For a land most originally said they weren't interested in ................

[FigmentJedi]

Just think it fits better. BK was based on the mythical. Pandora is supposed to be real. Just as the Yeti may possibly be real. Or the safari is real. BK was basically fantasyland.

But from day one the idea was that that park was the domains of the real, the extinct and the ones that never existed. Animal Kingdom's adherence to real believable environments is not one that runs in opposition to using mythological creatures.

Plus if anything, a realm of European fantasy creatures could have easily dipped into the park's underlying themes. The decline of magic in the face of growing human civilization's been a recurring theme in contemporary fantasy fiction for some time and with so much of unicorn lore being focused around their rarity and how much they were being hunted for their magical horns with no regards for the consequences, you can absolutely have a fantastical allegory for current conservation issues.

 

[Incomudro]

But from day one the idea was that that park was the domains of the real, the extinct and the ones that never existed. Animal Kingdom's adherence to real believable environments is not one that runs in opposition to using mythological creatures.

Plus if anything, a realm of European fantasy creatures could have easily dipped into the park's underlying themes. The decline of magic in the face of growing human civilization's been a recurring theme in contemporary fantasy fiction for some time and with so much of unicorn lore being focused around their rarity and how much they were being hunted for their magical horns with no regards for the consequences, you can absolutely have a fantastical allegory for current conservation issues.

You're not honestly trying to say that unicorns would have gone over better than Pandora in AK in the year 2017, are you?

 

[FigmentJedi]

You're not honestly trying to say that unicorns would have gone over better than Pandora in AK in the year 2017, are you?

Real dragons>>>Space pterodactyls any year.

I just honed in on the Unicorn maze from those initial plans because if any BK attraction was gonna actively preach and thus "fit" the Joe video's criteria, it'd probably be that one.

 

[Incomudro]

Real dragons>>>Space pterodactyls any year.

I just honed in on the Unicorn maze from those initial plans because if any BK attraction was gonna actively preach, it'd probably be that one.

"Real" dragons?
Only if you can bring back Ronnie James Dio to fight them.

 

[mergatroid]

I know a land based on a franchise that incorporates both unicorns and dragons. It also has wands and robes though...

Unfortunately had it not been already taken then it wouldn't pass the 'first movie didn't sell enough tickets in America test' that deems theme park lands a success or not to many on here

 

[L.C. Clench]

BTW Joe has always talked about DAK as a first person park (the adventure is yours). This is why you dont see dark rides about disney movies in the parks like you do at MK
this goes well before the avatar project

They even made a backstory for Dinoland so that's really not true.

 

[twebber55]

They even made a backstory for Dinoland so that's really not true.

actually it is
many times Joe has spoken about this very thing, it being a first person park

 

[L.C. Clench]

actually it is
many times Joe has spoken about this very thing, it being a first person park

So no story except for all of the other areas that have stories. There is a difference between you are part of the story and you make up the story.

 

[twebber55]

So no story except for all of the other areas that have stories. There is a difference between you are part of the story and you make up the story.

if thats what you want to believe im good

 

[DDLand]

So no story except for all of the other areas that have stories. There is a difference between you are part of the story and you make up the story.

You're misunderstanding.

In movies and some theme park attractions you're watching a story unfold. A perfect example of this is Undersea Adventure. You watch the protagonist express her desires, put herself in danger, and risk everything for what she wants. You yourself are safely in the clam shell watching the story unfold. You sit passively and take in her story. Just like if you were watching a film.

At Animal Kingdom (and many other attractions too) the approach is eliminated and the protagonist is recast as you. Instead of watching someone else face the Yeti and speed away on a runaway train, you're the one in fear for your life. Instead of watching some random individual go on a Safari, you're actually riding through the African Savannah. Instead of watching a bunch of terrified individuals running away from Dinosaurs, you're the one being terrified.

That's the idea. There's still a story, but you're the one who makes it all real. This same approach is used on (for example) Tower of Terrors. You yourself are the one who have entered a terribly freaky hotel and are now entering the 5th dimension or meeting an enchanted idol. It can be considerably more effective as a plot tool, but it's not the only approach. Look towards Sinbad as an example of a more passive approach working very well.

One of Animal Kingdom's core values is the idea that we should be changed through adventure. To accomplish that it takes you feeling things. Fear, excitement, awe.

That's what Joe means when he talks about creating your own story. They create the environment, but it's your reaction and feelings that fully flesh out the attraction.

I feel strongly the original intent of BK would have been a more effective framework for adventure, but I also feel strongly that Avatar should create some unique and exciting moments too. I don't think if you're looking for it, you'll be disappointed by a lack of story.

That's simply not an issue.

 

[twebber55]

You're misunderstanding.

In movies and some theme park attractions you're watching a story unfold. A perfect example of this is Undersea Adventure. You watch the protagonist express her desires, put herself in danger, and risk everything for what she wants. You yourself are safely in the clam shell watching the story unfold. You sit passively and take in her story. Just like if you were watching a film.

At Animal Kingdom (and many other attractions too) the approach is eliminated and the protagonist is recast as you. Instead of watching someone else face the Yeti and speed away on a runaway train, you're the one in fear for your life. Instead of watching some random individual go on a Safari, you're actually riding through the African Savannah. Instead of watching a bunch of terrified individuals running away from Dinosaurs, you're the one being terrified.

That's the idea. There's still a story, but you're the one who makes it all real. This same approach is used on (for example) Tower of Terrors. You yourself are the one who have entered a terribly freaky hotel and are now entering the 5th dimension or meeting an enchanted idol. It can be considerably more effective as a plot tool, but it's not the only approach. Look towards Sinbad as an example of a more passive approach working very well.

One of Animal Kingdom's core values is the idea that we should be changed through adventure. To accomplish that it takes you feeling things. Fear, excitement, awe.

That's what Joe means when he talks about creating your own story. They create the environment, but it's your reaction and feelings that fully flesh out the attraction.

I feel strongly the original intent of BK would have been a more effective framework for adventure, but I also feel strongly that Avatar should create some unique and exciting moments too. I don't think if you're looking for it, you'll be disappointed by a lack of story.

That's simply not an issue.

Once again aces

 

[L.C. Clench]

You're misunderstanding.

In movies and some theme park attractions you're watching a story unfold. A perfect example of this is Undersea Adventure. You watch the protagonist express her desires, put herself in danger, and risk everything for what she wants. You yourself are safely in the clam shell watching the story unfold. You sit passively and take in her story. Just like if you were watching a film.

At Animal Kingdom (and many other attractions too) the approach is eliminated and the protagonist is recast as you. Instead of watching someone else face the Yeti and speed away on a runaway train, you're the one in fear for your life. Instead of watching some random individual go on a Safari, you're actually riding through the African Savannah. Instead of watching a bunch of terrified individuals running away from Dinosaurs, you're the one being terrified.

That's the idea. There's still a story, but you're the one who makes it all real. This same approach is used on (for example) Tower of Terrors. You yourself are the one who have entered a terribly freaky hotel and are now entering the 5th dimension or meeting an enchanted idol. It can be considerably more effective as a plot tool, but it's not the only approach. Look towards Sinbad as an example of a more passive approach working very well.

One of Animal Kingdom's core values is the idea that we should be changed through adventure. To accomplish that it takes you feeling things. Fear, excitement, awe.

That's what Joe means when he talks about creating your own story. They create the environment, but it's your reaction and feelings that fully flesh out the attraction.

I feel strongly the original intent of BK would have been a more effective framework for adventure, but I also feel strongly that Avatar should create some unique and exciting moments too. I don't think if you're looking for it, you'll be disappointed by a lack of story.

That's simply not an issue.

I agree that AK makes you the star of the story in most of the attractions but it doesn't end there. In Harambe we are surrounded with details of poachers in the area. It's on the wall posters and was the central theme of the safari ride. Yes you are part of the story but it's told for you. Same in Dinoland where it was a dig site where an eccentric group of paleontologist expanded a restaurant and opened a quirky roadside park. Regardless of your thoughts of that area at least there was a story built to explain why it was there. So yes you are the protagonist but they still wrote the story.

 

[DisneyJayL]

It certainly seems to have gained a lot of attention.

"I'm not interested in the movie so it shouldn't get a land"
"The film was rubbish, who'll want to see this"
"Nobody I know liked the film, crazy idea"
"Disney will mess it up, they always do"
"Yawn"
"Desperate to fight Universal and Potter, no chance of competing"

Were the type of things said by many when this land was announced on here (fair enough, it's all about opinions). Now there appears to be so much hope and anticipation for it which is strange after the initial claim the film wasn't good enough to interest people to visit a theme park.

So has anyone changed their mind since it was announced, or have the naysayers just stopped posting and the 'pixie dusters' taken over the sub forum. Go on, be honest?

We knew they were full of it.

 

[doctornick]

I agree that AK makes you the star of the story in most of the attractions but it doesn't end there. In Harambe we are surrounded with details of poachers in the area. It's on the wall posters and was the central theme of the safari ride. Yes you are part of the story but it's told for you. Same in Dinoland where it was a dig site where an eccentric group of paleontologist expanded a restaurant and opened a quirky roadside park. Regardless of your thoughts of that area at least there was a story built to explain why it was there. So yes you are the protagonist but they still wrote the story.

Yeah, if only they'd come up with some story about an intergalactic tourist company that could explain how and why a person is on Pandora.

 

[L.C. Clench]

Yeah, if only they'd come up with some story about an intergalactic tourist company that could explain how and why a person is on Pandora.

Do you honestly put that on the same level? Just replace ACE with XS Tech and you've got Alien Encounter. That's a preshow ride story.

 

[mergatroid]

Looks pretty good

 

[Tiki Queen of Outer Space]

It looks cool but it's basically going to be what Frozen and Soarin' are to Epcot...

Also:

 

[mergatroid]

It looks cool but it's basically going to be what Frozen and Soarin' are to Epcot...

Also:

What's that, attractions in a theme park you mean?

 

[MisterPenguin]

It looks cool but it's basically going to be what Frozen and Soarin' are to Epcot...

Also:

"What is this?!"

I would say it's the thing you're going to use to say how awful this ride is.

 

[brb1006]

It looks cool but it's basically going to be what Frozen and Soarin' are to Epcot...

Also:

At least that ride has more stuff going on.