Does it bother anyone else that Avatar isn't a Disney movie?

[unkadug]

Does it bother you that these characters/movies were not created by Disney:

Pinnochio
Snow White
Cinderella
Mary Poppins
Jungle Book
Winnie the Pooh
Swiss Family Robinson
20K Leagues
The Muppets
Alice in Wonderland
Peter Pan
The Little Mermaid
Bambi
Chicken Little
Robin Hood

 

[ABigBrassBand]

Does it bother you that these characters/movies were not created by Disney:

Pinnochio
Snow White
Cinderella
Mary Poppins
Jungle Book
Winnie the Pooh
Swiss Family Robinson
20K Leagues
The Muppets
Alice in Wonderland
Peter Pan
The Little Mermaid
Bambi
Chicken Little
Robin Hood

...but the movies (adaptions) made by Disney were adapted into rides. It's more the fact that Disney didn't create anything associated with it (although I'm you know)

 

[Silver Figment]

It does bother me that Avatar isn't Disney. Star Wars and Indie don't bother me for a couple of reasons. First off, i honestsly think they blend with Disney better than Avatar can. Second, they are located in the park whose theme is centered around movies and those 2 movie franchises blend well with that ideal. I also just don't think Avatar is going to blend with the Animal Kingdom well. This is all just my opinion though.

 

[Prototype82]

Did Disney write Tom Sawyer or Swiss Family Robinson? Nope.

 

[Prototype82]

Star Wars and Indie don't bother me for a couple of reasons. First off, i honestsly think they blend with Disney better than Avatar can.

I would love to hear your reasoning on this. *pops popcorn*

 

[Donald96]

Well who else agrees that they could of done Wonderland? "Alice in Wonderland" HELLO?!?! Also, a billion dollar movie!

 

[palmickey420]

I mean say what you want about the story but the film was a technical achievement in filmmaking.

so was the original tron but u don't see a tron attraction or anything.

 

[macsmom]

Avatar ride? Ok, in keeping with Star Wars/Indy I guess, though I have zero interest in ever seeing Avatar, and don't think it approaches Star Wars or Indy in terms of popularity.

Avatar land? Makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't see it being nearly the draw that something like Potter could be.

IF I go to AK on my trips it's safari, maybe Everest, and out. Avatar won't change that for me.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

danna

 

[chrissyw14]

when i first heard about this i was confused and i wasn't very happy because i didn't like avatar, but DAK really needs more attractions and i think disney will do an amazing job with this so i am going to welcome this and just try to look at it positively

and people have said there are a lot of similarities between avatar and pocahontas so there is some sort of a connection at least haha

 

[acishere]

Well Disney made Pocahantas and they are both pretty much the same movie. :shrug:

 

[yensid67]

When they first announced "Avatar Land", the fact that Avatar isn't even a Disney movie is the first thing I thought. It does bother me. It seems out of character for a Disney park.

Since Tomorrowland needs a major Refurb, maybe build Avatar in its place!? Now how more futuristic can you get with those creatures and lands?

Surely I jest, but Avatar seems more appropriate for a Tomorrowland atmosphere!

 

[MarkTwain]

You're right.

Disney should buy them.

:lookaroun

 

[rob0519]

Yes, it bothers me a lot. I thought the movie was overrated and violent. I think it's a sad statement on Disney Imagineering that they need to go outside to develop a park based on someone else's special effects.

That said, none of us had input into the decision. We'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.

 

[sbkline]

It bothers me a little, but not much. It's an expansion in a park that REALLY needs an expansion, but I really would have preferred Australia, and I think Avatar looks kind of silly.

On the other hand, even though it's not a Disney movie, I still think it fits in with Animal Kingdom in that it fits in with the "imaginary creatures" idea. When Animal Kingdom was built, it was promoted as a place that focused on animals, both past (extinct animals such as dinosauars), present (lions, gorrillas, etc) and mythical. For the mythical part, we all know that Beastly Kingdom is what was planned, but it never happened for various reasons. And I read that many of the designers of BK went on to work for Universal and incorporate their ideas into the lost continent section of Universal. And for that reason, Disney decided that they could never built Beastly Kingdom because, even though it was their idea first, it would appear as a knock off of Universal's Lost Continent. So, since WDW can't do Beastly Kingdom, they picked AvatarLand as their place to showcase mythical creatures. So for that reason, I think it fits.

And as others have mentioned, there are plenty of non Disney franchises featured at DHS: Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Muppets. Sure, I know Disney actually purchased the muppets eventually, but since they were not affiliated with Disney whatsoever for so long (as opposed to Pixar, which was always tied with Disney even before the official acquisition), to me, they are non-Disney even though they are actually owned by Disney now.

 

[Dukeblue1227]

Star Wars
Indiana Jones
The Muppets (up until 2004)
The Twilight Zone
Heck the band Aerosmith has zero to do with Disney.

Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo cares!

 

[sbkline]

Does it bother you that these characters/movies were not created by Disney:

Pinnochio
Snow White
Cinderella
Mary Poppins
Jungle Book
Winnie the Pooh
Swiss Family Robinson
20K Leagues
The Muppets
Alice in Wonderland
Peter Pan
The Little Mermaid
Bambi
Chicken Little
Robin Hood

I think that the difference on most of the above is that even though the story itself existed long before Disney, Disney made his own adaptations of those stories. Those adaptations became so popular that they are as well known and loved, if not more so, than the original, non Disney version of the story. And it is the Disney versions that are featured in the rides and attractions at WDW. On the other hand, Disney neither created Avatar, nor came up with their own adaptation of it. So I would not consider the use of Avatar to be comparable to the use of Cinderella. Not saying that I agree completely with those who are objecting (see my previous post), but I can understand the objections and I don't think you can use these other movies as examples comparable to the use of Avatar.

 

[WDWmazprty]

Nope. Obviously they're working together now, so I consider them to be part of Disney now. Whats the big deal? Avatar made lots of money whether we liked it or not, and Disney sees that. It will make Disney lots of money once its incorporated in AK, whether we like it or not. The majority of people liked the movie, and will pay to see more of it at the worlds #1 vacation destination. In the end, it comes down to the almighty dollar, Disney is taking advantage of this.

 

[Choodles]

No Star Wars, and Indy aren't.

 

[Devin36]

IMHO the reason Star Wars, Indy, etc. work is because they are in a park themed around hollywood & movies. You can't just have Disney movies in the studios.....because then it would be like fantasyland....having big block buster movie/tv attractions at the studios makes complete sense.
It's all subjective opinion at this point. There is a chance this won't even get built, we have no idea what the future could bring.
Personally, I'd rather see completely original additions to animal kingdom that are not based on any IP....kind of like what they did with everest...

 

[puntagordabob]

Not at all....after all Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and such are not Disney either.

I am thinking Positive on the Avatar expansion...... we have not even seen any concept art....no idea what their plans are...nothing.

So give the Imagineers time to work their magic..... IMHO any of you all passing negative judgement at this stage of the game is "assuming" a lot of stuff that is not even known yet.

THINK POSITIVE!