AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

SyracuseOrange

SyracuseOrange

Well-Known Member
MerlinTheGoat said:
It'll be cool, but you know people are going to abuse the hell out of anything interactive and things are going to get dirty and broken quickly (almost certain we're going to see things vandalized). Not looking forward to that happening...
Click to expand...
Yes - if Avatar land is really going to be this interactive, immersive, and beautiful, Disney better have lots of money in the budget to maintain it.
 
E

EPCOT Robot

Member
Keep drinking that kooolaid. A movie doesn't make 3 Billion dollars when people hated the plot and characters. People don't see a movie 4 times and buy the DVD because they really didn't like it.

And I like the "originality" bent people use while simultaneously praising a company for ripping off fairy tales that are hundreds and hundreds of years old. You can't toss around the word "cliche" when you hypocritically hold extreme cliches, like love's first kiss and Prince Charming, as sacred.
 
MerlinTheGoat

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
EPCOT Robot said:
Keep drinking that kooolaid. A movie doesn't make 3 Billion dollars when people hated the plot and characters.
Click to expand...
Funny how Twilight accomplished its amazing financial feats despite overwhelmingly negative reviews and word of mouth about a horrible story and terrible characters. Maybe someday (when you're grown) it will dawn on you that financial success and popularity does not a good movie make.
 
S

Siren

Well-Known Member
SyracuseOrange said:
Maybe (hopefully) part of Cameron's contract outlines what happens to the land post-launch, and not just how its built. Hopefully this land will be beautiful for every guest, and not just in the opening day pictures.
Click to expand...
I really don't think you have to worry. James Cameron has very high standards, that's what makes this collaboration so dynamic!
 
Suspirian

Suspirian

Well-Known Member
MerlinTheGoat said:
If you're talking to me- no I'm not saying that. The land has the potential to be great. I'm actually more positive about AVATAR Land than some other people here are (I see why people don't want it of course but I have warmed up to the concept at least, moreso after the concept art).

The movie was what I was talking about. It's relevant because the people at Disney who decided to make an Avatar land did so for financial reasons, not a creative one. They wanted a draw for Animal Kingdom that would make a ton of money due to a pre-existing IP driving attendance up. And there's a lot of issues with the choice they made when you consider how little people talk about Avatar anymore. What remains to be seen is how well the sequels will do. I assume Disney wants to coincide the new land with the release of one of the new movies, which can be tricky considering how unpredictable Cameron is with release dates...

And one does hope that the people at Disney realize what it was that people liked and disliked about the movie, focusing on the right things (the visual nature of the world) and leaving out things that didn't work (the story and characters). The land itself has enormous potential from a theming perspective IMHO. While i'd rather see something else if I was given the choice, I personally see the merits for a theme park experience if done right and think it could be cool. Again, IF they focus on the visuals of the environment and don't value engineer the hell out of it, then I'm willing to give this a chance. It's the overall execution that i'm worried about.

It's similar to my feelings on Disney's recent Oz movie- didn't care for the plot or some of the characters at all, but I would be interested in seeing some sort of well done theme park attraction of it.
Click to expand...
Not directly at anyone, just the general comments from those who hate the land already solely because of its story, but I get your point
 
Bairstow

Bairstow

Well-Known Member
Captain Neo said:
I love when Rhode implied the entire land is one big attraction with everything being interactive. It's going to be mindblowing just moving your hand around plants and seeing them react with light and effects and stuff.
Click to expand...

That's what really interested me about his presentation.
Emphasis on enjoying the park itself as a whole rather than individual attractions has been Rohde's philosophy through all his Animal Kingdom work.
If the Avatar expansion continues this approach they need to make sure guests understand this.
 
Captain Neo

Captain Neo

Well-Known Member
did anyone notice in the video Bruce Vaughn is in the background of a few meeting scenes just kind of smiling bobbing his head around like "I have no idea what im doing here but I love the pay so im just gonna hang out"
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Nothsa said:
Just a random thought...about the eye candy thing. Are you saying the land will be mediocre because the movie is just eye candy, because a visually stunning land is exactly what I want for DAK.
Click to expand...
Siren said:
Thanks for posting this. This post demonstrates exactly why Pandora is a perfect fit for AK! I could not give two flipping pancakes about the strength of a plot, script or characters -- not sure why this matters. We're talking about a theme park here, where the average attention span for guests is 20 seconds. Pandora is visually stunning & intriguing. I really can't wait to see Pandora come to fruition!
Click to expand...
Speaking generally and not about this project specifically, but being visually stunning is not enough. That is a big part of why New Fantasyland has fallen so flat, lots of flash with little substance. Lack of awareness is an awful trait to project onto guests and will never result in long term success.

MerlinTheGoat said:
The movie was what I was talking about. It's relevant because the people at Disney who decided to make an Avatar land did so for financial reasons, not a creative one. They wanted a draw for Animal Kingdom that would make a ton of money due to a pre-existing IP driving attendance up. And there's a lot of issues with the choice they made when you consider how little people talk about Avatar anymore. What remains to be seen is how well the sequels will do. I assume Disney wants to coincide the new land with the release of one of the new movies, which can be tricky considering how unpredictable Cameron is with release dates...
Click to expand...
And this is really why the project is going to be very important for the future of Walt Disney World. This is Disney and their bizarre expectations. It does not matter if this project brings in $1 billion in new revenue its first year, if Disney projected $1.05 billion it will be a failure. And a failure of a project this expensive will have repercussions on investment in Walt Disney World for years to come.
 
E

EPCOT Robot

Member
So yeah, with that new video, this has marked the further death knell for the Avatar haters. Maybe you can launch a support group as your numbers continue to dwindle.
 
Magenta Panther

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
EPCOT Robot said:
Disney doesn't own "Wonderland" and "Oz." They're public domain. Do you even know what you're talking about?

Really, I hope the "Nay Avatar Land, Yay Beastly Kingdom" crowd stays as intransigent and insane until opening day. It will just make things that much more hilariously pathetic.
Click to expand...

Yeah, pal, I do know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the Disney films based on the Oz and Wonderland properties. The ones that generated billions at the box office worldwide. Billions that went into Disney's coffers, not 20th Century Fox's. Movies that would fit much better into WDW, not only because of financial reasons but because of aesthetic reasons, than Cameron's preachy snoozefest. Movies that DISNEY MADE.

Your lack of grasp is what's hilariously pathetic. When people go to a Disney park, they go because they want to see Disney characters and relive Disney stories and hear Disney music. The original DCA at Disneyland didn't have enough of those things, and that's why it FAILED. Man, it kills me how wet you Cameron groupies are getting over this ill-conceived, underwhelming and interestingly UNDERHYPED addition. Yeah, Avatar is so popular, that's why I see Avatar merchandise all over the place...oh wait. Get a freaking clue already.
 
S

Siren

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
Speaking generally and not about this project specifically, but being visually stunning is not enough. That is a big part of why New Fantasyland has fallen so flat, lots of flash with little substance. Lack of awareness is an awful trait to project onto guests and will never result in long term success.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree with this. I don't find the New Fantasyland expansion to be in any way comparable to the brilliant, cutting edge concepts for Avatarland.

It's quite ironic you mention this, given that the New Fantasyland was exactly what the Disney traditionalists/purists raved about, this is what "everyone" wanted because it remained "true to Disney." By the same token, the Disney purists bashed Avatarland for not being "Disney" enough. And, poor Carsland simply did not register with the public, barely receiving any buzz. But, Carsland turned out to be the winner.

The New Fantasyland has "fallen flat" because of the quality of the attractions and overall it's just blah. Anyway, just know that Avatarland will be everything The New Fantasyland is not. And, for what's it's worth I really like the New Fantasyland, I can appreciate it, for what it is.


And this is really why the project is going to be very important for the future of Walt Disney World. This is Disney and their bizarre expectations. It does not matter if this project brings in $1 billion in new revenue its first year, if Disney projected $1.05 billion it will be a failure. And a failure of a project this expensive will have repercussions on investment in Walt Disney World for years to come.
Click to expand...
Completely disagree with this. Ugh, the logic applied here -- I simply can't...
 
E

EPCOT Robot

Member
Magenta Panther said:
Yeah, pal, I do know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the Disney films based on the Oz and Wonderland properties. The ones that generated billions at the box office worldwide. Billions that went into Disney's coffers, not 20th Century Fox's. Movies that would fit much better into WDW, not only because of financial reasons but because of aesthetic reasons, than Cameron's preachy snoozefest. Movies that DISNEY MADE.

Your lack of grasp is what's hilariously pathetic. When people go to a Disney park, they go because they want to see Disney characters and relive Disney stories and hear Disney music. The original DCA at Disneyland didn't have enough of those things, and that's why it FAILED. Man, it kills me how wet you Cameron groupies are getting over this ill-conceived, underwhelming and interestingly UNDERHYPED addition. Yeah, Avatar is so popular, that's why I see Avatar merchandise all over the place...oh wait. Get a freaking clue already.
Click to expand...

The fact you are taking this so personally is hilarious. I also like that it's all about "What is Disney IP?" for you, which is the exact argument to use to show you are totally biased, using fanboyism instead of logic, and completely out of touch.

By your standards, Disney Hollywood Studios was a complete abomination because it implemented a ton of non-Disney IP. Your standpoint is utterly childish in how hypocritical it is.

Also YES, the fact that Disney does not own Oz and Wonderland matters. If they dump a billion dollars into an Oz expansion, that means imitators will take immediate advantage, because they don't own it! Hell, the movie didn't even have Dorothy, the Tinman, etc. in it, the characters everyone associates with Oz. I also love the hypocrisy in praising a ripoff of 100 year old books when the same people claim Avatar, a highly distinctive scifi film, was not original enough.
 
RSoxNo1

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
Disney's Animal Kingdom is about man's connection to this world and its other inhabitants. How we directly relate to our world. Pandora is not this world.
Click to expand...
This is the dedication plaque...

Welcome to a kingdom of animals... real, ancient and imagined;
a kingdom ruled by lions, dinosaurs and dragons;
a kingdom of balance, harmony and survival;
a kingdom we enter to share in the wonder,
gaze at the beauty, thrill at the drama
and learn.

It sounds like Pandora is as a better thematic connection as Up or Finding Nemo.
 
RSoxNo1

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
SirLink said:
Wrong those are folklore beasts use to explain how the world worked. There is a distinction between beasts born of our world to explain our world. Than raiding the local by "4 limbs get 2 free" world of Pandora - it feels fake. Also more people have had exposure to tales of dragons and unicorns, and with TWDC love of cloning attractions and lands it would of been easier for even OLC to maybe buy into the hype of Mythological creature land in Disney Seas than Avatar ever will be.
Click to expand...
The debate now is the origin of the fake animals in question. Yes, there are traditional fake animals derived from ancient mythology, and that's all well and good. The problem is Disney seemingly decided that since IOA opened, that they didn't want to use many of these animals.

More importantly, if the movie Avatar didn't exist, and Disney announced today that they're teaming up with James Cameron to experience the flora and fauna of this mythical land called Pandora, we would all be on board. Is a Banshee any less relevant as a mythical animal as a Lava Monster? How many of us wanted to see Mysterious Island?

Ultimately, if this is well executed, the strength of the thematic tie or the lineup of fake animals is going to almost be secondary. Guests are willing to forgive thematic stretches if the experience itself is enjoyable.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom