Say.... What if Avatarland got cancelled?

[unkadug]

this says there are 34 pages but it wont let me go past 31.

weird.

A lot of posts were deleted due to a banned member's posts all being removed. :wave:

 

[yoda_5729]

I've stated before I never really liked the idea of Avatarland. That being said I do see potential in a theme park setting, but just not at Animal Kingdom. The franchise is not deserving enough to merit an entire land for it's fictional animals, animals 98% of all people can't even name.

If they want to do fantastical characters, do the legendary ones of dragons, loch ness monster, centaurs, sphinx, minotaur, hydra, etc. Those are names that respond to people. Na'vi doesn't carry much weight to it at all, and that not really counting them as animals as more view the Na'vi as alien then animal. Na'vi aren't even in the top five aliens in pop culture.

Is the idea of conservation prevalent in Avatar, yes but there are dozens upon dozens that's true of. Wall-E, Pocahontas, Fern Gulley, etc. One could argue though it's a stretch that even Transformers and Superman are about protecting the planet, since those aliens home world were destroyed. Avatar is a stretch in terms of Animal Kingdom in my opinion. Could it be done, I suppose so, but it fits better in Hollywood Studios or Magic Kingdom even. Avatar the movie doesn't take place on earth nor does it have any connection with Earth for the most part besides we are there. It's about aliens protecting their alien world. If that's what Animal Kingdom is about then there are hundreds upon hundreds of movies that are fine in Animal Kingdom under that criteria.

I said earlier it would be like placing the Chrysler Building in Yosemite National Park. I do honestly believe this as both are beautiful, in the settings they are in, but they don't fit together in my opinion. Does Avatar have some great visuals, and great surrounding environment, yes it does. But other movies and literary stories do as well. Star Wars, the Greek Myths, Atlantis, Shangri-La, any of those places I'd put above Pandora in terms of history. I'm not saying Star Wars belongs, but it too is alien, it too has environments of note, and it is a bigger franchise. Remember neither Star Wars or Indiana Jones have their own lands in Hollywood Studios, when both those franchises are bigger and more significant then Avatar. Again it's just my opinion and I'm positive others don't agree with me, but I felt I should say it so at least it's known. I think some people are so hungry for attractions they'll agree to anything just so they can see what happens. Again I have no problem with a ride in Magic Kingdom's Tomorrowland or Hollywood Studios. Animal Kingdom has a strong connection to the Earth, and Avatar doesn't.

Remember the logos for Animal Kingdom are the Tree of Life, which has nothing remotely close to avatar, and the logo itself which has a dragon but no Na'vi. Are we going to delete the Dragon for a Na'Vi alien? Remember if Avatar goes through we still don't have anything representing dragons in the legendary sense besides the pseudo-dragons in Avatar. What about the tree from Avatar, the single most memorable structure from the movie. I would assume Disney should build it, but why have two trees? Especially two trees that are that impactful. Which would be bigger? Would both make sense there?

Sorry, I probably blabbed on. I don't hate Avatar, and I think it would be cool to see what Disney does with it, but not at Animal Kingdom. The dinosaurs and legendary animals should be kept under a stern leash as far as I'm concerned as either topic could be a park themselves. Though it's cool seeing animatronics, that's not the same as seeing actual life. And understanding the reality of the plights of animals, and how those solutions for cheetahs and tigers can't always be solved through violent fighting. The animals are the most major thing. I think the others should be represented, but not to a degree they minimize the other. If you want fast cool rollercoasters go to Hollywood Studios. None of the parks should have to forfeit their identities just so that some people are satisfied. That's what makes WDW cool is that it has things for everyone. If one place is of little interest, there are others you'll like. Animal Kingdom doesn't have a nighttime show. Why is because fireworks might scare the animals, but since all Disney parks "should" have fireworks, I guess the only logical thing is to ditch the animals? Or do something not involving explosions and loud noises. That's what I mean. There are places for great thrill rides, and Everest was handled beautifully in keeping in part with Animal Kingdom. The Na'vi have no visible effect on Earth. There aren't legendary tales of the Na'vi like there is with Yetis. And their is no culture on Earth that is part of the legend, like China is with the Yeti or dragons, or Greece is to minotaurs or the Sphinx is to Egypt.
Their just aliens.

Hopefully I didn't come off stating my opinions as facts as I didn't want to do that. They are just my opinions, opinions that can be wrong. Just like everyone else I can be wrong and can be in the minority, but I still believe in what I posted here. I don't mean to put anyone else down, I just wanted to state my case.

 

[wickedfan07]

I think there is a way to recycle a lot of what should have been Beastly Kingdom while dealing with the synergistic branding every new attraction since the Nemo overlay at the Seas has had to deal with (The Seas with NEMO, TOY STORY Midway Mania, AMERICAN IDOL Experience, CARS Land, etc.) That way, Disney gets their branding and movie tie-ins and we get our proper mythological creatures area.

BK should have included a ride dealing with dragons. Why not an E-ticket ride (probably some sort of thrill ride) based on Malificent? Yes, we have Fantasmic promintly featuring her, but she's not in her own ride. It's a different sort of mythology, a disney-slanted one, but at least we still have the dragon and the basic idea.

BK should have also included a Fantasia attraction, which could easily be figured into a mythological section that wasn't Avatar-based.

I've thought that AK should extend the idea of having continents as themed areas (in Africa and Asia) and include each continent in future expansions. The mythological section coul be considered Europe, since a lot of the mythology involved (and certainmly most of the classic fairy tales disney's adapted) come from Europe. Throw in some real animals that look like f\or inpirsed fantasy creatures and you have yourselves an expansion. And then all we need are North and South America, Australia and maybe even antarctica if they want to be really ambitious.

In shortm disney does not need to rely on n outside property for its mythology. I've never seen Avatar, so I'm in no position to judge how well it would fit in AK or how easily it could be adapted to a theme park environment. I do know, howver, that I would like to see Disney design and build a theme park attraction in this decade that didn't rely on a blockbuster film for its source material. These attractions, like The Haunted Mansion and Expedition Everest (Disci Yeti notwithstanding), wow riders on their own merits and not because it is the extension of a film they've already seen (or could easily see if they chose to). I'm sure avatar gas the potential to be great, but I'd really like to see something with truly origina source material built in AK before Avatar or anything else.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Yeah, but look at the rest of the context. Jim lays it out there like the VP of Communications has squashed this rumor rather than just fed him a company line (which he obviously did).

Fine to say, he spoke to a VP of Communications who denied the rumor. But don't say, "don't believe the rumor, folks" as though that denial is proof of anything.

Yep.
My point exactly. I know who he spoke to. The response he got is exactly what should be expected, factually accurate or not.

Yes, Jim does offer his own commentary, but that's part of how you have to read his articles. Jim has access to excellent information - to deny that is stupid. How Jim chooses to interpret that information is the point that's up for debate. When it's in the form of an article it's a lot harder to dissect then in an actual conversation.

Jim isn't going to change his writing style, but so much of what he writes is based on information he gets from primary sources. These are all sources that have given him factual information in the past. Admittedly, something like "Avatar is still on track" coming from a VP of a Communications is a very easy thing to explain away. That's what I mean by looking at the context. The VP of communications is going to say that the project is moving forward as planned until that status officially changes.

Having said that, Jim has also discussed some of the potential issues on podcasts in the past. My question to him would be is he getting new information from the same source or conflicting information from different sources.

I think that is a pretty good analysis, but I am not so sure on "being used" is the correct term. I think it is more a case of agreeing to be used in exchange for something - possibly access which he did not have in the past, considering that he was once persona non grata in Disneyland.



Well, first of all he did not only pass along information: he commented on it - in the very first sentence of that paragraph you quoted: "Well, I don't believe the rumors, folks."

There he said: I believe what my source says. He did not leave it open for everyone to draw their own conclusions whether a VP of Communications would give an honest answer to the question asked.

And even if he were just putting out the info, I would still wonder about his judgement. Because, as you say, the source of the information is highly questionable. And I would expect someone dealing in information to actually use reliable sources and not ones which I don't trust.

This is an excellent example of Disney trying to play with the bloggers - and him letting them play with him. That's exactly Disney's Social Media "strategy" you see at play here.

If John Carter is any indication, I'd say that Disney's marketing department is less than stellar to be feeding people inaccurate information just to create buzz. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it seems that this type of marketing could be better utilized so they can avoid future embarrassments.

 

[TP2000]

Admittedly, something like "Avatar is still on track" coming from a VP of a Communications is a very easy thing to explain away. That's what I mean by looking at the context. The VP of communications is going to say that the project is moving forward as planned until that status officially changes.

Yeah, anything a "Communications" team in any big company says publicly about a hot rumor has to be taken with a giant rock of salt. The communications group in any big company; Disney, or GM, or Coke, or WalMart, is mainly there to spin the news and/or push the latest sales campaign or buzzy happening.

Having a Disney VP of Communications tell a blogger that the Avatarland cancellation rumor is a "bad story" carries about as much weight as a Coca-Cola VP of Communications going on record with the news that Coke tastes better than Pepsi.

I do appreciate that Mr. Hill had the guts to reach out to a Communications VP and ask him point-blank about this rumor. But that this VP could not be named is a bit shady, and that he didn't offer much info aside from his vague "everything is peachy" un-quotable quote doesn't really strengthen the case that Avatarland is still on track.

 

[NoChesterHester]

If John Carter is any indication, I'd say that Disney's marketing department is less than stellar to be feeding people inaccurate information just to create buzz. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it seems that this type of marketing could be better utilized so they can avoid future embarrassments.

Disney marketing was the envy of the industry not too long ago. They have had more misses as of late then hits (marketing).

 

[Figment571]

To quote Monty Python: "and there was much rejoicing"

 

[FigmentJedi]

BK should have also included a Fantasia attraction, which could easily be figured into a mythological section that wasn't Avatar-based.

Actually, they did plan on a Fantasia ride. Boat ride prominently featuring Pastoral Symphony and Dance of the Hours. Though I'd add stuff from 2000's Firebird Suite and Carnival of the Animals to the mix.

 

[Spike-in-Berlin]

Seems like if Avatar land gets cancelled it's you guys (the fans) who will loose. It's not like Disney is going to use the same kind of funding that they would have thrown at Avatar into something else. So if your thinking "yesss Avatar is cancelled now we get Mysterious Island!!!" you are horribly mistaken.

So if YOU are NO FAN, as you seem to point out by your emphasizing, what are you doing here anyway? Is the Batcave undergoing a refurbishment?

Holy forum-troll, Batman!

 

[lebeau]

The one he gave me? sure.
The blanket statement a few comments above it? not so much....replace the word with whatever you want. The textbook definition is essentially 'difficult to understand / dim-slow witted'. Anyway you slice it, it's an insult. Pick a better word and be prepared to explain yourself.

Listen, I love the back and forth of this subject. I squarely sit on the side that avatar was a mistake better cancelled now than a few years into construction....but I respect the pov that otherside has regarding this.

What I do NOT respect is when someone plasters a group of people with an offensive label in an effort to undercut their position. It's often done in politics and it's just as cowardly.

You're racting very strongly to my "obtuse" comment which makes me think that either 1. I didn't make my point very well 2. You're misreading my intent or 3. Both. I suspect it's a little of both. Please allow me to clarify.

First, I'm not blanketly labeling everyone who isn't a fan of Avatar. There are valid criticisms to be made. It's not a perfect fit. But then again, neither was Expedition Everest. If Disney wants to expand the scope and scale of Animal Kingdom beyond a Disney Zoo, they need to delve into the realm of fantasy. This was their plan all along.

Buying Cameron's fantasy world may not be quite the same as a more traditional world of dragons and unicorns. But it's certainly in the same spirit. And the movie fits the themes of the park. So, yes, if someone just blanketly says "Avatar doesn't fit" they are intentionally being difficult.

While there may be some room for debate over how well Avatar fits in AK, it does fit the theme. Anyone who would argue otherwise is ignoring all of the points which have been made in Avatar threads over and over and over again. I call that "obtuse". If that word offends, pick another one. Stubborn, maybe?

So, sorry I offended. That was not my intent. But yes, I am dismissing the argument that Avatar doesn't fit in DAK because any reasonable person can see that it does. The question isn't "does it fit" but "how well does it fit"?

Hopefully we can agree on that.

 

[twebber55]

agree lebeau

obviously AK is the most logical fit for Avatar over any other of the WDW parks.... but i also understand people not liking it because of the political issues... the movie to me was solid not great but the theming here could be incredible.. what i dont get from people is when they say they would rather have nothing than Avatar..this place is screaming for an addition...im wondering if this outcry isnt more than the 5% of the crazy fan base while the average fan would be like" hey something new to do at disney"

 

[xdan0920]

obviously AK is the most logical fit for Avatar over any other of the WDW parks.... but i also understand people not liking it because of the political issues... the movie to me was solid not great but the theming here could be incredible.. what i dont get from people is when they say they would rather have nothing than Avatar..this place is screaming for an addition...im wondering if this outcry isnt more than the 5% of the crazy fan base while the average fan would be like" hey something new to do at disney"

Well, the thing is, there are no do-overs. If Avatar goes forward, we are stuck with it for decades. It will chew up so many resources that WDW will be devoid of any other additions for 7,8,9,10 years. Is Avatar land really how you want all that time and money spent?

 

[RunnerEd]

Well, the thing is, there are no do-overs. If Avatar goes forward, we are stuck with it for decades. It will chew up so many resources that WDW will be devoid of any other additions for 7,8,9,10 years. Is Avatar land really how you want all that time and money spent?

Of all of the posts on this thread, your sentence that I highlighted is exactly why I really don't want Avatar. Split the money up between the 3 parks that need it most; expand DAK, Pixar Place (a couple of C/D's would do wonders there), and update Future World in Epcot. That seems to be a much more wise use of the money.

 

[lebeau]

Well, the thing is, there are no do-overs. If Avatar goes forward, we are stuck with it for decades. It will chew up so many resources that WDW will be devoid of any other additions for 7,8,9,10 years. Is Avatar land really how you want all that time and money spent?

But what if the choices are:

1. Avatarland

2. Nothing

When people around here cheer for the end of a project they seem to think that shooting down that project makes it more likely Disney is going to beuild the extreme villains-centric e-ticket they have been dreaming of. Or the awesome Star Wars land they have wanted since they were a kid. Or whatever else their dream project is.

But Disney isn't going to build those things. If they were going to, they would have done it already. More likely than not, if Avland doesn't happen there won't be a replacement. And if there is a replacement, it probably won't be any more acceptable to the anti-Avatar crowd than Avland was.

Personally, Avatar doesn't do much for me one way or another. But I did like that Cameron was going to be involved. I know he has a giant ego and I probably wouldn't want to hang out with the guy. But I have confidence that he won't allow Disney to cheap out. Based on recent history, Disney needs someone to hold them to a higher standard. They won't do it on their own.

The movie isn't the selling point for me. It's the fact that a park that desperately needs an expansion was going to get one overseen by a guy who is known his exacting high standards. Standards which Disney used to be known for but seems to have abandoned lately.

If that doesn't happen, I will be disappointed.

If by some miracle, Avland doesn't happen but Disney builds an expansion that is equal to what Cameron would have insisted on, I'll be thrilled. But what are the chances of that happening? Slim to none may be too generous.

 

[Reddog]

Anyone see this website?

http://www.disneygossip.com/

They've only had 3 updates in the past 9 months but the 2 newest articles are interesting. One talking about the postponement of Avatarland and the other talking about it possibly moving over to Tomorrowland.

Just wondering if any of the insiders can comment on it's validity.

 

[lebeau]

Of all of the posts on this thread, your sentence that I highlighted is exactly why I really don't want Avatar. Split the money up between the 3 parks that need it most; expand DAK, Pixar Place (a couple of C/D's would do wonders there), and update Future World in Epcot. That seems to be a much more wise use of the money.

This is the central flaw in the anti-anything argument. You don't get to pick what to do with the money if a project gets canned.

If we could cancel Avland and divy up the money as we see fit, sure. Great idea. But that's not going to happen. It's more likely that the money just won't get spent on anything.

 

[WondersOfLife]

I'm just relaying that the rumormill will be churning about in the near future. That is all.

WOOOHOOOOOO!!!!!!


..:lookaroun


I'd still like to see that myth-themed land.

-WondersOfLife


The last original pavilion. :king:

 

[JustInTime]

WOOOHOOOOOO!!!!!!


..:lookaroun


I'd still like to see that myth-themed land.

-WondersOfLife


The last original pavilion. :king:

I'd love an urban legend themed land.

 

[twebber55]

Of all of the posts on this thread, your sentence that I highlighted is exactly why I really don't want Avatar. Split the money up between the 3 parks that need it most; expand DAK, Pixar Place (a couple of C/D's would do wonders there), and update Future World in Epcot. That seems to be a much more wise use of the money.

runner ed

i could probably live with that.. at least thats logical idea.. i worry that they are canceling the idea because they figured out they dont want to spend the money

 

[xdan0920]

But what if the choices are:

1. Avatarland

2. Nothing

When people around here cheer for the end of a project they seem to think that shooting down that project makes it more likely Disney is going to beuild the extreme villains-centric e-ticket they have been dreaming of. Or the awesome Star Wars land they have wanted since they were a kid. Or whatever else their dream project is.

But Disney isn't going to build those things. If they were going to, they would have done it already. More likely than not, if Avland doesn't happen there won't be a replacement. And if there is a replacement, it probably won't be any more acceptable to the anti-Avatar crowd than Avland was.

Personally, Avatar doesn't do much for me one way or another. But I did like that Cameron was going to be involved. I know he has a giant ego and I probably wouldn't want to hang out with the guy. But I have confidence that he won't allow Disney to cheap out. Based on recent history, Disney needs someone to hold them to a higher standard. They won't do it on their own.

The movie isn't the selling point for me. It's the fact that a park that desperately needs an expansion was going to get one overseen by a guy who is known his exacting high standards. Standards which Disney used to be known for but seems to have abandoned lately.

If that doesn't happen, I will be disappointed.

If by some miracle, Avland doesn't happen but Disney builds an expansion that is equal to what Cameron would have insisted on, I'll be thrilled. But what are the chances of that happening? Slim to none may be too generous.

Truthfully, I would take my chances with nothing right now. Nothing means there is hope of something better then Avatar coming in the next couple years. I do not want Avatar tying up years and years of time and resources. I see very little upside with this Avland.

This is what I think I know...

If they go ahead with this, it might open in 2016/17 area. That is 5 years of nothing else happening. Then Disney would ride out this new expansion for at least another 4 or 5 years after that. So it is Avatar AND nothing else for the foreseeable future. Probably at least a decade. I would rather take nothing for now, with the chance of something better coming along in the next couple of years.

Maybe I am crazy?