also currently at WDW with us. I think he has seen the movie. His response? "What the h311 does Avatar have to do with Disney? Or Animal Kingdom? Stupid."

Very strange fit. Veeeery strange.

 

[Bairstow]

If built it'll be outdated and washed up in less than a decade. It'll be dependent on new sequels & releases by a franchise that doesn't belong to Disney to keep interest fresh. Doomed to fizzle & fade from the onset.

Exactly. Just like no one ever got in line for Temple of Forbidden Eye or Star Tours and both attractions were unpopular and boring until Lucas made sequels.

Oh, wait, no...

Your pessimism is both utterly speculative and contrary to numerous examples.

 

[JustInTime]

Like I said, I've never seen Avatar and know nothing about it other than it's a James Cameron movie with heavy, well-done CGI. It's a movie. DHS has needs. Put it there. Plenty of other more on-topic nature-based things that could fill the voids at AK. Seems awkward and forced. Regardless of where it goes if at all Avatar has never interested me and wouldn't be anything I care to see. If built it'll be outdated and washed up in less than a decade. It'll be dependent on new sequels & releases by a franchise that doesn't belong to Disney to keep interest fresh. Doomed to fizzle & fade from the onset. Kinda a waste, really. I just don't get it. So much talent & potential in a company that has always prided itself in creativity and story but they do nothing with it. Instead they go purchase some rights because a movie was successful a year or so ago??? ((I don't even know when it was...like I said, I never bought into the hype or had any interest whatsoever. :shrug)

Would you really want a futuristic Jungle plopped right in the middle of DHS? I guess you would like it under the hat? It doesn't fit. You don't see the theming nightmare there? If you see the movie, you will understand. It makes sense. And there are 2 more films in pre-production early next year.


And all these doubts (unfounded, really) people are having will go away when we get concept art. You will see. Don't worry your little head.

 

[bferrara16]

How come anyone who isn't supportive of this announcement is immediately chastised and labeled a hater with a vendetta against the film? Not sure how there become a right and wrong response to this so quickly. 100+ pages of arguments trying to convince me that I'm wrong for not liking this announcement has only changed my opinion about some of the posters here, not the project.

I'd love it if it were in DHS or if this was an Australia announcement. I just don't like the feel of a movie-based land in AK. Someone said WE'RE not the target audience - and I think they're right, which is why I find it surprising that the "wrong" opinion here is to be opposed since this seems to be based on financials, pop name recognition and the need for a response to Potter at the expense of the overall theme.

The people who are coming just to see Avatar would come even if it was located at Blizzard Beach, so why not just put it in a spot that makes more sense? Would we have been pumped if AK opened with the Avatar land?