AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[DisneyFan 2000]

I've seen questions raised about how to transition from AK Major to Pandora... 1) problem solved if framed as a movie set in DHS

Yeah, I'm sorry but I can already see our lovely community's responses to such a thing: Lazy! Half-cooked! Uninspired! And you know why? Because that excuse for theming everything and anything at DHS is tired and lazy, and I'd rather see WDI be challenged with making it fit over at DAK.

And as for the outdated comment? Really? REALLY? So, according to that line of thought ToT would've been gutted long ago since the TV show is probably the most dated and cheesy thing that exists in television. Splash Mountain was built dated to begin with, because lets face it: How many people even knew about Song of the South circa 1989? The movie wasn't that popular even when it was available for the public. I'd give anything to see fan reaction when they announced the original Star Wars and Indy rides and there were no sequels/prequels in sight. "Not a Disney franchise! Outdated before it's even open! Never gonna work" I guess history just loves to repeat itself.

We haven't even seen artwork and people are up in arms over this. It's OK to be a skeptic, that I can stomache but to be flat out against an idea that none of us have any idea as to how will be executed is ridiculous, to put it mildly. Patience is a virtue and I'm sure we'll all be rewarded for waiting a while until WDI come up with something more concrete than blue sky ideas. There's really no point in taking it so negatively until that stage.

 

[zooey]

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.

Well, I wasn't saying I had a comprehensive list there. ToT, Dinosaur, Star Wars--all have a sense of humor about them. Avatar struck me as overly serious and had very little to no humor. I already know that someone is going to say, well Africa and Asia have no sense of humor those are very serious lands and yada yada. Well, those can be serious because those are reflections of real places. I can connect to that. There is history and culture there.

The other aspect of my ire for this whole thing is that I simply don't care for are the aliens. I think they look utterly stupid, like something a five year old would draw. BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

Let's just face it: we all love Disney, but for very different reasons.

 

[aladdin2007]

Well, I wasn't saying I had a comprehensive list there. ToT, Dinosaur, Star Wars--all have a sense of humor about them. Avatar struck me as overly serious and had very little to no humor. I already know that someone is going to say, well Africa and Asia have no sense of humor those are very serious lands and yada yada. Well, those can be serious because those are reflections of real places. I can connect to that. There is history and culture there.

The other aspect of my ire for this whole thing is that I simply don't care for are the aliens. I think they look utterly stupid, like something a five year old would draw. BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

Let's just face it: we all love Disney, but for very different reasons.

Agreed. I get the feeling sometimes Disney anymore is just shoehorning in anything and everything they can to make an extra buck instead of using their own properties. Personally I would have liked to have seen a giant Lion King land something on the scale of dca's cars land, with a mega ride and other things. I realize AK is basically a Lion King land in a sense, but this would be a little more on the fantasy side of things. But I guess it takes properties outside of Disney to rival Potter sadly. Oh well just a little armchair imagineering there.

 

[Silver Figment]

I can't say that this decision makes me happy. I wanted something done for Animal Kingdom but Avatar quite frankly wasn't all that great of a movie. This is a poor choice of defense against Harry Potter. Harry Potter has it's own world and story line far deeper than Avatar's. The movie was over hyped and i don't feel this will be nearly as successful as Disney thinks it will be, but hey, i guess we'll see.

 

[ChrisM]

I'm happy for Disney to do something for DHS or AK...I just don't buy this Avatar thing so readily. I think Disney could do better without buying into a random franchise. I'm sure the Avatar fans will be thrilled whether Disney does it or some other company puts it out there. I'm not a fan, tho. I have absolute zero interest or knowledge in that movie or it's subject matter or mythic creatures or whatever. I think Disney could do mythical creatures beautifully without buying a recent hit movie. They have the talent and resources to create rich environments with original backstories intertwined. Novel idea: create their own story/creatures for the parks, make movies, & cash in twice. It'd certainly feel less like a cheap, unimaginative cop-out to turn a buck.

Here's what you, and a great many folks in this thread, appear to be missing.

The core draw of Avatar, and how it relates strongly to Animal Kingdom as a park, is that it represents the very latest in current scientific thinking about exobiology. Cameron basically grabbed a cadre of top astronmers, planetary geologists, and biologists and said, "let's conjure up a solar and planetary system that could actually exist, and then conjecture on the ecosystems and animals that could realistically populate it." And that's exactly what they did.

Do just a small bit of reading into the development of the Pandoran world and you'll be blow away at the level fo thought and detail that went into it. They started with an actual star system, the Alpha Centauri system which is composed of the nearest stars to our own, and then imagined a gas giant roughly the size of Saturn with a large, rocky moon a bit smaller than Earth. From there they did all manner of modeling and theorizing - with a gravity 80% of Earth's but an atmosphere 20% thicker, what would the animals look like? How would they behave? How would trees and other plants grow that would be different than here? With multiple stars and a reflective gas giant parent planet, how would the day and night cycle work and how would seasons be impacted? The questions and the answers go on and on. They truly did marvelous, detailed work. They took the concept of several modern documentaries (such as the Discovery Channel's "Alien Planet") and used that to form a realistic foundation which they then wrote and filmed a story around.

The intent of the "land" is to entertain and inform as to possibilities around alien planets and alien life. And what better time to bring this to the public than now, with the Kepler space observatory currently discovering Earth-like worlds and even more advanced missions in development?

Since we haven't actually yet visited other planets all we have open to us is conjecture, but it's a great and creative educational tool and fits in perfectly with the concept of Animal Kingdom. We already have Past and Present in the park....this now represents Future. And there's no doubt we will eventually find other planets teeming with alien life. Further, Avatar presents a perfect synergy of hard science and future possibilities all wrapped up in an entertaining and appealing package (as evidenced by the success of the film). What more could you possibly want for the edutainment that Disney wants to present?

As a postscript, partnering with James Cameron and his obsessive attention to detail is a huge positive. And let's not forget that he's a first rate inventor and technical genius in his own right, having participated in the creation and development of all manner of new systems to be able to film his movies how he envisions them.

 

[MouseFan4Life]

I seriously think that since we on these boards are the "fanatics" of everything Disney, we are much more opinionated then the casual visitor. I personally can't wait to see what awesome visual experiences they can do with this. Will Jane Doe and her family in Iowa plan a Disney vacation JUST to see AVATARLAND? Unlikely. But I think it will help those on the fence about planning that vacation to commit. That in itself is a huge win for Disney and in turn for future refurbs and expansions.

On a personal note, I liked the movie but wasn't crazy about it. BUT, The options to make this incredibly immersive are extremely exciting to me !!!

 

[Thurp]

I dislike HP. The movies put me to sleep. I didn't make it pass chapter 2 when I tried to read the first book. But I love the land at IOA, I love the theming, the atmosphere and the main attraction is breathtaking, I can't get enough of it. I love visiting.

I'm not a fan of Avatar, but I hope it will blow me away the same way the WWOHP did. I'm hopeful. They know what they have riding on this thing so I'm optimistic about the final product.

 

[JohnLocke]

Personally, I hated Avatar, The story was trite and predictable. The only reason it made the money it did was the hype over the effects and the obscene higher cost of a movie ticket for 3D. If you walk around Universal, just take a look at the names of their attractions: Men In Black, Shrek, The Mummy, Twister, Jaws, Terminator 2...ALL were major hit movies. All have very good to great attractions. And save for Jaws and The Simpsons, not ONE of those properties is relevant today. Jurassic Park and E.T. were also at one time the highest grossing films of all time. Neither film is relevant today either.

While I'm not the biggest Avatar fan, I do think it is cause for excitement for being included in the park. And I also think you're shortselling many of those attractions listed:

Men In Black - It's simply a well done attraction, it doesn't necessarily need that much help from the movies, but the first is still pretty well loved and the franchise is continuing next year.

Shrek - Personally I'd have kept this themed toward Alfred Hitchcock in some way, but there's no denying that this is one of the top franchises in the world. People may not like the recent installments, but I think there's still good will toward Shrek and Shrek 2, and a Puss in Boots movie is coming out this year.

The Mummy - While I don't know is the series was ever completely relevant, the ride is awesome, possibly the best in all of Orlando, and while the new films are what it's based on, the name itself is representative of Universal's historic past.

Twister - No disagreement here, this should still be Ghostbusters or something that wasn't dated the moment it came out.

Terminator 2 - Possibly the best 3D show in Orlando, the franchise may still not pull them in as it did during the Cameron period, but it's on going and T2 is considered by many to be one of the best movies and greatest action movies of all time.

E.T. - Considered one of the greatest movies of all time and a very great and well themed dark ride.

Jurassic Park - See E.T.'s entry, plus it's a franchise that's still around with a possible 4th film on the way.

By contrast, look at our own parks, while I love them, would you call Splash Mountain baed on Song of the South relevant or by the same token, Mr. Toad's Wild Ride at Disneyland?

 

[PLTram]

I've come out of the parking lot to express my shock. Avatar? Really?

I honestly don't think the sequels to this film will come anywhere near what the first film did and Disney will be kicking themselves a few years down the road when they realize they've created a giant land based on a film franchise that will barely rise above irrelevance.

If big grossing films are the criteria, how about (adjusted for inflation) Dr. Zhivago Land? or Gone with the Wind land?

 

[hammysammy59]

I think a big reason for the fear/skepticism/anger isn't that there's going to be an attraction based on a single movie/soon to be movie series, but that there's going to be an ENTIRE LAND based on it. It works for a property like Harry Potter, because there are 7 books/movies, and a huge, comprehensive universe to go with it.

So HP can pull it off. Star Wars could pull it off. Lord of the Rings could pull it off. These all seem a little more appealing than Avatar not because Avatar doesn't have a huge fleshed out world (I don't personally know, but it seems like it does) but because HP, SW and LoTR have all been around for a while, they've built up fan bases and a lot of love from fans. Avatar might be doing that too (again, don't know for sure) but since it's had such a RECENT start, it seems like an unknown quantity. There IS the potential that Avatar COULD follow the Matrix franchise model (great, groundbreaking first movie, garbage sequels), but given J-Cam's* track record, that is unlikely.

But I think the problem a lot of people are having is that it's an entire land, versus an attraction or two. WDW up til now has never had a whole land dedicated to one IP. I gotta be honest, I feel the same way about Carsland. I'm sure both will be stuffed with kick-______ attractions and will hit home runs theme-wise, but I can see myself feeling pretty derpy hanging out in Carsland and Pandora, mostly because I don't really care about either IP. To me visiting a whole land dedicated to one IP sort of implies/requires that you LOVE that IP. Whereas riding a single ride based on an IP just means you want to ride that ride.

Splash Mountain could be themed to just about anything (within reason) and people would still want to ride it, because it's a great mix of dark ride and flume ride. People would probably not be as excited about Song of the Southland.

*This might be off-topic, but I've seen a couple posts saying that one of the Avatar sequels will go undersea. I can't help but think about The Abyss here, which ruled. If Pandora @ AK has a 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea-style ride... well, that would be pretty awesome. Heck, I'd just as soon take a ride based on The Abyss, honestly.

 

[Alektronic]

I don't understand what all the hate is about. I didn't like the movie so I won't like the attraction or attractions based on that movie. Especially, when it hasn't even been designed yet.

And just because it is a movie, it belongs in the Studios? When DAK originally opened 3 attractions were based on movies and 2 of them haven't even been released yet.

Lion King - Festival of the Lion King

A Bug's Life - It's Tough to Be a Bug

Dinosaur - Countdown to Extinction/Dinosaur

Dinosaur wasn't great by any means and no one I know even liked it. But, still over 13 years later people are still visiting that attraction and still love it.

 

[Mammymouse]

I haven't been on WDW Magic in a couple of days and missed this whole announcement and thread as it was developing, so I appologize that I haven't read more than a couple of pages out of the 116 or so. What in the World is Disney thinking?!!! In my opinion this Avatar thing is NOT worth a whole land. In fact, if it were a single ride it would not even be in my top 5. The special effects in the movie were entertaining but I didn't enjoy the story line at all. And to put it in Animal Kingdom? I think the Hollywood Studios would be most appropriate, but for a ride - not a whole land. Missing out on doing the deal for Harry Potter must have the Disney Exec's chasing their tails for something better, but, again my personal opinion is Avatar is not it and will not enthuse me. Boy am I disappointed that this is the next great thing to spend all that money on.

 

[erasure fan1]

I think a big reason for the fear/skepticism/anger isn't that there's going to be an attraction based on a single movie/soon to be movie series, but that there's going to be an ENTIRE LAND based on it. It works for a property like Harry Potter, because there are 7 books/movies, and a huge, comprehensive universe to go with it.

So HP can pull it off. Star Wars could pull it off. Lord of the Rings could pull it off. These all seem a little more appealing than Avatar not because Avatar doesn't have a huge fleshed out world (I don't personally know, but it seems like it does) but because HP, SW and LoTR have all been around for a while, they've built up fan bases and a lot of love from fans. Avatar might be doing that too (again, don't know for sure) but since it's had such a RECENT start, it seems like an unknown quantity. There IS the potential that Avatar COULD follow the Matrix franchise model (great, groundbreaking first movie, garbage sequels), but given J-Cam's* track record, that is unlikely.

I will agree with this. While Im not down on the idea of Pandora land in a Disney park, I would have much rather they created an entire starwars land at the studios instead. I wont fault Disney for doing this as if the dice roll is correct, it could pay off huge. Star Wars would have been the safe bet, which is the norm for Disney, and this is the total opposite. Im really not sure I can be for or against this project yet (we really dont have anything). Once I start to see actual concrete details about placement, theming, attractions... then I can form a real opinion.

 

[twinnstar]

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.

this!!!!

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Here's what you, and a great many folks in this thread, appear to be missing.

The core draw of Avatar, and how it relates strongly to Animal Kingdom as a park, is that it represents the very latest in current scientific thinking about exobiology. Cameron basically grabbed a cadre of top astronmers, planetary geologists, and biologists and said, "let's conjure up a solar and planetary system that could actually exist, and then conjecture on the ecosystems and animals that could realistically populate it." And that's exactly what they did.

Do just a small bit of reading into the development of the Pandoran world and you'll be blow away at the level fo thought and detail that went into it. They started with an actual star system, the Alpha Centauri system which is composed of the nearest stars to our own, and then imagined a gas giant roughly the size of Saturn with a large, rocky moon a bit smaller than Earth. From there they did all manner of modeling and theorizing - with a gravity 80% of Earth's but an atmosphere 20% thicker, what would the animals look like? How would they behave? How would trees and other plants grow that would be different than here? With multiple stars and a reflective gas giant parent planet, how would the day and night cycle work and how would seasons be impacted? The questions and the answers go on and on. They truly did marvelous, detailed work. They took the concept of several modern documentaries (such as the Discovery Channel's "Alien Planet") and used that to form a realistic foundation which they then wrote and filmed a story around.

The intent of the "land" is to entertain and inform as to possibilities around alien planets and alien life. And what better time to bring this to the public than now, with the Kepler space observatory currently discovering Earth-like worlds and even more advanced missions in development?

Since we haven't actually yet visited other planets all we have open to us is conjecture, but it's a great and creative educational tool and fits in perfectly with the concept of Animal Kingdom. We already have Past and Present in the park....this now represents Future. And there's no doubt we will eventually find other planets teeming with alien life. Further, Avatar presents a perfect synergy of hard science and future possibilities all wrapped up in an entertaining and appealing package (as evidenced by the success of the film). What more could you possibly want for the edutainment that Disney wants to present?

As a postscript, partnering with James Cameron and his obsessive attention to detail is a huge positive. And let's not forget that he's a first rate inventor and technical genius in his own right, having participated in the creation and development of all manner of new systems to be able to film his movies how he envisions them.

Well, I was thinking Avatar would be a better fit at DHS than AK. But, now with that explanation, I've reconsidered...

It would fit better at Future World at Epcot.

 

[ChrisM]

Well, I was thinking Avatar would be a better fit at DHS than AK. But, now with that explanation, I've reconsidered...

It would fit better at Future World at Epcot.

If they were focusing solely on the proposed advanced human technology, I'd agree with you.

Since they will likely instead focus on an extraterrestrial biosphere and ecosystem, Animal Kingdom is entirely the best choice.

There are worlds teeming with life out there, folks. The Animal Kingdom is undoubtedly not limited to our pale blue dot.

 

[imagineer boy]

Avatar couldn't really fit in Epcot because Epcot celebrates man's achievements. While Avatar demonizes it.

 

[twinnstar]

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...

Really? i think that ride is the epitome of fun. ghosts are dancing and making funny faces through the entire thing. its a haunted house created for a "family". which i personally have always felt is what the Disney brand is. Walt has said it time and time again. its not cute silly princesses, its "family". in my opinion, avatar doesn't fit that "family" brand. If it really needed to go anywhere, i agree with some others, it should have been in HS, which is skewed to a slightly older audience (for the most part), and also had plenty of movies, tv shows, etc that are NOT Disney ones. It would have fit better there, i think. Plus that park could have used it! That park is a dump and a half.

 

[tomman710]

I will agree with this. While Im not down on the idea of Pandora land in a Disney park, I would have much rather they created an entire starwars land at the studios instead. I wont fault Disney for doing this as if the dice roll is correct, it could pay off huge. Star Wars would have been the safe bet, which is the norm for Disney, and this is the total opposite. Im really not sure I can be for or against this project yet (we really dont have anything). Once I start to see actual concrete details about placement, theming, attractions... then I can form a real opinion.

This is an interesting take that has me thinking.

Logic and a sound acumen for business would have dictated Disney go with Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or another (I'll avoid the highly contested buzz words such as quality, popularity, or the like) time tested property that would have instant appeal across many generations and cultures.

While the majority of the time I have been disappointed in this news because I felt like they were using box office dollars as the sole driving force behind this decision, in essence the financial minds going the "safe route" ... (I won't reignite the box office dollars equals quality debate again, its futile) ... but ...

I like your point here that this is more of a gamble for Disney because it isn't a time tested property and despite the box office or rotten tomatoes score that people like to point out (ignoring that that score was reached mostly on C+ reviews and not A+ reviews, check the RT consensus which acknowledges the story is thin at best) it isn't generally heralded as groundbreaking from a story/character perspective so interest in the sequels is not proven yet.

I think this point alone has me interested from the standpoint that this could be a gamble by Disney because the franchise is only a year old essentially. Maybe this is them doing something differently, taking a risk ... of course a SW Land would have drawn huge crowds (check SW Weekends) but why not take a gamble on something that (if the sequels are done right) could be the start of a new time tested beloved franchise. Get in on the ground floor sort of thing ... interesting.

Very interesting take.

 

[Scuttle]

I've come out of the parking lot to express my shock. Avatar? Really?

I honestly don't think the sequels to this film will come anywhere near what the first film did and Disney will be kicking themselves a few years down the road when they realize they've created a giant land based on a film franchise that will barely rise above irrelevance.

If big grossing films are the criteria, how about (adjusted for inflation) Dr. Zhivago Land? or Gone with the Wind land?

I disagree. I think we will look back at this decision 10 years from now thinking it was a genius move. Remember JC is a innovative genius he pushes the envelope everytime. Just wait until he teams up with imagineering. I honestly don't know why so many people are bashing this decision. This is exactly what Disney needs. Someone who has that type of vision and passion about his work is exactly what Disney needs.