flavious27
Well-Known Member
They can use the great barrier reef as a theme for a ride, something much better than the nemo thing in epcot. Also you can't discount the outback, why not have a dune buggie or jeep ride?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
What's Next For DHS And AK??
- Thread starter disneyinsider1
- Start date
They can use the great barrier reef as a theme for a ride, something much better than the nemo thing in epcot. Also you can't discount the outback, why not have a dune buggie or jeep ride?
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
The best argument I've heard about Australia is that most of the animals aren't large enough for a major animal based attraction. There's certainly some truth to this with the most well known animals in Australia being Kangaroos, Koalas, Dingoes and Platypii.
Comparitively the nock on South America is that most zoos feature South America exhibits, but I'd also argue that the same is true of African animals as well.
If there's going to be another Animal based ride, Asia actually makes more sense.
Comparitively the nock on South America is that most zoos feature South America exhibits, but I'd also argue that the same is true of African animals as well.
If there's going to be another Animal based ride, Asia actually makes more sense.
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
Looks like we have our answer: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/disney-to-add-avatar-to-theme-park/
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
It would be fun now that the truth is known to go around and see what clues were out there.
Like this one, for example: http://www.google.com/patents/about/12_718_803_FLYING_ENTERTAINMENT_VEHICLE.html?id=W5bZAAAAEBAJ
Captain Neo
Well-Known Member
AK is getting Avatar land and that will be IT for this decade concerning that park. Other than minor maintenance and refurbishments.
Scuttle
Well-Known Member
I agree, nice job. I love that they kept this hidden until they knew it was time to announce it before it leaked out. I'm sure to go into the next stages of this project a lot more people have to get involved and it would leaked soon anyway. I like the shock factor announcing a project of this scale with practically no one knowing about it. Good decision by TDB. I mean look at the thread that has 1,050 posts in like 8 hours. It's stirring up the Disney fan community and I love it.
boufa
Well-Known Member
I agree completely. I love it when the "experts" here who seem to know what the next step is going to be, miss one.... a big one.
I was reading about the closing of the Firehouse in the MK, someone posted to it and brought it up to the top of the forums after a couple of months of being burried. Looking back at the comments on that one most were WAYYYYYY wrong on how it was going to be used.
People were going to tear up their AP's because Disney sold out and was going to convert yet another building into retail space. :ROFLOL:
steve2wdw
WDW Fan Since 1973
I was watching Avatar the other day and thought how great it would be for some theme park to build Pandora....I thought that Disney could do a great job, but never ever dreamt that they would! Like everyone has said in other threads, the story was just a Pocohontas, FernGully remake, but to visit Pandora....wow! So many opportunities here...let's hope they get it right. Am I bothered it's not a Disney property, well, yes and no...but I'm happy as h*ll that I have a new reason to visit my favorite Disney park. Hopefully it will drive attendance to the point where they'll have to expand the park even further.
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
flavious27
Well-Known Member
Looks like we have our answer: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/disney-to-add-avatar-to-theme-park/
FTA: The partnership will include much more than a ride. “Avatar,” which sold $2.8 billion in tickets at the global box office, will form the foundation for a themed land at Animal Kingdom
Putting a themed land that makes more sense in dhs than dak is only going to things worse and it kills the feel of the park. I almost think that they are dropping it in dak to pay fox and cameron less.
Well no one would have thought that HP would have hired Meg Whitman as CEO and also make the other decision to try to spin off its pc division. Some business decisions are so out of left field that only the most connected insiders will know about it.
Fable McCloud
Well-Known Member
It would be nice to see something come to DHS, like that Monsters, Inc. attraction we keep speculating about....
I'm glad for AK getting something, though I'd prefer it wasn't Avatar, but hey, Disney's gonna make some profit here and we get something to explore and complain about.
I would really love to see them add some more rides to DHS, like a few dark rides or small coasters...something?
I'm glad for AK getting something, though I'd prefer it wasn't Avatar, but hey, Disney's gonna make some profit here and we get something to explore and complain about.
I would really love to see them add some more rides to DHS, like a few dark rides or small coasters...something?
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
I don't get why people feel that Avatar belongs in Hollywood Studios - yes it's a movie, but is that really the only tie in? Admittedly it's not a natural fit for any Disney park (it would have been the same deal with Harry Potter), but I think in this case Animal Kingdom is a better fit. Stressing the beautiful landscapes, mythical animals and the nature aspect of Avatar makes the Animal Kingdom a logic connection.
If Avatar didn't exist and Disney came out last Tuesday and said that they would be opening a new land in the Animal Kingdom called Pandora that would bring guests to a far off land full of mythical creatures all the while connecting them with the environment around them, we would be excited. But because there is a commercial tie in there is opposition. I don't get it. We don't know the particulars, we just know that Disney acquired the theme park rights to Avatar and Animal Kingdom is getting an expansion based off that franchise.
I liken this to the people that are detractors of The Wizarding World of Harry Potter despite never having been there just because they weren't a fan of the books or movies. Your appreciation of the source material does not correlate with the quality of an attraction or area. I've never been to Africa, does that mean I can't appreciate Harambe? I'm not a Star Wars fan, does that mean I can't appreciate Star Tours? Song of the South denegrates African Americans, does that mean we can't enjoy an attraction that focuses on other parts of the movie?
If you don't like Avatar, that's fine. I was indifferent towards it myself, but I will certainly be watching it again prior to this land re-opening. Even it's detractors will have to agree that the land of Pandora lends itself to an incredible environment. If that can be replicated I fail to see how anyone could justifiably complain that they dislike it because it wasn't originally created by Imagineering but instead, James Cameron.
Here's where I'm nervous - We don't know the attraction lineup. I don't doubt the land will look spectacular but the wild card will be the quality of the attractions themselves. When more information comes out, then we can have a discussion about the pros and cons of what they've proposed. Right now though, we can only deal with what we know - Pandora is coming to the Animal Kingdom.
Prof Ecks
Active Member
Very well put RSoxNo1...In fact, I am impressed with how perfect a fit this will be with the themes, values and aesthetics of the AK. Pandora is made for the AK. And with Avatar Cameron became ready for Disney. That video they posted today with Iger, Cameron, Gianopulos and Staggs I think says a lot, each voice hits an important note for having the relationship and having it exist in Animal Kingdom.
Fable McCloud
Well-Known Member
I didn't mean for what I said to be taken negatively....I'm sorry if it came off that way.
I just meant that I'd prefer it to be an all new area instead of an area based on something that already exists, ie. a movie. Why couldn't they let the imagineers have full creativity instead of "here's Avatar, now let's see how we can make this work".
I do agree that if the quality of the attractions isn't up to par then there are gonna be a lot of irritated people.
That's all I meant.
And I really didn't like Avatar, but I'm not going to knock it until we see what they give us for Pandora.
I just meant that I'd prefer it to be an all new area instead of an area based on something that already exists, ie. a movie. Why couldn't they let the imagineers have full creativity instead of "here's Avatar, now let's see how we can make this work".
I do agree that if the quality of the attractions isn't up to par then there are gonna be a lot of irritated people.
That's all I meant.
And I really didn't like Avatar, but I'm not going to knock it until we see what they give us for Pandora.
Cosmic Commando
Well-Known Member
What exactly is "full creativity"? The imagineers are always constrained to some degree. The park and the land have a theme or at least a tone that must be followed. There's no reason to think that this land will be simply a rehash of stuff from the movie. I'd say it's even likely that the imagineers and Cameron will work together to expand the universe in some way beyond the three movies: new characters, new animals, new landscapes maybe.
Right I think people are so fixed about the film. It really is about Pandora the visual aesthetics and creating an experience that even if you never watch the film or didn't care for it you would still enjoy the land. I hate Harry Potter but I loved WWOHP so I know it is possible to take a film you hate and make it something you love by simply directing focus.
Food for thought.
Kyle
Food for thought.
Kyle
flavious27
Well-Known Member
I think the Pandora you talk about had mystical creatures that mesh with their environment, we would be excited because then we would finally get Beastly Kingdom. If we are getting is a lush theme based on a franchise that revolves around humanoid creatures, why not just build Endor with some Ewoks? It just makes about as much sense.
I have no problem with disney using IP that they don't own, but it needs to make sense and fits where they build it. I would be happen if they got wwhp, wdi could do a great job with it and I am amazed by what uni was able to do. My only reservation was that they did not use enough land for it and it did not expand IOA.
I also don't have a problem with disney having avator, though I know that they are going to stunt growth at wdw because of how much they are spending. They could make it work at dhs, just like tron. WDI can guide guests into the RDA HQ and then "transport" them to Pandora; much the same way that guests can walk into Flynn's and then be transported into the Grid.
Along with you, I am worried what the lineup would be because just focusing on Pandora will limit what can be done.
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
I don't get this.
Many people have said that by basing the area off of the moon created for the movie that the designers will somehow be creatively constrained to only what was seen in the movie, or possibly what will be in coming movies. I don't see why this is so. There are no hard and fast rules that imagineers cannot go beyond the content of a film when themeing a ride or area. Consider the mermaids and coral of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, for instance, or the film canister slide at the Honey I Shrunk the Kids Play Area. Or this guy...
Certainly, an effort will be made to make the area recognizable to a guest already familiar with the movie as Pandora; after all, why pay for the license if they're not going to use the content? However I see no reason to think that the designers are going to be constrained by the theme of this project to the point that they will be unable to incorporate any new characters, concepts, or ideas.