I do think that with many intellectual properties there are appropriate ways to tie them to a park. In some cases it's because the park lacks cohesion, but that's not the case in the Animal Kingdom. They way that I look at intellectual property fits outside of logical areas is "does this work if the IP didn't exist". Pandora absolutely does. They used the movie as inspiration, but there's very little in the land lifted directly from the movies.
Hypothetically if Avatar didn't exist and Disney announced a partnership with James Cameron to create an alien land full of mythical flora, fauna and humanoid creatures at the very least we would be intrigued. That's exactly what they did. They didn't focus on Jake Sully or the conflict with the humans or Nayteri (spelling?) because the bond people had with Avatar wasn't with the characters.
Avatar is a movie that lends itself to a dimensional environment. Even though it was the highest grossing domestic film of all time, it's possible that a theme park land was a better medium for the concept.
I feel the same way about Tron. I thought Tron: Legacy was outright bad, but it absolutely lends itself to a cool experience/environment. On the contrary, Toy Story probably doesn't. Of those three movies/franchises, Toy Story is far and away my favorite.
If the alternative for the Animal Kingdom was a direct lift of Mysterious Island (As was the plan 8ish years ago), I think it would have been a worse thematic fit than Pandora.
