AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

zooey

zooey

Well-Known Member
dxer07002 said:
Because YOU don't want it means Disney is out of touch??? Should Bob Iger and Tom Staggs consult you for now on and build what zooey wants for now on??? I see plenty of people on here who DO want this... And here is a wake up call for you...

DISNEY CARES ABOUT THE 17 MILLION PEOPLE WHO VISIT, NOT THE 1,000 RABID FANBOYS ON SOME FAN INTERNET SITE!!! if they did, the rabid Adventurer Club fans would have their funspot back already...

I know, that is to hard for rabid fans to understand... Disney cares about the MAJORITY not the minority on some fansite...
Click to expand...

If they did consult me they wouldn't be making terrible decisions that will backfire on them in a few years when the sequels don't perform and Avatar plushies don't sell.
 
zooey

zooey

Well-Known Member
walee said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by zooey
I'm honestly devastated by this. I can deal with NOT visiting this stupid land when it eventually opens, but it just shows how out of touch the Disney company is with their base. They have no idea what we want, and more so, they want to force this garbage on us. They want to appeal to boys with a PG-13 movie about blue aliens who have ______ with their hair. Just appalling. I don't see this happening as they presented it today. How can they be so stupid? How can they be so out of touch? They could put that money into beastly kingdom or another one of their own properties, or South America, or Australia, and they give us this trash! Something nobody wanted. The gall.

OMG I READ I THIS LIKE YOU WERE CHRIS CROCKER DEFENDING BRITNEY SPEARS LMAO!!! CALM DOWN, All the problems in the world and your getting hyped up over this? LOL, I truly evny you then if this is the biggest issue in your life, I mean Seriously?

LEAVE DISNEY ALONE!!!
Click to expand...

Are you 12? Or just illiterate? Or both?
 
JustInTime

JustInTime

Well-Known Member
Crazy Harry said:
Think of it this way as well; Africa, Asia, and Pandora??!! Is Pandora Earth-like, yes it is. It is also a far off planet not on earth, with creatures not of this earth, integrated into a park only pertaining to the places and creatures of this Earth.
Click to expand...

I think you forgot a few...


Africa, Asia, Discovery Island, Dinoland, Camp Minnie Mickey and Pandora...


Sounds a bit better when you are not cherry picking the facts.
 
JustInTime

JustInTime

Well-Known Member
walee said:
kids younger than 6 walk around DHS with toy Guns that their parents proudly put into their little hands, its merch disney sells because of indy, so the whole Avatar isn't disney friendly should die very soon
Click to expand...

I am confused by this thread. :veryconfu
 
S.E.A.

S.E.A.

Member
JustInTime said:
I think you forgot a few...


Africa, Asia, Discovery Island, Dinoland, Camp Minnie Mickey and Pandora...


Sounds a bit better when you are not cherry picking the facts.
Click to expand...

yeah but Camp Minnie Mickey looks more like a North America type area. as does Dinoland, each land is very earth specific. Pandora sticks out sharply
 
thelookingglass

thelookingglass

Well-Known Member
Wow, gone all day and come home to bombshell news and over 1,000 posts!!

I have mixed feelings about this, both positive and negative. Totally didn't see it coming.
 
Bairstow

Bairstow

Well-Known Member
Waterworld bombed in 1995.
Universal Singapore opened a multi-million dollar Waterworld-themed stunt show THIS YEAR in its new park.
Why? Because it's a cool idea for an attraction.
resorts-world-sentosa-universal-studios-waterworld-photo.jpg
 
Captain Chaos

Captain Chaos

Well-Known Member
Crazy Harry said:
Ok, but here is the problem with this argument. Avatar is not just about conservation. Animal Kingdom is not just about conservation either. If we are going to argue that Avatar is perfect for AK based solely on the message of conservation, then we have to ignore all of the other aspects which are associated with both. If we are going to do that, then a film like Wall-E would fit at AK because that is also about Earth conservation.

But wait a minute!!! Wall-E has all of these things like space travel and robots that don't belong in AK (which correct me if I am wrong but so does Avatar). Ok, so we DO have to consider the other aspects to determine if it is a good fit in AK. We can't say that Wall-E doesn't fit because of the aspects beyond conservation, yet ignore simular aspects in Avatar and focus solely on the conservation aspect. This is a double standard which simply does not stand.

Let us also analyze the name of the park: Animal Kingdom. Animal is pretty self explanitory, and Kingdom would refer to their environment. And animal kingdom is indeed full of recreations of natural environments of the many animals contained and depicted. Of course, there are plenty of things that are real that are not included in the park for obvious reasons. The beleif that aliens are real or are responcible for anchient arcitecure does not mean their inclusion in the park is legitimate. And aliens are from other planets where as animals, even mythical ones, are based on creatures of this planet, which is the kingdom refered to in the name of the park.

Think of it this way as well; Africa, Asia, and Pandora??!! Is Pandora Earth-like, yes it is. It is also a far off planet not on earth, with creatures not of this earth, integrated into a park only pertaining to the places and creatures of this Earth.
Click to expand...

I'm curious how they will transition us to Pandora... I trust imagineering along with James Cameron, will do it right...

Let's take Wall-E... Ok, there is an overall conservation theme to Wall-E... A movie that takes place on a spacecraft, not a planet... When they are on earth, earth is a garbage dump, collapsing buildings, trash piled as high as skyscrapers... For the simple fact that Wall-E takes place on a spacecraft and not on a planet eliminates Wall-E despite the conservation theme... if they wanted to put Wall-E in the Land pavilion, fine... In AK, no...

As for Avatar, the movie may take place in outer space, but it takes place on a planet, not in a spaceship or space station... The movie showcases a beautiful scenic planet... A planet that has life on it.. Unlike the Earth of Wall-E... Conservation is a theme of the movie as well... However, Avatar does differ from Wall-E in the aspect I described...

And if you want to make this about animals only and ignore the conservation theme, then ok.. avatar has animals in it, even though these animals are from a different planet...

Any way you slice it, Avatar fits... Whether it is the conservation theme or the animal theme... it fits...
 
stitchcastle

stitchcastle

Well-Known Member
Bairstow said:
Waterworld bombed in 1995.
Universal Singapore opened a multi-million dollar Waterworld-themed stunt show THIS YEAR in its new park.
Why? Because it's a cool idea for an attraction.
resorts-world-sentosa-universal-studios-waterworld-photo.jpg
Click to expand...

that's one attraction versus a whole land, plus Waterworld fits in in a park about movies.
 
Crazy Harry

Crazy Harry

Active Member
Bairstow said:
Here we go again with the arbitrary rules.
Looks like we'll need to bulldoze Tomorrowland because it's the only Magic Kingdom land not themed around the past.
Click to expand...

How is this arbitrary? The whole point of a theme park is to stick with a theme whether over arching or not. Magic Kingdom works because each land is distinctly different. The themes are more specific to the area than the overall park. There is no suggetion in the name of the park that the park specifically pertains to the past, especially since so many of the attractions have unreal aspects. It is a magical place as implied by the name.

If rules of theming are arbitrary, then why stick to any theme at all? This would defeat the whole purpose of a theme in the first place. We could also include a land in AK about the space program and trying to discover life on other planets. If there should be no rule of theming this would be fine. But if there is an abscence of rules, then there is an abscence of theme, because sticking to one in itself is a rule, and the arguement about conservation makes no difference because we don't need to stick to a theme in the first place.

Let's put skyscraper in the Jungle Cruise and fill the haunted mansion with only live people. If you admit this is stupid, then there are rules to theming after all.
 
JustInTime

JustInTime

Well-Known Member
S.E.A. said:
put it this way, all the lands are pretty self explanatory except for pandora where you will have to have seen the movie to understand what's going on.
Click to expand...

Which should totally void song of the south, right? Most kids don't know that story yet that attraction is so beloved. I don't see the issue here.
 
Bairstow

Bairstow

Well-Known Member
S.E.A. said:
put it this way, all the lands are pretty self explanatory except for pandora where you will have to have seen the movie to understand what's going on.
Click to expand...

Because Walt Disney Imagineering is so inept at explaining where the guest is and what she is supposed to be experiencing.
Oh, wait, no. They're the world leaders at that.
Think for a moment about the first 2 minutes of any Disney attraction you've ever been on.
With the possible exception of Pirates of the Caribbean where the mystery and confusion is intentional, the guest knows what's up.
 
TestTrack Dummy

TestTrack Dummy

Well-Known Member
Theres an amazing amount of potential here weather you liked the films or not. i just wonder if theyre gonna put the spirit tree in the land?
one things for sure, the next D23 will be interesting :D
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom