Wookies, & Rebels, & Droids... OH WHY?! The Anti-SWL in Disneyland Thread

[Earl Sweatpants]

I agree. I think a lot of this was thrown into the mix due to how successful the Wizarding World of Harry Potter and Cars Land turned out to be.

The logic now is the continued progression towards those two as model expansions, and anything original is risky which might not draw crowds because the attractions aren't something that people recognize. And this is why we're getting IP overlays of ToT, and Frozen in Maelstrom. Disney never used to think like that.

Even though I disagree with that premise, sadly I don't think that will change until one of the lands ends up being a bust and a waste of money.

Sadly, I think you're right. It will take a HUGE disappointment/failure for Disney to re-think their current "IP-based-land strategy". So long as Iger stays at the helm, IP-acquisition and this trend will continue.

 

[Rich T]

...I have little doubt that both SWL and Avatar land will dazzle their audiences and be big successes in their respective parks. I just wish we could have gotten something more original.

SW Land for sure, Avatar Land because the park needs more content. I'm sure it'll be beautiful, but let's face it: They could've built McDonaldland in AK and it would attract crowds. (In fact, McDonaldland would probably tie into the park's theme better. Ba-dum tsss!)

 

[Earl Sweatpants]

SW Land for sure, Avatar Land because the park needs more content. I'm sure it'll be beautiful, but let's face it: They could've built McDonaldland in AK and it would attract crowds. (In fact, McDonaldland would probably tie into the park's theme better. Ba-dum tsss!)

So long as McDonaldLand included Grimace, Birdy, and the Fry Creatures it would have fit right in!

 

[spacemt354]

SW Land for sure, Avatar Land because the park needs more content. I'm sure it'll be beautiful, but let's face it: They could've built McDonaldland in AK and it would attract crowds. (In fact, McDonaldland would probably tie into the park's theme better. Ba-dum tsss!)

This already happened

 

[DDLand]

All context is there. You decided to take a hard stance on something that can be refuted with a differing opinion.

Hardly. You ripped the numbered section from the main body of the work. You took one half of an extended post and responded point by point to only sections.

I hate getting into these back and forth wars on specific points. I have yet to read a well reasoned pro Pandora piece that draws from Disney's Animal Kingdom source material to back up their contention. To address some of your issues....

We are not talking about Disney's animated classics. We are not talking about (ironically) Disneyland. We are not talking about any old theme park. We are talking about Disney's Animal Kingdom.

Disney's Animal Kingdom is unlike any other theme park in the world. It is one of the most cohesively designed theme parks in the world.

As such, it draws on ancient themes and cultures as it they collide with a modern world. There is no doubt that Disney's Animal Kingdom is a celebration of the Earth's nature and culture. To suggest otherwise is an intellectually bankrupt endeavor. Truly mind boggling to put this into contention.

Any imagined creatures currently in the park are reflections of creatures that once roamed the earth or are sourced from millennia of stories and traditions. Expedition Everest is as much a celebration and ode to Himalayan Culture as it is a parable on nature's power and strength.

There's a reason Dumbo the flying elephant isn't in this park.

You also seem to misunderstand my critiques of Pandora's placement as an attack on the film. Which it's not. This is solely about it's placement in Disney's Animal Kingdom. Period.

Yes, there have been compromises in the creation of this park. Occasionally IP's have snuck in. Even then, they've always allowed for them to take a backseat. Festival of the Lion King was designed to be temporary. Dinosaur was designed with almost no reference to the movie (really, Dinosaur has the same creatures and that's it). So much time has passed that Dinosaur actually may be more well known than the the film. The ride has reclaimed it's originality.

Fine by me.

While there have been compromises, those compromises haven't extended to such a massive and permanent land. Camp Minnie Mickey was always destined to be replaced. Even the Dinoroma area was an IP free area with an actual story.

Beastly Kingdomme was to have been steeped in human tradition. It would have used themes and elements from ancient culture. It would have achieved the vision of the park.

Looking at Pandora from an intellectual view, it must either be at best an uneasy compromise, and at worst a sacrifice of much of the ambition and vision of the original park. There's no comparing thousands of years of culture to a blockbuster film from 2009.

Not in the same league.

I find Star Wars Experience's placement egregious. Rejecting the nature of an American Classic for the latest franchise is typical Disney of today.

While both Pandora and SWE experience will be impressive both visually and from experience stand point, the loss of some of Disney's Animal Kingdom and Disneyland's identity isn't worth it. They both smell of poor design. That's why many fans, even though they may struggle to articulate it, don't like either land.

I'll prejudge if it's placement is poor.

 

[dweezil78]

My (First World) problem with Avatar in AK is this: AK is(was) about Earth. About Earth's wildlife and the way humans interact with it.

Beastly Kingdom would have drawn (from what I can tell) from humanity's myths and legends--about our interpretations and fantasies about wildlife. It's still about us. It's still about Earth. It does connect to the Park's theme and fleshes it out it a clever way by working our interpretations and literature into the mix. Those myths of dragons and gryphons come from many cultures and time periods-- a shared global cultural legacy.

Pandora is about an alien world that doesn't exist that has no connection to our history and legends. It comes from the mind of one director. I'd no more vote for Pandora than I would for Tim Burtonland in AK.

Fair enough... To another poster's point though, I don't think AK ever implicitly tied itself to Earth, but I hear what you are saying. I do think the message around Avatar and Pandora though is more closely tied to the vibe/tone of the park than something like Beastly Kingdom would have been which, IMO, was already too similar to IOA's Lost Continent.

 

[spacemt354]

Hardly. You ripped the numbered section from the main body of the work. You took one half of an extended post and responded point by point to only sections.

I hate getting into these back and forth wars on specific points. I have yet to read a well reasoned pro Pandora piece that draws from Disney's Animal Kingdom source material to back up their contention. To address some of your issues....

We are not talking about Disney's animated classics. We are not talking about (ironically) Disneyland. We are not talking about any old theme park. We are talking about Disney's Animal Kingdom.

Disney's Animal Kingdom is unlike any other theme park in the world. It is one of the most cohesively designed theme parks in the world.

I addressed the critiques that you outlined yourself because those were your complaints in full. Nothing really about the first half of your retort I disagreed with (shocking to you as it may be).

Nor do I disagree with your resounding opinion of Disney's Animal Kingdom as a whole, sans for a few points.

As such, it draws on ancient themes and cultures as it they collide with a modern world. There is no doubt that Disney's Animal Kingdom is a celebration of the Earth's nature and culture. To suggest otherwise is an intellectually bankrupt endeavor. Truly mind boggling to put this into contention.

Any imagined creatures currently in the park are reflections of creatures that once roamed the earth or are sourced from millennia of stories and traditions. Expedition Everest is as much a celebration and ode to Himalayan Culture as it is a parable on nature's power and strength.

There's a reason Dumbo the flying elephant isn't in this park.

There is no requirement for Disney's Animal Kingdom to involve creatures of earth. Real, ancient, and imagined animals is a very broad brush. You can use any thesaurus-derived phrase to describe your displeasure with my claim, but the point still stands.

While Avatar itself may be off-world, there is a cultural importance to Pandora, and one that involves themes of environmental protection ,consideration for all living creatures, and how we as humans interact with that environment. All themes of Animal Kingdom.

You also seem to misunderstand my critiques of Pandora's placement as an attack on the film. Which it's not. This is solely about it's placement in Disney's Animal Kingdom. Period.

Yes, there have been compromises in the creation of this park. Occasionally IP's have snuck in. Even then, they've always allowed for them to take a backseat. Festival of the Lion King was designed to be temporary. Dinosaur was designed with almost no reference to the movie (really, Dinosaur has the same creatures and that's it). So much time has passed that Dinosaur actually may be more well known than the the film. The ride has reclaimed it's originality.

Fine by me.

Not in one instance did I ever claim you were attacking the film. To your second point, IPs have been in Disney's Animal Kingdom since its inception.

Opening day attractions included it's tough to be a bug, Festival of the Lion King, Journey into the Jungle Book, Pocahontas and her Forest Friends, Rafiki's Planet Watch...all IP based.

You're being dismissive of the IPs because it negates your argument against Avatar.

While there have been compromises, those compromises haven't extended to such a massive and permanent land. Camp Minnie Mickey was always destined to be replaced. Even the Dinoroma area was an IP free area with an actual story.

Beastly Kingdomme was to have been steeped in human tradition. It would have used themes and elements from ancient culture. It would have achieved the vision of the park.

Looking at Pandora from an intellectual view, it must either be at best an uneasy compromise, and at worst a sacrifice of much of the ambition and vision of the original park. There's no comparing thousands of years of culture to a blockbuster film from 2009.

Not in the same league.

Take a step back and analyze the themes of Avatar from an objective and intellectual standpoint. The themes of the film are in line with the themes of the park.

And to note, I would have loved to see Beastly Kingdomme back in the early 2000s. I am disappointed it never came to be. But I'm simply not going to put my head in the sand in regards to Avatar when it has more of a cohesion with Animal Kingdom than probably you'd like to see.

I find Star Wars Experince's placement egregious. Rejecting the nature of an American Classic for the latest franchise is typical Disney of today.

While both Pandora and SWE experience will be impressive both visually and from experience stand point, the loss of some of Disney's Animal Kingdom and Disneyland's identity isn't worth it. They both smell of poor design. That's why many fans, even though they may struggle to articulate it, don't like either land.

I'll prejudge if it's placement is poor.

If prejudgment is your prerogative, then that's fine. While you may never agree with any of my points - know that I respect your opinion.

 

[Travel Junkie]

One of the issues with having a one IP land is that it becomes an unnatural fit in the theme park they are being put in most of the time. Could you kind of sort of sell the idea of Avatar fitting into AK? Sure you can draw on some similarities and force feed it but inevitably the mythology of the film universe will clash with the mythology of the theme park universe. There are some nature inspired similarities, but it is called Animal Kingdom after all, animals based on earth and so putting aliens in a theme park based on earthly creatures is problematic.

The same applies to Star Wars in Disneyland. Sure you can say it is a fantasy in the space frontier and sort of sell people on the idea it is an kind of an extension of Fantasyland or Frontierland, but that is not truly the case because the Star Wars mythology is vastly different than the Fantasy or Frontier that Disneyland has already created.

If Disney created lands with the theme park mythology in mind and then tailored attractions from IP's to mold into that land, then they would fit better because that is largely what those theme parks were built on.

It is also possible to separate the execution of land itself from where it is going. Avatar looks great and I am excited about what is in store for Star Wars land, but I have already judged the decision of where they are going and I feel in both cases it is ill-conceived.

 

[BasiltheBatLord]

I like Star Wars
I like the concept art of Star Wars Land/Experience
I hate where they are putting it. This doesn't belong in Disneyland.

This represents a significant and troubling shift for the park on many levels. This cannot be undone. Tomorrowland can be salvaged. This can't.

Completely agree.

 

[Mike S]

I don't want to derail this thread, but alas, these discussions are just too fun to pass up...

I promise after this, I'll try to have self control.

The narrative of Disney's Animal Kingdom is designed for us to return to nature. We embark on a journey through Oasis to get to the Tree of Life. There's no single route to get there. Some may take the direct path, others may choose to take more time on winding paths going over rivers and passing waterfalls. When we embark from the ticket area, we are going on an adventure. We are returning to where we came from. A place of harmony with nature and where we can learn from Mother Earth.

Each of the lands builds off the Discovery Island area. One has to ask why each of the lands was chosen. Why visit the Dino Institute? Why visit Asia? Why visit Africa? What are the stories that are trying to be told?

They are stories of coexistence. They teach respect for nature. They help guests understand the real stakes that are at risk here.

The Beastly Kingdomme area would have been the Earth teaching us with our own stories. The ideas of Dragons and Unicorns have been part of the human experience for thousands of years. The legends of Dragons aren't merely a European concept, but one of the entire EurAsian continent. Stories of great powerful serpents imbued with magic are even found in the Americas.

The legends of Dragons have drawn fascination and fear from audiences for millennia, and still do today.

The Earth, through this land, would have been opening the door to a realm of Dragons and Unicorns that would use the respect and fascination they hold among humanity to teach us. The audience would've been left wondering, what if there was such a place? What if there had been such a place?

Expedition Everest is an example and direct descendent of the Beastly Kingdomme concept in action. The Yeti is something that has been in human mythology for hundreds of years. It may even draw on real ancient creatures. It's something eternal.

Fear and respect of monsters and romanticizing benevolent creatures has been something that has always been part of our journey. Beastly Kingdomme would have encapsulated those emotions, and brought them to a real physical place. There would have been no time travel 150 years into the future, and advances in science (Via Alpha Centuri Expeditions!!! Coming soon!) wouldn't have been necessary. This would have the Earth using her magic to make this place real.

These beasts and creatures aren't from nowhere either. They represent man's fascination with nature and desire to understand it. They come from fear and respect.

Now AvatarLand... Or technically Pandora: World of Avatar!!!!! (I may have been using artistic liberty with the exclamation points). Some interesting notes:
1) Pandora actually has weird demented dragon things. There are weird creatures. There are even beasts! It's actually thought provoking to think of where Cameron got those from. From our shared human experience. Instead of going straight to the source (Beastly Kingdomme) they are utilizing some man's derivative work.
2) Beastly Kingdomme draws on myths and legends so ancient, that they could almost be real. Avatar comes from the mind that brought you Terminator, Terminator 2, etc. Avatar will never immerse you the way the way Beastly Kingdomme could have because his stories aren't stories that have been being told for millennia.
3) Going right along with two, Pandora is part of a brand. It doesn't belong to the world and humanity. It belongs to 20th Century and James Cameron.
4) Pandora is off Earth. Beastly Kingdomme was to be representative of man's view of what Earth might have been. The focus turns away from our shared human experience and onto outer space.
5) The Earth is supposed to be obliterated when we visit Pandora. What a shame. Disney's Animal Kingdom is designed to celebrate Earth and ensure we don't destroy it. In the Universe of Pandora, humanity has failed. Humanity is synonymous with destruction. At Disney's Animal Kingdom, humanity can lose there way, but they are believed to be inherently good. Huge difference.

Those aren't all my critiques, but some of them in a nutshell based on the Beastly Kingdomme vs. AvatarLand discussion.

There is no compare. Avatar is a shoehorning in vs. the incredible potential that could have been Beastly Kingdomme. As each new photo is released of AvatarLand, I become more and more sad about the potential that was lost.

Such a shame.

Yeah well BK isn't happening and Avatar is. In my mind this is nowhere near something like Frozen in Norway. The story of the movie where Earth has been destroyed isn't the point (though it might be a nice warning), it's the overall message about nature. That's how it fits.

Sure, but...that's for the future...in Tomorrowland or Epcot. If we're bringing aliens to AK, why don't we also just open an Area 51 Paranoia Land there as well? It could be a cheapo roadside attraction like Dinoland. Disney could charge $19.99 for tinfoil hats. (Please don't blame me if this actually happens).

Wow

If you think with how big the universe is that the topic of alien life should be relegated to "Area 51 Paranoia" that really tells a lot about you and how you think. The mathematical odds of Earth being the only planet with life in the whole 91 Billion light years of the observable universe are absurd. The real question is if we'll ever find intelligent life, which we might not.

In the case of Pandora the imagined environment where the natives live in harmony with their world is an easily translatable message for life here on Earth.

 

[spacemt354]

One of the issues with having a one IP land is that it becomes an unnatural fit in the theme park they are being put in most of the time. Could you kind of sort of sell the idea of Avatar fitting into AK? Sure you can draw on some similarities and force feed it but inevitably the mythology of the film universe will clash with the mythology of the theme park universe. There are some nature inspired similarities, but it is called Animal Kingdom after all, animals based on earth and so putting aliens in a theme park based on earthly creatures is problematic.

The same applies to Star Wars in Disneyland. Sure you can say it is a fantasy in the space frontier and sort of sell people on the idea it is an kind of an extension of Fantasyland or Frontierland, but that is not truly the case because the Star Wars mythology is vastly different than the Fantasy or Frontier that Disneyland has already created.

If Disney created lands with the theme park mythology in mind and then tailored attractions from IP's to mold into that land, then they would fit better because that is largely what those theme parks were built on.

It is also possible to separate the execution of land itself from where it is going. Avatar looks great and I am excited about what is in store for Star Wars land, but I have already judged the decision of where they are going and I feel in both cases it is ill-conceived.

Animals based on earth is again the assumption that isn't necessarily defined.

Neither of the two are perfect fits. And I think any fan would prefer to see something original rather than something based on an IP. Personally I think Star Wars is worse for Disneyland than Pandora is for Animal Kingdom, however both lands demonstrate the new theme park mentality to add IPs and provide explanations for their inclusions afterwards, rather than something original that blends in more seamlessly.

 

[Travel Junkie]

Animals based on earth is again the assumption that isn't necessarily defined.

Neither of the two are perfect fits. And I think any fan would rather see something original rather than something based on an IP. Personally I think Star Wars is worse for Disneyland than Pandora is for Animal Kingdom, however both lands demonstrate the new theme park mentality to add IPs and provide explanations for their inclusions afterwards, rather than something original that blends in more seamlessly.

It's not spelled out but every indication points to AK being earth based, down to the name of the lands.

I do agree this is where theme parks have gone, especially the big companies that either have or can purchase IP.

 

[Rich T]

If you think with how big the universe is that the topic of alien life should be relegated to "Area 51 Paranoia" that really tells a lot about you and how you think. The mathematical odds of Earth being the only planet with life in the whole 91 Billion light years of the observable universe are absurd. The real question is if we'll ever find intelligent life, which we might not.

In the case of Pandora the imagined environment where the natives live in harmony with their world is an easily translatable message for life here on Earth.

Oh, Mike, Mike, Mike how you do judge me based on one jokey park suggestion. Look, Mike, I'm a die-hard Carl Sagan fan who *absolutely* believes in life off-Earth. I also, based on what we know so far, do not believe we've been visited by aliens or will likely encounter them simply because the universe *is* so vast and the requirements for life to develop are so rare and we're located in such a relatively backwater section of our galaxy.

You know what I'd like? A section of AK based on Cosmos. That would freaking rock *and* fit into AK in an appealing and fascinating way.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

There's a whole thread here dedicated to dismissing SW Land.

Side note: what's up with the spelling of Kingdomme??

My god, how did I end up here? I need to pay closer attention to thread titles.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Wait, wait... you see no distinction between a Chinese dragon that has sprung from generations of storytelling and is woven into a culture's identity and a CGI alien James Cameron throws on a screen in a mediocre movie?

What is defined as mediocre is largely a matter of opinion and taste. There are critics who say Walt's popular body of studio work is mediocre because in their view it largely consists of dumbed down interpretations of classic tales, but that doesn't mean that I can't see the creativity or find joy in them. The debate here about Avatar and SW Land seems to be mostly about rigid personal preferences, not a set of prescribed rules from Disney dictating what goes in a given park and what should not.

That said no one here can say that Beastly Kingdomme would have been anything exceptional, or better than Avatar, had it been built. I personally like both concepts (BK & Avatar), and hopefully some of the Beastly Kingdomme concepts will see the light of day at some other Disney park in the future.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

.I think the problem I have with Avatar Land and SWL is the fact that I don't think Disney can ultimately afford to keep giving single IP's their own "land".

Agreed. This probably isn't a sustainable approach to building and maintaining a theme park empire. I tend to view it as a trend and in 20 years or so there'll be something else driving the delivery of exclusive content at the major theme parks. But I don't think we've scratched the surface yet on how far this will go.

 

[DDLand]

Yeah well BK isn't happening and Avatar is. In my mind this is nowhere near something like Frozen in Norway.

I'd actually say Avatar and Star Wars are far far worse than Frozen in Epcot. Both Disneyland and Disney's Animal Kingdom are largely pure theme parks that are following the clear values that were chosen from their inception.

Sure there exceptions, Tarzan's Treehouse and Tomorrowland comes to mind... Yet they largely remain unadulterated and focused on their respective missions. Any offerings lacking clarity could be removed with relative ease. These projects change things though.

There's no going back now. This is a bad sign of things to come. I'm grateful Good Dinosaur tanked; that would've given them the perfect opportunity to do something stupid.

If you compare these projects to Frozen in Epcot where much of the vision is already clouded and the theme desecrated, it looks rather small. Only another in a long line of bad decision making and a sign of where IPCOT is going.

The jewel in Anaheim is Disneyland. The jewel in Orlando... Disney's Animal Kingdom.

 

[Rich T]

What is defined as mediocre is largely a matter of opinion and taste. There are critics who view Walt's popular body of studio work as mediocre because in their view it largely consists of dumbed down interpretations of classic tales, but that doesn't mean that I can't see the creativity or find joy in them. The debate here about Avatar and SW Land seems to be mostly about rigid personal preferences, not a set of prescribed rules from Disney...

Fair enough. Forget my opinion of the Avatar film; I meant to say it's a matter of origin and the difference between devoting an entire land to either human history's epic storytelling past or one guy's movie. But I have to admit Pandora's probably going to be a lot of fun and bring more people to WDW's most underappreciated park. If Busch Gardens can run coasters alongside their animal habitats, I guess I really can't complain too much about a well-crafted sci-fi land in AK.

 

[spacemt354]

I'd actually say Avatar and Star Wars are far far worse than Frozen in Epcot. Both Disneyland and Disney's Animal Kingdom are largely pure theme parks that are following the clear values that were chosen from their inception.

Sure there exceptions, Tarzan's Treehouse and Tomorrowland comes to mind... Yet they largely remain unadulterated and focused on their respective missions. Any offerings lacking clarity could be removed with relative ease. These projects change things though.

There's no going back now. This is a bad sign of things to come. I'm grateful Good Dinosaur tanked; that would've given them the perfect opportunity to do something stupid.

If you compare these projects to Frozen in Epcot where much of the vision is already clouded and the theme desecrated, it looks rather small. Only another in a long line of bad decision making and a sign of where IPCOT is going.

The jewel in Anaheim is Disneyland. The jewel in Orlando... Disney's Animal Kingdom.

Frozen (aside from the very impressive AAs) was a cheap overlay of an already short boat ride in Norway. If there was a choice between Frozen in Norway, or Pandora with an E-ticket or Star Wars with 2 Es - I would choose the later options every time.

Disney's Animal Kingdom indeed had the potential to be the jewel of Orlando, however years of neglect and poor investments never allowed it to reach its potential. The cut-back and disappointingly short Tiger Rapids/Kali River Rapids. The abandonment of Beastly Kingdomme. The insertion of Dinorama, which has a story, but is tacky and doesn't fit the beautiful immersion of the rest of the park. Expedition Everest offered a glimmer of hope at its potential. But even then, its signature animatronic hasn't been working in years.

My hope is that Pandora brings more guests into the park, who hopefully stay in the park to experience the intricate details of the jungle trek among other things that often get overlooked, which in turn gives Disney the incentive to invest more in the park.

 

[Little Green Men]

The jewel in Anaheim is Disneyland. The jewel in Orlando... Disney's Animal Kingdom.

No it really isn't. The MK is the park that attracts the most people. DAK may be unique and themed well but MK remains what attracts people now.

 

[SSG]

That said no one here can say that Beastly Kingdomme would have been anything exceptional, or better than Avatar, had it been built. I personally like both concepts (BK & Avatar), and hopefully some of the Beastly Kingdomme concepts will see the light of day at some other Disney park in the future.

I'm from Seattle where the Beastly Kingdomme loomed over the city for decades.