-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Avatarland to take over Rafiki's Planet Watch?
- Thread starter djkidkaz
- Start date
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
Hah... well played.
It does put all of this into hindsight - on our show we like to think that we don't take ourselves too seriously, but the fact of the matter is we all love Disney. Like our favorite child, we want what's best for it.
Due to an overwhelming lack of requests, here are the distances that I came up with using wikimapia's distance tool. These are walking distances around the Animal Kingdom:
Distances from park entrance
- Kilimanjaro Safaris: Approximately 1800 feet
- Kali River Rapids: Approximately 1600 feet
- Expedition Everest: Approximately 2100 feet via the Kali Bridge or 2200 feet via the Theater in the Wild Bridge
- Edge of the North Expansion Plot: 2450 feet
- Edge of the South Expansion Plot (edge of Camp Minnie Mickey and Expansion Plot): 1700 feet
- The Main entrance of Epcot to The American Adventure is approximately .8 miles.
- Kilimanjaro Safaris to Expedition Everest: 1900 feet
If you would like to play the "Walking Path WikiMapia Home Game" you can do see here: http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=28.3583751&lon=-81.5884262&z=18&l=0&m=b
mickey2008.1
Well-Known Member
I'm getting my popcorn!!
Thanks for the wikimap, awesome. After seeiing the layout, i prefer it to be north of Asia, with the train getting some kind of refurb to transport you into Avatarland. A dark train ride with a screen transporting you. From one world to the other. Even have a walking version of it for those who like to hoof it.
Thanks for the wikimap, awesome. After seeiing the layout, i prefer it to be north of Asia, with the train getting some kind of refurb to transport you into Avatarland. A dark train ride with a screen transporting you. From one world to the other. Even have a walking version of it for those who like to hoof it.
yoda_5729
Well-Known Member
I would miss Rafiki's Planet Watch if they were to close it down. I happen to like it a lot and go visit it every time I visit the park. If it is true though, that they are closing it down, they don't have much in terms of displays for terrariums and the smaller animals. Also I'm aware of the animal hospital there, as well as other things, but I always find looking at the various small frogs, reptiles, insects and such as really cool. They seem to change which ones you see at given days as they appear to have different ones in back away from the public, so it makes each venture out there different.
In ways I'd wish Animal Kingdom did better in the terms of animals. I know there are countless zoos in the area and I appreciate and like the rides, and other shops that make the place popular. It's just to me, when I look at Animal Kingdom, anything that decreases the amount of animals on display is not a good thing, especially when so many animals aren't represented. It in lots of ways is pathetic Animal Kingdom has no species of bear at all, not even a sun bear or sloth bear. Other then some african cichlids, no fish are on display either. I just think there is so much potential, and to remove the major spot for reptiles, frogs, and insects, just so you can wedge Avatar in there is a disservice. I was kinda neutral on Avatar joining the park, but not at the cost of an educational spot where kids could interact first hand with animals.
In ways I'd wish Animal Kingdom did better in the terms of animals. I know there are countless zoos in the area and I appreciate and like the rides, and other shops that make the place popular. It's just to me, when I look at Animal Kingdom, anything that decreases the amount of animals on display is not a good thing, especially when so many animals aren't represented. It in lots of ways is pathetic Animal Kingdom has no species of bear at all, not even a sun bear or sloth bear. Other then some african cichlids, no fish are on display either. I just think there is so much potential, and to remove the major spot for reptiles, frogs, and insects, just so you can wedge Avatar in there is a disservice. I was kinda neutral on Avatar joining the park, but not at the cost of an educational spot where kids could interact first hand with animals.
WDWFigment
Well-Known Member
Ha. I think it's one of those "it is what it is" type things.
Obviously, anyone here with over 265 posts is a little insane about Disney. I mean, we all could be discussing politics, economics, Oprah, or something else that has a more substantial bearing on life. Yet we discuss Disney. Probably because it's something we enjoy. With that comes a discussion of the minutiae, which in this case happens to be the credibility of a Disney "celebrity" reporter. I've seen people discuss carpet and restroom tiling here, so I don't think we've deviated too much from the norm.
I don't really think of it as any sort of ing match between RedSoxNo1 and me, but maybe he perceives it differently. I think he's a valuable, typically level headed poster, so I guess it's fairly telling if we're the "nuts" ones.
Indirectly, you do sort of make a good point. Despite Jim being somewhat of a Disney "name," I don't consider reporting on something making you a "public figure" vulnerable to certain levels of scrutiny. I should probably stop 'critiquing' him on a public forum.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I run approximately 0% of my photos through HDR filters.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Sounds to me like you are hooked. You are not the first and won't be the last. Welcome to our little corner of the interwebz.
Oh, and there is no cure.
Ha. I think it's one of those "it is what it is" type things.
Obviously, anyone here with over 265 posts is a little insane about Disney. I mean, we all could be discussing politics, economics, Oprah, or something else that has a more substantial bearing on life. Yet we discuss Disney. Probably because it's something we enjoy. With that comes a discussion of the minutiae, which in this case happens to be the credibility of a Disney "celebrity" reporter. I've seen people discuss carpet and restroom tiling here, so I don't think we've deviated too much from the norm.
I don't really think of it as any sort of ing match between RedSoxNo1 and me, but maybe he perceives it differently. I think he's a valuable, typically level headed poster, so I guess it's fairly telling if we're the "nuts" ones.
Indirectly, you do sort of make a good point. Despite Jim being somewhat of a Disney "name," I don't consider reporting on something making you a "public figure" vulnerable to certain levels of scrutiny. I should probably stop 'critiquing' him on a public forum.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I run approximately 0% of my photos through HDR filters.
Hey, I like your photos. I actually have you and only one other person bookmarked because I like your guys photos so much. Many times they are used for my background wallpapers. Hopefully you don't mind. :wave:
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
Ha. I think it's one of those "it is what it is" type things.
Obviously, anyone here with over 265 posts is a little insane about Disney. I mean, we all could be discussing politics, economics, Oprah, or something else that has a more substantial bearing on life. Yet we discuss Disney. Probably because it's something we enjoy. With that comes a discussion of the minutiae, which in this case happens to be the credibility of a Disney "celebrity" reporter. I've seen people discuss carpet and restroom tiling here, so I don't think we've deviated too much from the norm.
I don't really think of it as any sort of ing match between RedSoxNo1 and me, but maybe he perceives it differently. I think he's a valuable, typically level headed poster, so I guess it's fairly telling if we're the "nuts" ones.
Indirectly, you do sort of make a good point. Despite Jim being somewhat of a Disney "name," I don't consider reporting on something making you a "public figure" vulnerable to certain levels of scrutiny. I should probably stop 'critiquing' him on a public forum.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I run approximately 0% of my photos through HDR filters.
No, I agree - I don't think any of the debate here has gotten into the area of personal attacks. I think we've both been respectful in this conversation. That's the type of debate that breeds conversation. It's the type of discussion I love to have.
Prototype82
Well-Known Member
Does this mean no more petting zoo? *ragequits*
Imagineer6
Member
Don't mess with Tim (RSoxNo1) and his AK.
I support putting Avatarland anywhere. If it goes into Africa, that gives me less reason to go to the front of the park. Putting this attraction in won't really change my views on how I see the Animal Kingdom, to be honest. And it probably will seem weird having Avatar in a park where everything else is realistic.
ChrisM
Well-Known Member
Oh, and for what it's worth, I run approximately 0% of my photos through HDR filters.
Lies, Bricker. All lies!
Jeez, I even know your name. And that you out kicked your coverage. That I know either of those things is extremely distressing to me.
However, my larger point was that trading in the currency of, at best, third hand rumors is like the world's worst game of telephone. Add to that the strange egoism that seems to go hand-in-hand with those who have access to second hand information and it begins to take on the sheen of a high school popularity contest. (All exaggerations intentional.) The weird social hierarchy that develops around the hand feeding of scraps of largely questionable information is almost too strange to be believed. And I've been reading it for so long I had become inured to it before my moment of clarity struck.
I've been a regular reader of these fora for over 8 years, jt, and have been posting for 2 and a half. Err, thanks for the belated welcome.
AH, I'm posting here on Thanksgiving! Lord help me.
CJR
Well-Known Member
I think it will be more dependent on what is involved in the land. Disney seems to be pointing at Avatar as a way to keep AK open later. If it's by Africa, there might be issues with the animals back there. CMM doesn't really have as many exhibits in that area, therefore would make more sense.
I have no doubt Disney considered the north area of the park, but it's just not a good idea. EE is already back there to draw in guests, the area is over crowded and all of the actual animal related attractions are back there. Compare that to the front half of the park and there's CMM and Dinoland. Avatar would parallel well with Dinoland. Also, as someone said, it would give the park four corners.
I can see why they would want to put it in the back as well, but I think for the sake of the animals, it would be better if it wasn't back there. I'm sure we'll know soon enough either way.
I have no doubt Disney considered the north area of the park, but it's just not a good idea. EE is already back there to draw in guests, the area is over crowded and all of the actual animal related attractions are back there. Compare that to the front half of the park and there's CMM and Dinoland. Avatar would parallel well with Dinoland. Also, as someone said, it would give the park four corners.
I can see why they would want to put it in the back as well, but I think for the sake of the animals, it would be better if it wasn't back there. I'm sure we'll know soon enough either way.
ex-dak-odf
New Member
Camp Minnie-Mickey would be a great place for Avatar Land. It would be away from the animals, and be more accessible, while avoiding over-crowding issues. It doesn't expand the capacity of the park though. If they want to expand the capacity of the park, there are really two options. They can either use option featured in most popular rumors, which is to place it in the open area between Rafiki's and Asia, or they can move Camp Minnie-Mickey to that area and put Avatar Land closer to the entrance.
Camp Minnie-Mickey would do well in the new location. If there were some wilderness between the camp and the rest of the park, it would make sense as a camp. It could also have the same kind of wilderness area between there and Rafiki's. That would allow a (long) walking path to a place currently only accessible by train. This would allow for the best theme development, while keeping Avatar Land away from the animals.
The other option, putting Avatar Land in the back of the park, would cause heavy foot traffic in a couple of bottle neck areas, but that would avoid the cost of relocating an area, or it would avoid lower park capacity if CMM were just removed. It wouldn't be a horribly long walk if the new land were to start where the round-about train track section is. I actually have a 3D model demonstrating that concept, in case any of you are curious.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/11/6/1568578/dakmodel.skp
It's a big file, so you'll need a gaming-grade computer to view it.
Camp Minnie-Mickey would do well in the new location. If there were some wilderness between the camp and the rest of the park, it would make sense as a camp. It could also have the same kind of wilderness area between there and Rafiki's. That would allow a (long) walking path to a place currently only accessible by train. This would allow for the best theme development, while keeping Avatar Land away from the animals.
The other option, putting Avatar Land in the back of the park, would cause heavy foot traffic in a couple of bottle neck areas, but that would avoid the cost of relocating an area, or it would avoid lower park capacity if CMM were just removed. It wouldn't be a horribly long walk if the new land were to start where the round-about train track section is. I actually have a 3D model demonstrating that concept, in case any of you are curious.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/11/6/1568578/dakmodel.skp
It's a big file, so you'll need a gaming-grade computer to view it.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
Along the same lines - if they want to truly spread out the guests, the area south of Camp Minnie Mickey is the best spot. So many guests that visit that park do so for Everest and maybe one other thing. Putting Avatar on the Beastly Kingdom Plot will accomplish a large amount of separation between the two marquee attractions that aren't animal based.
Also, for those people that are still hoping for some form of Mysterious Island, this upcoming (non-Disney) movie starring the Rock may disappoint you:
Journey 2: The Mysterious Island
NoChesterHester
Well-Known Member
Mysterious Island could have been great, but thematically would have been a stretch. Many of the same complaints about Pandora would have been valid with MI as well.
I still stand by Jim Hill's ascertation that Avatar/Pandora will go in the original Beastly Kingdom plot south of CMM. That is not only an underitilized area, but as you stated will balance out the offerings by location in the park. This would allow the NE to SW ring of the park to stay open late while allowing the animal sanctuary areas to close at dark.
Additionally, the ONLY place I've seen this reported is on __________... not exactly the most reputable source. Going to sling mud at Jim Hill, at least he has "sources" other then other sites and front line cast members.
misterID
Well-Known Member
They really don't need a Mysterious Island in AK... But a future Mystic Island would be pretty cool
I like this idea. I'm surprised no one picked up on this post. Especially the bolded part.
I like this idea. I'm surprised no one picked up on this post. Especially the bolded part.
NoChesterHester
Well-Known Member
They really don't need a Mysterious Island in AK... But a future Mystic Island would be pretty cool
I like this idea. I'm surprised no one picked up on this post. Especially the bolded part.
Would make the current plans to be larger then "12 acres" eh???
InsiderImagine
Active Member
Considering what is being built for Avatarland...yes 12 acres is way too small for the attractions that are about to be built.
invader
Well-Known Member
InsiderImagine
Active Member
Attractions - implying two, or hopefully more?
There is no definite word on how many attractions Avatarland will hold but there will be more than one "E-ticket" attraction (probably just 2).