Avatarland is being delayed

[butsy113]

Taking my mom to the world May 2013. She hasn't been since 1987. I was really sadthat I wouldn't get to take her to FOTLK. Has anyone heard if the show will stay for the time being? Please say yes!!! I LOVE that show!!!

[hakepb]

Originally Posted by smitch425

For me, AK has always been about the beauty of Earth--real Earth--not fictional beauty. That is why I do not like the project. I have actually not seen the movie because it does not interest me. It looks creepy. I am sure it has a beautiful storyline and the special affects are probably amazing, but it has no business being in a nature park. DHS would be a better fit as that park is more about movie-making and it could tie in better there. I would much rather see more live animals (such as those from Australia like I mentioned earlier) placed in AK.

It really depended on the direction they took. If you get past the storyline and the creepy people, Avatar contained an amazingly beautiful fantasy planet Pandora. (and AK was intended to have a fantasy world, ie the dragon in the logo)

If Disney was able to create a x-wing or advanced Soarin in real motion flight in Pandora, it might be the best theme park attraction, but I'm not sure it could be pulled off correctly.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by peeputt

At this point, the movie has been out too long, it's not fresh,

I am very much opposed to Pandora in DAK, however, there are two planned movie sequels that had been to arrive on the scene in conjunction with the DAK project.

Regardless I don't care if there are sequels.

I don't see a need for that venue in a Disney park.

[Reddog1134]

Originally Posted by smitch425

For me, AK has always been about the beauty of Earth--real Earth--not fictional beauty. That is why I do not like the project. I have actually not seen the movie because it does not interest me. It looks creepy. I am sure it has a beautiful storyline and the special affects are probably amazing, but it has no business being in a nature park. DHS would be a better fit as that park is more about movie-making and it could tie in better there. I would much rather see more live animals (such as those from Australia like I mentioned earlier) placed in AK.

I realize that a lot of people don't like Avatar and/or don't like Avatar in AK. But I want to say specifically to you, congrats on a poignant argument involving more than just "Avatar is stupid".

[hakepb]

Originally Posted by peeputt

At this point, the movie has been out too long, it's not fresh, and it's not a movie that has developed much of a cult following or has any really strong Disney ties and magic to it. So basically, I think it's lacking the Disney vibe, and the idea isn't fresh since the movie came out years ago.

my 2 cents.

You do realize that there are 2 more installments of the trilogy that will be current when the planned Avatar land opens.

(I'm not sad about no Avatar WDW). But I think that "old" argument applies to Cars, too.)

[KellyNY]

Originally Posted by Reddog1134

This is the reason they didn't bite on Harry Potter. JK is the same way.

And they lost, look how successful WWOHP turned to be. I guess they did not learn the lesson.

[npcougar]

I don't think you can compare Avatar to Harry Potter.

[Reddog1134]

Originally Posted by KellyNY

And they lost, look how successful WWOHP turned to be. I guess they did not learn the lesson.

I'm not sure what you mean by "lost". By all reports, they walked away because of JKs need for control. But they certainly lost an opportunity. However, judging by the current info on the Cameron deal, we might still be waiting for a Harry Potter attraction if Disney made a deal with JK.

[ghtx]

Originally Posted by smitch425

For me, AK has always been about the beauty of Earth--real Earth--not fictional beauty. That is why I do not like the project. I have actually not seen the movie because it does not interest me. It looks creepy. I am sure it has a beautiful storyline and the special affects are probably amazing, but it has no business being in a nature park. DHS would be a better fit as that park is more about movie-making and it could tie in better there. I would much rather see more live animals (such as those from Australia like I mentioned earlier) placed in AK.

This is a good point. But, AK's original vision was to feature three types of animals: existing animals (like on the safari), extinct animals (like Dinosaur), and imaginary animals (like dragons, or Avatar-people). The imaginary part never panned out (although there was a dragon on the original logo of the park). So Avatar-land was somewhat in keeping with the original spirit of the park.

[Sweettears]

Originally Posted by Queen2PrincessG

At first i thought it was a cool idea but after thinking about ti more I'm kind of hopping that it is not done. If anything, Disney should focus on getting Pleasure Island back to something that is "pleasurable" to visit.

One of the BIG problems Disney has dragging their feet on things. Avatar was out SOOOOO long ago. While there IS a sequel in the works I find it hard to place a fictional planet in a Theme Park centered on "earths" beauty, nature, and animals.

Cars , Brave, Avengers, MORE Lion King! Oz the great and Powerful, national treasure

I think that this is sometimes intentional. They lock up an idea nad then take some time to see if it has staying power. As others have said that doesn't appear to be the case with Avatar.

[smitch425]

Originally Posted by ghtx

This is a good point. But, AK's original vision was to feature three types of animals: existing animals (like on the safari), extinct animals (like Dinosaur), and imaginary animals (like dragons, or Avatar-people). The imaginary part never panned out (although there was a dragon on the original logo of the park). So Avatar-land was somewhat in keeping with the original spirit of the park.

The problem with adding the imaginary now is that it has been open for several years and by adding it now, it messes with the feel of the park. For me, at least. I would much rather see Australia or some other part of the world that hasn't been showcased by either AK or EPCOT yet. So many real places on Earth for kids and adults to learn about/experience. I just don't see the point of a fake planet with fake people in a park as beautiful as AK. A ride in DHS would be fine, though.

Even with two upcoming sequels, which are also reported to now be delayed, I just don't think it will hold the interest/appeal that Disney would want to invest in for the long term.

[JetsetJAK]

Originally Posted by mesaboy2

And just became more plausible if this report is true, since some capital would likely free up.

I was thinking the same thing. I'm definitely more inclined to consider the rumors about a Hollywood Studios expansion now that Avatarland's been shelved. The main reason I was doubting all of that was because I couldn't believe Disney would be doing both projects at the same time.

I've never even seen Avatar so I wasn't really opposed to or in favor of Avatarland either way, but I do still think it's for the best. Between Animal Kingdom, Epcot and Hollywood Studios (since Magic Kingdom has New Fantasyland), personally I think AK is the least in need of something like a new "land" (I'm not really counting the new Test Track at Epcot since from what I understand that project was more a Chevrolet thing as opposed to something Disney actually wanted to do).

.

[KellyNY]

Originally Posted by Reddog1134

I'm not sure what you mean by "lost". By all reports, they walked away because of JKs need for control. But they certainly lost an opportunity. However, judging by the current info on the Cameron deal, we might still be waiting for a Harry Potter attraction if Disney made a deal with JK.

They did not walk away, JK did not like their idea and went with Universal. I mean they lost opportunity to have Harry Potter success. I understand both JK and Cameron need for control, they do not want cheap versions like Narnia, so I think it is more like Disney is a control freak here, because they like to do it their, cheap way and in this case they can only do it with their own creations. No respectful author will let them do it to their ideas. Disney needs to learn to play with others.

[Reddog1134]

Originally Posted by KellyNY

They did not walk away, JK did not like their idea and went with Universal. I mean they lost opportunity to have Harry Potter success. I understand both JK and Cameron need for control, they do not want cheap versions like Narnia, so I think it is more like Disney is a control freak here, because they like to do it their, cheap way and in this case they can only do it with their own creations. No respectful author will let them do it to their ideas. Disney needs to learn to play with others.

JK has shown before that she has strong ideas about the portrayal of her creation. Spielberg passed on the Harry Potter films because JK insisted they only use British actors. The point remains the same. Disney was not willing to accommodate her and Universal was.

[dawnmichele]

Originally Posted by smitch425

I have actually not seen the movie because it does not interest me.

You've probably heard this before, but if you've seen Pocahontas, you've seen Avatar. It really is the same movie, just set on a fictional planet.