twinnstar
Active Member
Yes, exactly. If it was just an attraction i would shrug my shoulders and be like, oh well, maybe it'll be cool. But a whole land...
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom
- Thread starter DocMcHulk
- Start date
Yes, exactly. If it was just an attraction i would shrug my shoulders and be like, oh well, maybe it'll be cool. But a whole land...
NMBC1993
Well-Known Member
What do you think Avatar is? It's not like Saw 17 where you have blood and guts all over the place, it's a PG-13 movie that families took their kids to in droves. I think it fits perfectly in AK as an animal fantasy attraction, I just don't want an entire land based around it.
JustInTime
Well-Known Member
I can't see how people can complain about this at all. :shrug:
WDWFREAK53
Well-Known Member
This is a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" scenario when it comes to the hardcore Disney fans.
They don't get Avatar rights...
you hear, "They need to do something, Universal has Harry Potter!"
They do get the rights...
"Why would they go after that horrible movie?!?!?"
If they put it in the Magic Kingdom:
This doesn't belong here! Walt wouldn't have approved! Tomorrowland is not Avatar!
If they put it in Epcot:
Why do we need a character overlay for EVERYTHING!?!?! Universe of Energy does NOT need Avatar...bring back Ellen!
If they put it in DHS:
If they're going for an expansion, they should've done Star Wars or Indiana Jones or Muppets or Pixar!!!
If they put it in DAK:
Well...we're hearing that now.
Bottom line...none of us have a voice in where it goes...if you don't like it...don't go!
Remember, this isn't your backyard where you can choose where the swingset is going.
If you're anti-Avatar...there are plenty of other places in WDW to visit.
They don't get Avatar rights...
you hear, "They need to do something, Universal has Harry Potter!"
They do get the rights...
"Why would they go after that horrible movie?!?!?"
If they put it in the Magic Kingdom:
This doesn't belong here! Walt wouldn't have approved! Tomorrowland is not Avatar!
If they put it in Epcot:
Why do we need a character overlay for EVERYTHING!?!?! Universe of Energy does NOT need Avatar...bring back Ellen!
If they put it in DHS:
If they're going for an expansion, they should've done Star Wars or Indiana Jones or Muppets or Pixar!!!
If they put it in DAK:
Well...we're hearing that now.
Bottom line...none of us have a voice in where it goes...if you don't like it...don't go!
Remember, this isn't your backyard where you can choose where the swingset is going.
If you're anti-Avatar...there are plenty of other places in WDW to visit.
WDWmazprty
Well-Known Member
WDWFREAK53
Well-Known Member
It's ridiculous...Universal gets Harry Potter which is the largest current franchise going (and it's actually not current unless another book/movie gets made) and people go crazy.
It seems as if people think Disney is resting on its laurels...
They have rights to...
Star Wars
Indiana Jones
Pixar (complaints about character integration)
Muppets (which is practically dead...let's see how the movie does and hope it gets revived)
Avatar (complaints because they don't like the movie)
Marvel (complaints because it's not "Disney")
Pirates of the Caribbean
Those are some PRETTY big franchises...
The only one I can think of is Lord of the Rings...that would be a good one to have.
DonaldDoleWhip
Well-Known Member
Thank you! Instead of just complaining about everything, we should be happy that we're receiving something so ambitious and risky (since apparently half the people here think Avatar has a good chance of losing any relevance in society). AK was stagnant for so long, and now we finally got something that's going to expand the park. Make it into less of a "half day" place that it's known as. Hopefully add another E-ticket so Everest and Dinosaur aren't as stressed. And provide the immersive, detailed storytelling that makes Disney parks stand out from the rest (well, aside from Potter). I love Disney and I care about the Disney parks, and I'm thrilled about this news.
And as great as it would be for Disney to announce Star Wars Land and Indiana Jones Adventure and Fire Mountain and Mt. Fuji and a new World Showcase Pavilion and Australia and South America and a DisneySea clone, they're not happening. For now anyway, and possibly not ever. I'm not an Avatar fan (had no interest in seeing it when it came out, and I still haven't seen it), and I'm thrilled that AK is lucky enough to receive this addition.
Choodles
New Member
WDWmazprty
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I know. Its like I posted earlier, you can't please everyone. Of course everyone has a right to their opinion, but to bash the idea before it even has a chance to develop is ridiculous.
Maybe it will bomb! Who knows? But at least try to be positive and HOPE this will be a good thing for the Parks. There are a lot of things I personally don't think should be in Disney World for whatever reasons, but they're there and it works for most people.
Disney is a business and will do whatever they think is necessary to MAKE MONEY and keep everything going. Its the majority of people they are trying to cater to, which, looking at the movie sales and overall popularity of the movie tells Disney....well, Avatar works for the majority of the public..this will be a good thing.
Only time will tell if this was a really wise decision or not, but I liked Avatar as a movie, it was entertaining, which is what movies are for. If they make you feel anything else much deeper and make you reflect about your life, then great.
But the story doesnt always have to be wonderful or relevant; if I'm entertained for a couple hours for whatever reason, then its done its job and I'm happy. Every movie will not be life changing or Oscar worthy or even make sense. However, Avatar-IMHO-was a great fantasy/sci-fi flick with great special effects and a good, although frequently done, storyline/plot.
Overall, I think the addition will be a big money maker for Disney and a good entertainment addition for AK. Although we're well aware of the ones who don't like it, which I think will be in the overall minority.
menamechris
Well-Known Member
just cause something isnt rated R doesnt make it a family movie. you yourself just said it was PG-13...so thats a whole lot of kids that probably didnt see it. I know im only one person, but i dont recall a slew of kids in the theater with me opening weekend. At times that movie was pretty violent and deep during the parts where i wasnt falling asleep. hehe (sorry i had to!!!)Yes, you could bring a family to it - im NOT debating that. I'm sure plenty of kids saw it. Its just not what *I* think of when i think of "Disney" and "family"
Who cares? I don't. I have chosen not to be a parent - and I am in full agreement of letting parents parent their child. I don't think Disney should be in a position of parenting either. I am sure ABC will be playing an abbreviated, family friendly version of the movie soon enough to help with promotion. As sooo many other posts have said... Pirates - pretty violent; Star Wars - intense for young kids; Indiana Jones - intense for kids. I am pretty sure SW and IJ didn't get PG-13 because it wasn't around when they were released, and it didn't warrant a R rating. Same would be true for Avatar.... If it had come out in the late 70s, early 80s, it would have been PG - and yes, parents would have had to decide for their own family..
JustInTime
Well-Known Member
VERY well said. People will be eating their words in about 5 years anyway.
twinnstar
Active Member
eh. i tried to delete it, but i guess that didnt work. LOL
I care, because thats what the Disney brand IS. This isnt ABC's Animal Kingdom, or ESPN's Animal Kingdom, this is DISNEY'S Animal Kingdom.
I dont think SW and IJ got a PG-13 rating because they didnt deserve it. Theres a lot of fake looking punches, fun adventure music and light sabers. theres nothing "intense" about those films.
I'm not going to say much more to that except that I'm apparently not the only one who feels that way cause Tom Staggs said he got a lot of questions about it, enough to speak directly about it on the parks blog. So, there ya go.
xdan0920
Think for yourselfer
Disney already has this person. His name is John Lasseter. Not to mention the the largest share holder is a guy you might have heard of, Steve Jobs.
JustInTime
Well-Known Member
You don't get to define what Disney is. Only Disney can control that. And there have been plenty of PG-13 disney movies...like Pirates of the Caribbean. Would you allow kids to see that?
twinnstar
Active Member
Huh? I didn't define that. That is what Disney is. Have you ever heard Walt speak a single word? It was like every 5th word that came out of his mouth. Even Staggs says thats what Disney is in his answer to the Q I mentioned.
I never said anything about there not being Disney movies rated PG-13. You're putting words in my mouth. Movies are rated based on several different things.
JustInTime
Well-Known Member
So should kids stay away from Pirates of the Caribbean because the movie is PG-13? And the same for the Wizarding World.
I think people are trying to find things about this situation to complain about...because they enjoy it so much.
twinnstar
Active Member
Wow, way to not read a single word I wrote!
People arent looking to complain, we are looking to discuss. We are just trying to get you guys to respect our opinions and our hesitation about the project. This is a message board, we're discussing the announcement of some pretty big news. Not everyone is going to have the same opinion. If everyone just agreed, whats the point?
Prototype82
Well-Known Member
I think Epcot has met it's limit when it comes to incorporating franchises.