I think the biggest part of the Avatar deal that members here are misunderstanding is that Disney is going after Pandora, not the Avatar storyline. They're trying to recreate the planet's landscape (environment) and showcase its plant and animal wildlife. That screams Animal Kingdom. At this point, Disney doesn't even know what the land is going to contain, but my own guess is that the attractions within the land aren't going to be dependent on the Avatar story but instead will simply incorporate the elements of Pandora that 'wowed' millions of people. I don't think we're going to see attractions of the military fighting off the Avatars or destroying the mother tree. Instead, I think we'll see attractions and experiences that deal with "interacting" with the creatures in some form in their natural exotic environment. Under these circumstances, if the Avatar sequels are successful, Disney can strongly market the Avatar land as a connection to the movies; however, should they not have staying power, all they need to do is market the land as a guest experience with exotic creatures from a new world. Having seen the movies, Pandora and the creatures would be recognizable, but I don't think this is the case where one would have to have seen the movies to enjoy the land. If Avatar had never been made and a new land focusing on an environment similar to Pandora was proposed, would everyone still be this negative toward the idea?
