Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks (Part II)

[Eddie Sotto]

If I were Joe, I would be applying to Universal right now since Disney does not seem to care about my vision for the park that is basically my baby.

I bet Joe likes the idea. It's a big budget and something to do. It beats having nothing new to build and he will get to hang out with Cameron alot. It's not like he has to tear out everything he's done, like at DCA. You make it an island or something that does not pollute the rest of the place and grow the trees tall. The thing I'd hate is if they gave the project to someone else and you just watch it go in. That hurts and would send me to Universal.

 

[jt04]

I bet Joe likes the idea. It's a big budget and something to do. It beats having nothing new to build and he will get to hang out with Cameron alot. It's not like he has to tear out everything he's done, like at DCA. You make it an island or something that does not pollute the rest of the place and grow the trees tall. The thing I'd hate is if they gave the project to someone else and you just watch it go in. That hurts and would send me to Universal.

I just think he is a great choice for the project because the underlying message of conservation is something that is so importatant to him as it is with James Cameron. I think they would make an excellent team. And I am of the opinion that it compliments everything else at DAK. I mean it seems much more fitting than Beastly Kingdom ever was which always looked more 'Magic Kingdom' than 'Animal Kingdom' in my opinion.

 

[HMF]

I bet Joe likes the idea. It's a big budget and something to do. It beats having nothing new to build and he will get to hang out with Cameron alot. It's not like he has to tear out what he's done, that hurts. You make it an island opt something that does not pollute the rest of the place and grow the trees tall. the thing I'd hate is if they give the show to someone else and he just watches it go in.

I don't know, I have a bad feeling about this. I deeply care about thematic integrity and I fear that it will hurt Animal Kingdom thematically to have an entire land based on a CG re-hash of dances with wolves with only a very limited if any connection to the Animal Kingdom. (no, fictional animals from a different planet don't count.) It also seems as if Disney's excuse for it's placement in Animal Kingdom is completely contrived and seems an obvious attempt to "force" Avatar into Animal Kingdom.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I don't know, I have a bad feeling about this. I deeply care about thematic integrity and I fear that it will hurt Animal Kingdom thematically to have an entire land based on a CG re-hash of dances with wolves with only a very limited if any connection to the Animal Kingdom. (no, fictional animals from a different planet don't count.) It also seems as if Disney's excuse for it's placement in Animal Kingdom is completely contrived and seems an obvious attempt to "force" Avatar into Animal Kingdom.

I neglected to add your Avatar views in my other post. Do you think that Mysterious Island would have been a better fit? My original hope was that they just went entirely with different continents and they used Europe as the land for mythical animals.

As for Pandora, I look at it as a destination that we can visit, much in the same way Africa or Asia is a destination. The conservation message does still hold true even if it's on a different planet. As for the creatures - I would also prefer mythical creatures based in mythology but I really feel that the ship on that sailed when Disney passed on the original Beastly Kingdomme concepts and allowed for a cheaper version to take up residence in the Lost Continent. Add in Harry Potter and so many of the well known mythical animals have been eliminated.

I fully anticipate walking into a land that's better themed than Africa and Asia already are. Depending on the location, the biggest issue could be the walk to get there and the transition into this land/world. I don't doubt that this can be something great, and as often is the case if the actual product is excellent, the thematic fit becomes less important.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

As for Pandora, I look at it as a destination that we can visit, much in the same way Africa or Asia is a destination. The conservation message does still hold true even if it's on a different planet. As for the creatures - I would also prefer mythical creatures based in mythology but I really feel that the ship on that sailed when Disney passed on the original Beastly Kingdomme concepts and allowed for a cheaper version to take up residence in the Lost Continent. Add in Harry Potter and so many of the well known mythical animals have been eliminated.

I fully anticipate walking into a land that's better themed than Africa and Asia already are. Depending on the location, the biggest issue could be the walk to get there and the transition into this land/world. I don't doubt that this can be something great, and as often is the case if the actual product is excellent, the thematic fit becomes less important.

This is probably the way they are looking at it.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I don't know, I have a bad feeling about this. I deeply care about thematic integrity and I fear that it will hurt Animal Kingdom thematically to have an entire land based on a CG re-hash of dances with wolves with only a very limited if any connection to the Animal Kingdom. (no, fictional animals from a different planet don't count.) It also seems as if Disney's excuse for it's placement in Animal Kingdom is completely contrived and seems an obvious attempt to "force" Avatar into Animal Kingdom.

You sound like a Star Wars fan who just saw Jar Jar Binks for the first time. It just kind of blows out your logic and ability to believe in the story. You make good points. I would be dishonest if I said it felt perfectly natural in that park, because it doesn't. However I'm sure the Matterhorn from Switzerland being next to a Nuke Sub ride laced with a Monorail didn't either. There is probably a way to execute it in a way and at a subtlety that will make it feel organic to the park, but in general DAK is not where I would expect to find this material. If the land is isolated and you cannot see it from the other lands, then you are probably ok. It's all in the execution. Be glad it's not "Happy Feet" Arctic water world they announced.

 

[ChrisFL]

I don't know, I have a bad feeling about this. I deeply care about thematic integrity and I fear that it will hurt Animal Kingdom thematically to have an entire land based on a CG re-hash of dances with wolves with only a very limited if any connection to the Animal Kingdom.

Its funny how everyone compares Avatar to all of these different movies (Dances with Wolves, Little Big Man, Pocahontas, Ferngully)...if it's the same as so many other ones, why did all of those other ones not get the same complaints?

Sorry to slightly derail the topic, but its just getting old.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Its funny how everyone compares Avatar to all of these different movies (Dances with Wolves, Little Big Man, Pocahontas, Ferngully)...if it's the same as so many other ones, why did all of those other ones not get the same complaints?

Sorry to slightly derail the topic, but its just getting old.

You forgot "The Air Up There". Don't worry though, so did everyone else.

 

[docandsix]

Be glad it's not "Happy Feet" Arctic water world they announced.

This might very well have resulted in my never visiting a Disney park of any kind again for the rest of my life and making boycotting Disney for eternity a requirement for any of my children hoping to share in my estate.

I've been arguing all along that indifference to the source material mattered very little regarding one's enjoyment of the resulting theme park attraction, but now I have a new perspective.

(P.S. Please tell me that idea was not ever really, actually, even vaguely bandied about as a remotely possible concept of the beginnings of a kernel of an idea that could one day have even the unlikeliest fraction of a chance of showing up in a Disney park.)

 

[Eddie Sotto]

This might very well have resulted in my never visiting a Disney park of any kind again for the rest of my life and making boycotting Disney for eternity a requirement for any of my children hoping to share in my estate.

I've been arguing all along that indifference to the source material mattered very little regarding one's enjoyment of the resulting theme park attraction, but now I have a new perspective.

(P.S. Please tell me that idea was not ever really, actually, even vaguely bandied about as a remotely possible concept of the beginnings of a kernel of an idea that could one day have even the unlikeliest fraction of a chance of showing up in a Disney park.)

Sorry...There was a rumor some time ago about Disney buying the rights to use "Happy Feet" and "Surfs Up" characters to rebrand Blizzard Beach and Typhoon Lagoon. Adding only the characters was not big enough an idea for Warner Bros, so the ante was upped to develop a big Broadway style Ice Show ("Mumble and Mickey on Ice") in a Glacier type theater with a huge North Pole ride as an icon (relocated Maliboomer from DCA) replacing the Tree of Life. That was a legal conflict with the Ice Show people who travel the "Disney on Ice" stuff, so that fell through. The last round was a "Dancing with the Stars" type live show involving kids, "Mumbling with the Stars" in DAK where "Lion King Live" is. If that does not go, it's into the Norway ride with the Trolls.


BTW- As it says on Lafitte's Anchor, "Don't believe everything you read"

 

[HMF]

You sound like a Star Wars fan who just saw Jar Jar Binks for the first time. .

Funnily enough I am a Star Wars fan who does not mind Jar Jar but that's not relevant. LOL! Another problem with the Avatar thing is that it can be creatively stifling to have an entire land based on one movie or franchise because you have to regulate all the elements to that movie. When Walt built Disneyland he built the lands into categories such as "Adventure" and "Fantasy" so he could thematically fit films or original ideas into one of the lands. Epcot was one complete thought. Animal Kingdom has an overriding theme about animals and having an entire land dedicated to a unrelated (or loosely related) film franchise seems to interfere with. I believe that given the opportunity Joe and co. could do amazing things with all the money they are throwing into this Avatar thing. let alone the fact that other parks need more help than Animal Kingdom. Up through now Animal Kingdom has been the most thematically consistent park of the Disney Parks with the possible exception of Disney Sea.

 

[devoy1701]

You sound like a Star Wars fan who just saw Jar Jar Binks for the first time. It just kind of blows out your logic and ability to believe in the story. You make good points. I would be dishonest if I said it felt perfectly natural in that park, because it doesn't. However I'm sure the Matterhorn from Switzerland being next to a Nuke Sub ride laced with a Monorail didn't either. There is probably a way to execute it in a way and at a subtlety that will make it feel organic to the park, but in general DAK is not where I would expect to find this material. If the land is isolated and you cannot see it from the other lands, then you are probably ok. It's all in the execution. Be glad it's not "Happy Feet" Arctic water world they announced.

As always, I appreciate your insight Eddie. I think this is going to be a great fit for Animal Kingdom but am still wondering about what exactly they're going to focus on from the story of Avatar when creating this land. Aside from the lush landscape and mythical Pandora creatures, the only other thing that they currently have to play on is the extremely heavy military presence on the planet. I assume we will see some of that in the Pandora land, but I can't see it being the underlying theme for a new land in Animal Kingdom. Perhaps they're going to be pulling in quite a bit from the next 2 movies?

Anyway. You make a very good point for all of those who are arguing that Pandora and Avatar don't fit in the cohesive theming of Animal Kingdom by looking at some other examples of existing attractions and lands that don't necessary mix together well but the execution usually results in a very organic feel to the different environments and settings within the parks.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Ignoring the theme

Speaking of having little story to build on, Carsland is amazingly thin.

It's a mega setting for a road race. A one note Opera but it works. "Ornament Valley" is the same red rock work we've seen at Big Thunder Mountain, only the iconic references are different. The only "story" lies in the personalities of the characters. The area will be very immersive and like being in the film. That is it's power. If you never saw the film, the setting will still transport you. The show scenes in the ride will tell some of the story, but basically the environment is less unique than Pandora, but because it's true to the film will still work.

Cars and Cars2 both survived lukewarm to bad reviews by making fortunes and like Avatar, are very derivative of other movies. IMO the theme of Carsland completely ignores "California", "Walt's coming to California in the 20's" etc., which is DCA's self proclaimed overarching theme. They claim it's "Californian" because it relates to "Car Culture". Yeah right. It's basically NASCAR which is big in the South. TSMM has nothing to do with "California" either, but it's kinda Disney and it's fun so we give Pixar a pass, in fact, everyone is dying to see Carsland even if it does not fit the big idea. In comparison, I'd venture to say Avatar is almost more closely related thematically (or at least a similar stretch) to DAK than Cars fantasy Utah is to DCA.

I think one issue that may be driving this is that Cameron's films, like Ridley Scott, tonally are just not "Disney". They are emotional but lack the sentimental feel that you usually find in Pixar or Disney product. Cameron feels more Universal to me and that's one reason that it may be harder to sense a good fit.

Just something to consider.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Funnily enough I am a Star Wars fan who does not mind Jar Jar but that's not relevant. LOL! Another problem with the Avatar thing is that it can be creatively stifling to have an entire land based on one movie or franchise because you have to regulate all the elements to that movie. When Walt built Disneyland he built the lands into categories such as "Adventure" and "Fantasy" so he could thematically fit films or original ideas into one of the lands. Epcot was one complete thought. Animal Kingdom has an overriding theme about animals and having an entire land dedicated to a unrelated (or loosely related) film franchise seems to interfere with. I believe that given the opportunity Joe and co. could do amazing things with all the money they are throwing into this Avatar thing. let alone the fact that other parks need more help than Animal Kingdom. Up through now Animal Kingdom has been the most thematically consistent park of the Disney Parks with the possible exception of Disney Sea.

Thematically the Animal Kingdom is an incredibly strong park, but I feel that this is because the lands transition fairly well off of Discovery Island. Given how dense the foliage is at the Animal Kingdom I don't think the transition into Pandora will be too far fetched, nor do I think it will disrupt the amazing theming of this park.

Quite frankly, there wasn't an obvious choice for the next land for this park. The biggest requirement was that the land could immerse you in an environment and that the land contained attractions that would significantly add to the ride lineup for the park. This is why I feel that Australia or South America wouldn't have been the best choice for the next land in the park. That's not to say that they can't come down the road, but the biggest complaint people have with the park is an indifference towards the animal based attractions. Adding another real continent would more than likely extend that.

As for whether or not Animal Kingdom was the park that needed the attention next - between that and DHS it's debatable. I fully expect that if Carsland is a success in DCA that they've already budgeted that as the follow up to Pandora.

Speaking of having little story to build on, Carsland is amazingly thin.

It's a mega setting for a road race. A one note Opera but it works. "Ornament Valley" is the same red rock work we've seen at Big Thunder Mountain, only the iconic references are different. The only "story" lies in the personalities of the characters. The area will be very immersive and like being in the film. That is it's power. If you never saw the film, the setting will still transport you. The show scenes in the ride will tell some of the story, but basically the environment is less unique than Pandora, but because it's true to the film will still work.

Cars and Cars2 both survived lukewarm to bad reviews by making fortunes and like Avatar, are very derivative of other movies. IMO the theme of Carsland completely ignores "California", "Walt's coming to California in the 20's" etc., which is DCA's self proclaimed overarching theme. They claim it's "Californian" because it relates to "Car Culture". Yeah right. It's basically NASCAR which is big in the South. TSMM has nothing to do with "California" either, but it's kinda Disney and it's fun so we give Pixar a pass, in fact, everyone is dying to see Carsland even if it does not fit the big idea. In comparison, I'd venture to say Avatar is almost more closely related thematically (or at least a similar stretch) to DAK than Cars fantasy Utah is to DCA.

I think one issue that may be driving this is that Cameron's films, like Ridley Scott, tonally are just not "Disney". They are emotional but lack the sentimental feel that you usually find in Pixar or Disney product. Cameron feels more Universal to me and that's one reason that it may be harder to sense a good fit.

Just something to consider.

The original concept of Carsland was Carland - referencing the "car culture" of the 50s and 60s in California. The Cadillac mountain range features different tailfins from Cadillacs in sequential order. Having said that, the reason why it works as a land is that Pixar created an entirely new world and visiting Carsland will allow guests to visit that land. This is the same reason that The Wizarding World of Harry Potter works as a land, and why I'm optimistic that Pandora will work as well.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

The original concept of Carsland was Carland - referencing the "car culture" of the 50s and 60s in California. The Cadillac mountain range features different tailfins from Cadillacs in sequential order.

Understood, my only beef was that the setting is not California inspired at all. If it looked like Malibu that would be different (but needs fire effects and landslides). Avatar is tangental too. Don't get me wrong, Carsland is fine, I'm only pointing out how it diverges from the overall theme but is being warmly received because the movie is well liked and it's well done.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Understood, my only beef was that the setting is not California inspired at all. If it looked like Malibu that would be different (but needs fire effects and landslides). Avatar is tangental too. Don't get me wrong, Carsland is fine, I'm only pointing out how it diverges from the overall theme but is being warmly received because the movie is well liked and it's well done.

This touches upon an argument that I (and others) have made in the past. If an attraction or land is well done, the focus on how it blends into a cohesive theme becomes less significant. This typically is only highlighted when an attraction or land does not succeed.

 

[HMF]

Speaking of having little story to build on, Carsland is amazingly thin.

It's a mega setting for a road race. A one note Opera but it works. "Ornament Valley" is the same red rock work we've seen at Big Thunder Mountain, only the iconic references are different. The only "story" lies in the personalities of the characters. The area will be very immersive and like being in the film. That is it's power. If you never saw the film, the setting will still transport you. The show scenes in the ride will tell some of the story, but basically the environment is less unique than Pandora, but because it's true to the film will still work.

Cars and Cars2 both survived lukewarm to bad reviews by making fortunes and like Avatar, are very derivative of other movies. IMO the theme of Carsland completely ignores "California", "Walt's coming to California in the 20's" etc., which is DCA's self proclaimed overarching theme. They claim it's "Californian" because it relates to "Car Culture". Yeah right. It's basically NASCAR which is big in the South. TSMM has nothing to do with "California" either, but it's kinda Disney and it's fun so we give Pixar a pass, in fact, everyone is dying to see Carsland even if it does not fit the big idea. In comparison, I'd venture to say Avatar is almost more closely related thematically (or at least a similar stretch) to DAK than Cars fantasy Utah is to DCA.

I think one issue that may be driving this is that Cameron's films, like Ridley Scott, tonally are just not "Disney". They are emotional but lack the sentimental feel that you usually find in Pixar or Disney product. Cameron feels more Universal to me and that's one reason that it may be harder to sense a good fit.

Just something to consider.

In the case of Carsland while i am not particularly fond of the name I am going to let it slide since DCA (like Disneyland) does not really have an overriding theme anymore since the attempted California theme obviously failed spectacularly. In other words DCA needed as much help as possible. I think that may also be a reason they dropped the 's out of Disney California Adventure. On an related note as mentioned in Al Lutz's article today that Cast Members were actually encouraged to promote the park as "Hip and Edgy" and "More real" than Disneyland back in 2001 is absolutely astonishing.

 

[ob1thx1138]

Avatar is tangental too. Don't get me wrong, Carsland is fine, I'm only pointing out how it diverges from the overall theme but is being warmly received because the movie is well liked and it's well done.

Yes but you have to remember that we will not let the facts get in the way of a good argument. lol



I really think the majority of this land will be a Pandoran version of Harambe village. A Settlement that has been constructed on Pandora for the express purpose of catering to tourists. That is the only way you can thematically fit merchandise shops, restaurants, and bathrooms into Pandora. Also this will help to tie the new land into animal kingdom. You could even include a Pandoran Conservation station. One of the Attractions could be a Pandoran safari.
This land could further the message of conservation and living with a minimal impact on the land.

 

[jt04]

Understood, my only beef was that the setting is not California inspired at all. If it looked like Malibu that would be different (but needs fire effects and landslides). Avatar is tangental too. Don't get me wrong, Carsland is fine, I'm only pointing out how it diverges from the overall theme but is being warmly received because the movie is well liked and it's well done.

It seems to me as though there is a Route 66 backstory here which ties in quite well with California history especially as part of the 1920 and 1930 timeframe. Obviously Casrland 'exists' as part of a more modern time but I'm guessing there will be strong elements reflecting the history of Route 66 within Carsland. Many midwesterners mirrored Walt's move to California by traveling Route 66. I see other ties between Walt and Carsland but perhaps those are unintentional. Time will tell.

 

[KevinYee]

I'd be happy with one giant indoor, airconditioned, nighttime, glowing Pandoran forest. Sure, tuck in the shops and restaurants near the front (and maybe again at the middle), but otherwise just let it be exploring, much like the Tree of Life trails. Except in air conditioning. With amazing visual effects.

Rides? I probably wouldn't care if there were no rides at all. The Pandora forest is the star, IMHO.