I hadn't heard about the Australian Outback...that might be cool.
~Many Australians here have said, they don't wish to be defined by the "Outback." They find the association of their culture with the "Outback" to be somewhat offensive, in a stereotypical manner.
Australia should be in Epcot -- the Sydney Opera House right off of the Epcot lake would be so fabulous!!!
~As for the poll, there is no "concept" of Avatarland. We have no idea, what Disney & James Cameron have planned. We do have Fantasyland, that's based on everything Disney, the perfect "concept". And, so far it sounds like a real bore!!! A very beautiful, detailed, well executed bore!!! I can't wait to see what James Cameron & the Imagineers put together!
I would add a tarzen ride where you would swing on a vine through a jungle playing some Phil Collins
Posted from Disney Forums Reader for Android
~bom noite, there is no need to apologize! Initially, I thought Australia in AK was a great idea, too. But, some Australians find the association with the Outback to be a gross misrepresentation of their culture. I tend to agree -- Australia is a better fit for Epcot.As for the "Outback" comment - my apologies if anyone was offended! I have had many dealing with Australians through the years, never realized that.
That is a very interesting comment / idea.
~Conjecture. I saw the "leaked" schematic, it could have come from anywhere, but I hope it's real.Well, there have been some posts on other threads regarding the initial plans that were found: A Soarin' type ride and a boat ride of some type. From what I understand, the disagreements between Disney / Cameron are not based on what has been proposed thus forth, rather, Cameron would like to see more.
~This is just your opinion. There are other opinions just as strong that believe otherwise. Many Australian's here have voiced a strong opinion that they don't want their country represented in AK. I'm not saying, it's right or wrong, but I think we should respect their feelings. You may think it's a good idea, but that doesn't mean it's right.But, cannot the same argument be made for Australia Land? It is just a concept idea. A white sheet of paper. On other threads suggestions ranged from: A Barrier Reef log ride, restaurants (of course) and native animal areas.
Think of all of the indigenous critters running around that are very foreign to Americans. Latin Americans, Europeans and are not represented in the Animal Kingdom (let alone many Zoo's) today.
While I cannot speak for all of my fellow Yank's, I think the majority of Americans have: A rabid fascination and tremendous amount of respect with Australia. Certainly, it would achieve the ultimate goal of increasing attendance.
I also strongly believe that an Australian area fit's better then Avatarland. Education and Preservation of the natural environment is what AK is all about. And, I believe that showcasing Australia's magnificent natural wonders is 100 times better then Blue whatever's from a mythical world.
~Wow! You are definitely entitled to your opinion, but the "Yeti" is a mythical creature & the "dragon" in AK's logo is a mythical creature, they are not real animals. Animal Kingdom is a theme park representing creatures "real, ancient & imagined." It's not a zoo.If they want to put Avatarland at the Studio's - have at it! But, I cannot get past the thought of adding mythical creatures to the AK. It is like fingernails on a chalk-board to me.
I have trouble understanding why people think AK isn't complete. Of course there's room for more, but we can easily fill a whole day there. We adore animals and really take our time on the trails and in the aviaries, plus we like all the shows. We're not thrill ride people, so Everest and that evil wild mouse over in Dinoland aren't part of our plan. We love the shady paths, the relatively untamed beauty, the details on the buildings and other artifacts, plus the opportunity to see the animals in natural surroundings in addition to the attractions.
I see people who trudge through Pangani rapidly, looking straight ahead, paying no attention to the wildlife, exotic construction, and beautiful plants around them, searching for the next "ride". Clearly, AK is not the park for them.
DRDISNEYMD said:I tend to agree -- Australia is a better fit for Epcot.
DRDISNEYMD said:~This is just your opinion. There are other opinions just as strong that believe otherwise. Many Australian's here have voiced a strong opinion that they don't want their country represented in AK. I'm not saying, it's right or wrong, but I think we should respect their feelings. You may think it's a good idea, but that doesn't mean it's right.
DRDISNEYMD said:~Wow! You are definitely entitled to your opinion, but the "Yeti" is a mythical creature & the "dragon" in AK's logo is a mythical creature, they are not real animals. Animal Kingdom is a theme park representing creatures "real, ancient & imagined." It's not a zoo.
2. A Great Barrier Reef attraction that is an underwater ride with real sea life that is sort of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea meets Kilimanjaro Safaris (the entire top half of the ride vehicles could be some sort of glass dome).I like the Great Barrier Reef idea but is that too close to EPCOT's the Living Seas? If I understand it correctly, we are talking about the Camp Minnie Mickey area which housed one of my favorite shows on property, FoTLK. Correct me if I'm wrong (since I haven't been in 2 years), but I hear that they have stopped that show and plan to relocate it? Frankly, if they don't get started on something there, I am going to be peeved that they took away a fantastic show to leave the area idle.
Certainly there are those that agree with you. But Disney has to look at the big picture, and in that big picture, they can't afford to have so many people think of AK as not the park for them.
Australia, just like Asia and Africa, is a perfect fit for Animal Kingdom.
Certainly there are those that agree with you. But Disney has to look at the big picture, and in that big picture, they can't afford to have so many people think of AK as not the park for them.
Australia, just like Asia and Africa, is a perfect fit for Animal Kingdom.
It's been 25 years since a pavilion was added to Epcot. At some point, we need to face up to the reality that the economics, as defined by Disney, do not work out.
bom_noite said:Not sure where you are going here - hope you can expand.
Will say that Epcot, despite it's massive size, is just flat out land-locked! Their only chance at expansion is to cannibalize what they have already.
My son just got done with a 9 month College Program working at Epcot. His opinion was that other then Soarin', Test Track and Living Seas (to some extent) the place was a Restaurant / Bar park. The real draw was the World ShowCase. He felt they should lose many of the under-loved exhibits and just expand the show case outwards and add the likes of Russia, Brazil, Greece, Australia, Austria, India, Turkey, etc., etc., etc.
That might be a 20 year transformation, but, it would get them out of trying to keep the North Portion relevant.
In your son's list of the 3 worthwhile things in FW, he didn't even include Mission:Space, which was supposed to be a tentpole attraction that would be a huge draw unto itself. Obviously that didn't happen and it illustrates the point that it isn't so much the quantity of what is in FW, it's the quality that is the problem.