AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[nngrendel]

Nice to see something coming to AK that isn't just a thrill ride. This will include a whole new land and think this is the area that has the most room for expanding. I will keep any negative or positive comments until I see what the powers within will decide to give us.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

So you had no problem with the aspect of an imaginary world, in an imaginary time, with imaginary creatures in AK, such as BK was going to be?

This is the part I am not understanding either. People keep bringing the earth thing into the equation, yet BK was going to be completely mythological. As far as we can tell there were never Unicorns or Dragons on earth, but people have begged for it since day 1. I think that regardless of the planet that the movie took place on it helps tell the story about Animal Kingdom, and that is respect for your planet (wherever that may be) and conservation. This new area will just transport you somewhere else, even if it isn't on Earth to bring this point across.

 

[imagineer boy]

I've completely lost faith that Disney can't do anything now that has to have some marketable product attatched to it. Especially a lame overrated unoriginal tree hugging product. :brick:

 

[RSoxNo1]

I'll get through the whole thread eventually but I'm trying to respond to things before getting on a flight.

Hilarious that people already say they won't set foot in a land they know nothing about...

This is a very surprising but welcome move. Regardless of the film's merits, which matter little here, Cameron created a visually-stunning world with tons of possibilities for a land. And ecological preservation is the central theme of the film (I would guess the complainers have not actually seen the film).

A new E-Ticket is guaranteed out of this. The correct response is "yay" or "finally." And once this opens, maybe they can close down Everest and finally do a refurbishment.

Here's why I won't be going into that part of AK when it opens...

I don't care at all for Avatar. Never have, never will.

I just don't get this approach - the source material of a land or attraction's theme is irrelevant in many cases. What you have to look at is "does the source material lend itself to an immersive environment. Avatar succeeds in doing this.

I didn't love the movie either, but walking through that environment is very intriguing.

Via InsideTheMagic: The project is said to cost around the same as the Cars Land expansion of Disney California Adventure, around $200 million.

Radiator Springs Racers cost more than $200 mil, Carsland is probably 5-600 mil.

 

[maroman]

Quite simply, the movie sucked. This was a pure business decision that they felt had to be done to compete with WWOHP. Do I agree with it, no. Was it smart for business...yes.

 

[Fievel]

Fail how? none of my arguments have even been countered properly. If you read the dedication it was all about the animals, not the planet, for that you go to EPCOT.

where in the entire dedication to DAK does it say all of the planet? and even if it did, it would only further detract from Avatar's message because it would then narrow it down to just earth.

Most of your arguments have been countered properly. It's a matter of opinion, and you think that your standpoint is correct.

Pretty much why I've stopped trying to counter you...it's really not worth my time, if you're not willing to have an open minded conversation. You have clouded the facts with your own viewpoint without any real basis or merit. You are taking your own interpretation of the dedication of AK and standing tall on it, even though others are posting pretty good arguments.

I've basically decided to write you off as someone who has an opinion, a little bit of information, and no patience. You think you automatically win every argument, and therefore it is not worth my time to argue with you.

Suffice to say - the majority of people on here....who are pretty hardcore Disney fans - disagree with you. Even those who dislike the movie see the potential here. You've stated it's your favorite park - and that's what clouds your judgement. It's really a pity...because if you would look at the big picture here, you'd see this as a huge opportunity and win for Walt Disney World. However, because you feel slighted that this has happened in "your park" that you have to respond personally and repeatedly against anybody who stands in your way.

The message of the movie and the message of the park are the same. I'm sure that if Disney can move us from a fantasyland german village into the land of tomorrow without blinking an eye, they can move us from one green planet to another.

 

[stitchcastle]

The point of Animal Kingdom is more broad than your interpretation. Again, celebration of nature and conservation are not limited by all to the Big Blue Marble.

Conservation is such an abstract idea that you can't just have theme park rides about alien planets and say "oh this is so all about conservation and nature" when what you see is just some dressed up ride.

Just because the movie and theme park somehow share the same message doesn't mean they fit together thematically. By that thinking you could easily put The Universe of Energy pavillion into Animal Kingdom since hey, it';s about conservation too right?

 

[andre85]

Quite simply, the movie sucked. This was a pure business decision that they felt had to be done to compete with WWOHP. Do I agree with it, no. Was it smart for business...yes.

Cars sucked too, particularly if you look at the critical reaction. Yet Disneyland's getting an entire land dedicated to it too...

 

[misterID]

I've completely lost faith that Disney can't do anything now that has to have some marketable product attatched to it. Especially a lame overrated unoriginal tree hugging product. :brick:

I'm starting to get the sense through your repeated posts that this has less to do with the movie and more to do with... something else... That I won't get into... But it clearly seems to be there, along with some other posters here... Just had to state it by your repeated posts stating your hatred of this film's message.

 

[Crazy Harry]

Part of the THEME of AK is CONSERVATION... Avatar fits PERFECTLY with the CONSERVATION message...

Conservation is a message based on the theme of animals and their natural environments as described in the name of the park: Animal Kingdom. If we only look at conservation as a requirement to be included, then we ignore everything else that makes animal kingdom what it is. Perhaps we should include Wall-E in Animal Kingdom because the overall MESSAGE is conservation of the Earth. I think this helps to illustrate that message and theme are different and not nessisarily meant to be interchangable terms.

 

[Epcot_Imagineer]

Cars sucked too, particularly if you look at the critical reaction. Yet Disneyland's getting an entire land dedicated to it too...

Couldn't agree with you more.

 

[maroman]

Cars sucked too, particularly if you look at the critical reaction. Yet Disneyland's getting an entire land dedicated to it too...

Yep, and again a smart business decision since it's made them so much money in merchandising.

 

[WDWGoof07]

Indiana Jones is a movie involving nazis where they find an artifact that causes their faces to violently melt away.

You were saying?

Come on, you know ripping out a guys still beating heart and showing it to him before casting him down into a firey pit is totally not dark, kid friendly Disney.

Point to me where I equated "Disney fun" with "kid friendly" because I'm not seeing it:

Even so, I think I'd still prefer BK. Avatar just doesn't seem "Disney-like" enough to me in the same way that Star Wars and Indiana Jones are. Those latter two series are fun. Avatar struck me as too dark and preachy to be something that I think could fit in with Disney.

Yes, there are very dark elements in both the series I offered up as examples. Disney even has their own Pirates series of movies that fall into this category.

The difference is that, while Indiana Jones remains fun and adventurous throughout the series, Avatar takes itself too seriously, is devoid of any humor, and has the fun sapped out of it by Cameron's heavy-handed moralizing.

Cars Land at DHS would just be a clone of what we can see at Disneyland Resort, with its Eticket being a rework of Test Track which we already have at Epcot. This entirely new project for once gives WDW something absolutely unique and could go where no theme park land has gone before.

I appreciate that we'll get something unique. I just don't like Avatar, and I find the connection to DAK tenuous. I hope it will be good and that I worry for no good reason. The production values will be incredible - likely with lush theming and cutting-edge attractions. But all the money and theming in the world can't make it enjoyable unless the experiences inside and the stories they creators have to tell match all the window dressing. I see great theming and advanced ride technology being built in Cars Land, and it seems more promising to me than Avatar-land because the intellectual property serving as the basis for the Cars Land experience is superior.

Cars over Avatar? Really?

Yes, really. I'll take Mater, Radiator Springs, and tractor tipping any day over Jake Sully, Pandora, and, um...making out...with your hair.

 

[imagineer boy]

I'm starting to get the sense through your repeated posts that this has less to do with the movie and more to do with... something else... That I won't get into... But it clearly seems to be there, along with some other posters here... Just had to state it by your continued hatred of this film's message.

I don't hate the message, its just that we've had this message rammed into our skull a thousand times already. And to have it rammed in again except with big special effects really ticked me off even more. I think the Nostalgia Critic summed the theme up pretty well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTg5Ldqm8ME

 

[stitchcastle]

Most of your arguments have been countered properly. It's a matter of opinion, and you think that your standpoint is correct.

Pretty much why I've stopped trying to counter you...it's really not worth my time, if you're not willing to have an open minded conversation. You have clouded the facts with your own viewpoint without any real basis or merit. You are taking your own interpretation of the dedication of AK and standing tall on it, even though others are posting pretty good arguments.

I've basically decided to write you off as someone who has an opinion, a little bit of information, and no patience. You think you automatically win every argument, and therefore it is not worth my time to argue with you.

Suffice to say - the majority of people on here....who are pretty hardcore Disney fans - disagree with you. Even those who dislike the movie see the potential here. You've stated it's your favorite park - and that's what clouds your judgement. It's really a pity...because if you would look at the big picture here, you'd see this as a huge opportunity and win for Walt Disney World. However, because you feel slighted that this has happened in "your park" that you have to respond personally and repeatedly against anybody who stands in your way.

The message of the movie and the message of the park are the same. I'm sure that if Disney can move us from a fantasyland german village into the land of tomorrow without blinking an eye, they can move us from one green planet to another.

Once again message is not theme, they're different. Plus you're counting it against me that I love the park? Whys is that a negative thing? If I hated animal Kingdom then I wouldn't care about anything that happens to it. You talk of hardcore Disney fans being fine with it and yet you cite my love of a park as working against me.

I'm sorry I'm not celebrating with the rest of you about this because I have a different opinion that I feel needs to be heard. I've seen quite a few posts that have shared my thoughts and views and understand why Avatar would not fit in with Animal Kingdom with their own various legitimate arguments. All I keep hearing from your camp is that they have the same vague notion of "conservation" that's not even a tangible theme that works with the rest of the park.

 

[Scuttle]

Quite simply, the movie sucked. This was a pure business decision that they felt had to be done to compete with WWOHP. Do I agree with it, no. Was it smart for business...yes.

I don't get people who think the movie sucked. Was it overrated? Yes. Did it suck? No. It was a groundbreaking movie regardless of what people think and visually it was flat out amazing.

 

[Theme Parkitect]

Well, I attempted to read this entire thread, but I got to page 17, and gave up. It was at 39 pages when I started, and when I got to 17, it was already in the 40s.

Well, I'm floored by this. I slept-in today, woke up, got my phone, and thought I'd check out WDWmagic. You know, just to see if any planters had been moved, or if any new M&Gs were announced. To my utter bewilderment, I saw this, and literally had to take a double-take. I think I even said 'Huh?' Out loud.

Anyway, I think that everyone - including myself - has the same opinion, to an extent: 'Avatar' wasn't the greatest film of all-time - just the old-as-time Pocahontas story rehashed - but it was okay, and undeniably, visually stunning.

I can be quoted from earlier today - when I called everyone I knew to share the news - that I do believe it's a great opportunity for Disney to spread their creative wings, but Animal Kingdom means a lot to me, so they'll have to do it right (which is a very more-than-obvious statement), especially for it to blend cohesively. Although in the spirit of Joe Rohde's strong belief in using the word 'theme' correctly, the theme of both Avatar and Animal Kingdom, are remarkably similar.

I think it could work.

We all know of the three figureheads outside, above the ticket booths. The elephant, the dinosaur, and the dragon. Something tells me that the dragon head could be replaced with that of an Ikran (predominate, flying, dragon-like creatures from the film).

But addressing a point in the Universal vs. Disney topic, Universal - over many years - has acquired the rights to many major films, I think it's about time that Disney had a turn, and - as mentioned before me - what better rights to acquire, than that of the highest grossing film of all time?

I do hope the Cameron can create... more, for the next two films and land, because the problem with the world of Avatar, when compared to the world of Harry Potter, aesthetically, Potter just has more. For the most part, the world of Avatar is mostly vegetation, and rural, organic materials (which could be cheaper for Disney in the long run). But I want it understood that I see the potential. The bioluminescence and the creatures of Pandora, in a dark ride, and in the environments would/will be astronomical amazing and gorgeous, but that will only go so far. (I ain't pleased with my inability to express my opinion in this paragraph, so don't judge.)

IMPORTANT: But, for anyone willing to expect this development, but have a twinkeling of a doubt, I want you to recall the all-to-familiar music that plays throughout the park - especially the entrance - and then listen to this:

[YOUTUBE]oCYfZn2eufA[/YOUTUBE]

Then, as you listen, I'll leave you with this thought...

After I got over the initial shock, inevitably, I began to critique the idea. 'Avatar, and Disney?' 'In Animal Kingdom?' 'How will it fit?' 'It's Asia, Dinoland U.S.A., Africa. What're they going to call it? Avatarland?' Then I had an idea.

It's simple, Africa, Asia, and Pandora.

That's my two copper coins.

Beautiful. Pros and cons, all told without much bias or personal opinion...

 

[stitchcastle]

Conservation is a message based on the theme of animals and their natural environments as described in the name of the park: Animal Kingdom. If we only look at conservation as a requirement to be included, then we ignore everything else that makes animal kingdom what it is. Perhaps we should include Wall-E in Animal Kingdom because the overall MESSAGE is conservation of the Earth. I think this helps to illustrate that message and theme are different and not nessisarily meant to be interchangable terms.

That's what people don't understand, conservation is not a theme and this is a theme park.

 

[janoimagine]

I'm really interesting in hearing what the budget is for this. No doubt to do this properly it is going to require big money. Any guesses?

750 million to 1 billion .... ish???

 

[andre85]

Point to me where I equated "Disney fun" with "kid friendly" because I'm not seeing it

Then please elaborate on what exactly "Disney fun" means. My point is that there was little in Indiana Jones to suggest it would make a good theme park attraction, yet it did anyway. You have the benefit of hindsight having see how well it worked out. We have no idea what they will do with Avatar, and as such, it's much too early to draw any kind of conclusion.

The difference is that, while Indiana Jones remains fun and adventurous throughout the series, Avatar takes itself too seriously, is devoid of any humor,

You know what else took itself seriously? Twilight Zone.