Go Back   The DIS Discussion Forums - DISboards.com > Disney Trip Planning Forums > The DIS Unplugged Podcast
Find Hotel Specials & DIScounts
 
facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS UpdatesDIS email updates
Register Chat FAQ Tickers Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read





Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 09-26-2011, 10:29 AM   #211
ADP
I'm a huggin' foolWon't some sweet mama come and take a chance with me
 
ADP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Fishers, IN
Posts: 8,920

If they remove CMM that's fine, but mess around with my Festival of the Lion King and look out.... I hope they intend on moving it to Africa where it belongs.
ADP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2011, 10:33 AM   #212
jcb
always emerging from hibernation
 
jcb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In view of the Smoky Mountains
Posts: 3,520

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaltD4Me View Post
Interesting. Looks like the perfect size and shape for Avatarland to me.

I read an interesting blog yesterday about Avatarland, he talked about James Cameron being a bit of a control freak and maybe not being so easy to work with. I had heard that before, I hope Joe Rhode is ready for him.
From what I have heard about working with Disney, it sounds like it is a match made in heaven. I would be surprised if Cameron could be any more of a control freak than J.K.
__________________
Jack
jcb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2011, 11:17 AM   #213
jcemom
Official Tag Fairy Assistant
I like it here and I want to stay! :)
think of all that money I could have put towards Disney!
 
jcemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: too far from WDW
Posts: 8,177

I would think they'd put it where Camp MM is. The only attraction in that entire area is Lion King. That could be relocated to another land (Africa would make sense). If they took out Dinoland, they'd be removing 3 rides, a playground, and a show. What's the point of putting in a new land with new attractions, to keep people in the park longer, if you're going to remove an equal number of attractions? That wouldn't be an expansion of the park, just an update.
__________________
Tracey





* 9/2015 Fantasy & ??? * 12/2014 BWV * 9/2013 AKV & Dream & POR * 9/2012 BWV & AKV * 2/2011 CBR * 1/2010 Pop * 9/2009 AKV * 1/2009 BCV * 9/2008 POFQ * 12/2007 OKW * 1/2007 Pop * 10/2006 Pop & OKW * 1/2006 BWV & AKL * 9/2005 Pop * 6/2005 POR * 2/2005 WL * 2/2004 AKL * 2/1989 offsite * 6/1978 offsite *
jcemom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2011, 12:18 PM   #214
WaltD4Me
PS...I tried asking for water cups once
I am actually a princess
 
WaltD4Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: N.E. Ohio
Posts: 9,729

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcb View Post
From what I have heard about working with Disney, it sounds like it is a match made in heaven. I would be surprised if Cameron could be any more of a control freak than J.K.
True, but rumor was one of the reasons Disney didn't get HP was because they didn't want to let JK have total control. Universal agreed and wound up with tiny shops. I think JK and Cameron are about the same, it's said he held up shooting on Titantic for 3 days obsessing about the pattern on the china plates they used.
__________________
Lisa 1980 Poly, 92' Grand Floridian, Oct 98 Teddy & Doll Convention, Dec 2004 POFQ, May 05 40th Birthday!, May 06 OKW 41st Birthday! May 07 OKW 42nd Birthday! Feb 08 Pirate & Princess Party! Oct. 08 at OKW! 1st Solo Trip May 09! / November 2010 at OKW, 2013 at WDW and Crusing on the Dream
WaltD4Me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2011, 12:58 PM   #215
THE3jsmom
Melinda
 
THE3jsmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyfordisney3 View Post
i think it is stupid. Never watched the movie, have no desire to watch the movie and have never met anyone that is such a big fan of the movie that this would be exciting.
this!!!!!
__________________


Melinda, mommy to Jalen , Jade and Jordan

Disney Trips
Spring Break trips in 1990's
Disneyland trips in 1990's
September 2001 (Poly-Land and Sea-Wonder)
Disney Dream November 2011
THE3jsmom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2011, 01:34 PM   #216
jcb
always emerging from hibernation
 
jcb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In view of the Smoky Mountains
Posts: 3,520

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaltD4Me View Post
True, but rumor was one of the reasons Disney didn't get HP was because they didn't want to let JK have total control. Universal agreed and wound up with tiny shops. I think JK and Cameron are about the same, it's said he held up shooting on Titantic for 3 days obsessing about the pattern on the china plates they used.
3 days obsessing about plate patterns. Sounds like a family shopping experience to me.
__________________
Jack
jcb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2011, 02:12 PM   #217
disneysteve
You have to enjoy life, not go around worrying about what other people think
 
disneysteve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 10,864

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoofyforDisney3 View Post
Never watched the movie, have no desire to watch the movie and have never met anyone that is such a big fan of the movie
Same here, however, that wouldn't stop me from riding the rides. When we went to Universal last year, we rode rides based on movies I had never seen. Didn't stop me from enjoying the rides.
__________________
Steve
31 WDW trips since 1978 - 8 onsite, 22 offsite, 1 split on/off ; 1 Disneyland trip in 2005 - offsite (Fairfield Inn)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Why should I pay for my daughter's education when she already knows everything?


Me, DW, DD and MIL with cast of Festival of the Lion King, 11/10/06
disneysteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2011, 02:44 PM   #218
fromscratchmom
Mouseketeer
 
fromscratchmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Westerville, Ohio
Posts: 480

Quote:
Originally Posted by ADP View Post
Just saw an interview with James Cameron where he revealed a few details about Avatarland at DAK.

Basically, the goal of the land is to put you in Pandora. The land will occupy 12 acres with multiple attractions and offer a complete experience. He goes on to mention this maybe a 1/2 day experience.

12 acres seems large...The only 2 areas I could see for a 12 acre expansion would be removing Camp Minnine Mickey and taking up the rest of the open space behind it, or the area cleared out behind Asia, however that spot sits close to the Kilamanjaro Safaris attraction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=086tOrvi9UE
Nice to see the interview. I'm sure hoping it is an expansion --outside of what is now considered to be part of the park-- rather than a replacement for what is there already. so much scope for imagination, as my favorite L.M.Montgomery character might have said.
__________________
fromscratchmom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2011, 04:04 PM   #219
jrtoastyman
Purveyor of Fine Latex Products
 
jrtoastyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: STL
Posts: 1,123

Lots of back and forth on this, definitely interesting. I did have a thought that I didn't see raised elsewhere, though, on why this is a really odd move, thought I'd share and see if anyone had any feedback.

Avatar was an absolutely eye-popping movie, and it's not too difficult to imagine it being translated into a theme park, but as others have pointed out, it was the visuals, not the story, that drove people to the theaters. Part of the reason, I think, is that Avatar was the first 3D movie that actually offered the sort of immersive 3d experience that you got at -- wait for it -- places like Disneyworld. For eons, "good" 3D was only available at theme parks (with Disney leading the way IMO) and if you went to a 3D movie elsewhere, it meant you were going to see a movie that incorporated some choppy 3D effects from time to time.

With that in mind, there is certainly some irony in Disney welcoming with open arms a franchise that ushered in an era where great, immersive 3D could be found at any major movie theater anywhere in the country. I really wonder how some of Disney's 3D shows will stand up now that you can get quality 3D so easily -- sure, they have other interactive elements, too, but the "wow" factor of the 3D itself is going to slide away as more and more "regular" movies are made in 3D using technology that matches or exceeds what Disney has been using for years. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, I guess?

Now for a less original, but still related, thought: I'm concerned that Disney is basically all-in on this with no guarantee that the 2nd and 3rd movies are going to be good enough to create the sort of franchise that you can build a whole theme park land around. Avatar was visually groundbreaking, but by the time 2 and 3 come around, it will be commonplace to see great visuals like that. If they don't similarly push the envelope from a technological standpoint -- and there's little incentive for Cameron to do so, frankly, because he's going to make a mint either way -- then it has to rely upon story, and that's somewhere that Avatar kinda fell short. Not that the story was bad, it just wasn't particularly original, and it was fairly predictable.

I'm definitely rooting for Disney here, and it looks like they intend to sink enough money into it to do it the right way. Moreover, Avatar does lend itself to some pretty awesome ride experiences and could provide a vehicle for Disney to do something along the lines of what Universal did with HPatFJ, which is the single most impressive thrill ride I've ever been on. With those things in mind, I'm excited about this. It does still seem odd, though.
__________________

Owner since June 2011

Upcoming: BLT (Jan 2015) - DLR (July 2014)
DLR (May 2014) - BLT (Dec 2013) - Dolphin (May 2013) - BLT (Jan 2013) - BLT (Jan 2012) - Polynesian (June 2011 + UO/IOA) - Swan (Jan 2007) - Port Orleans French Quarter (Dec 1993) - Off-site (1986)
jrtoastyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2011, 04:15 PM   #220
fromscratchmom
Mouseketeer
 
fromscratchmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Westerville, Ohio
Posts: 480

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrtoastyman View Post
Lots of back and forth on this, definitely interesting. I did have a thought that I didn't see raised elsewhere, though, on why this is a really odd move, thought I'd share and see if anyone had any feedback.

Avatar was an absolutely eye-popping movie, and it's not too difficult to imagine it being translated into a theme park, but as others have pointed out, it was the visuals, not the story, that drove people to the theaters. Part of the reason, I think, is that Avatar was the first 3D movie that actually offered the sort of immersive 3d experience that you got at -- wait for it -- places like Disneyworld. For eons, "good" 3D was only available at theme parks (with Disney leading the way IMO) and if you went to a 3D movie elsewhere, it meant you were going to see a movie that incorporated some choppy 3D effects from time to time.

With that in mind, there is certainly some irony in Disney welcoming with open arms a franchise that ushered in an era where great, immersive 3D could be found at any major movie theater anywhere in the country. I really wonder how some of Disney's 3D shows will stand up now that you can get quality 3D so easily -- sure, they have other interactive elements, too, but the "wow" factor of the 3D itself is going to slide away as more and more "regular" movies are made in 3D using technology that matches or exceeds what Disney has been using for years. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, I guess?

Now for a less original, but still related, thought: I'm concerned that Disney is basically all-in on this with no guarantee that the 2nd and 3rd movies are going to be good enough to create the sort of franchise that you can build a whole theme park land around. Avatar was visually groundbreaking, but by the time 2 and 3 come around, it will be commonplace to see great visuals like that. If they don't similarly push the envelope from a technological standpoint -- and there's little incentive for Cameron to do so, frankly, because he's going to make a mint either way -- then it has to rely upon story, and that's somewhere that Avatar kinda fell short. Not that the story was bad, it just wasn't particularly original, and it was fairly predictable.

I'm definitely rooting for Disney here, and it looks like they intend to sink enough money into it to do it the right way. Moreover, Avatar does lend itself to some pretty awesome ride experiences and could provide a vehicle for Disney to do something along the lines of what Universal did with HPatFJ, which is the single most impressive thrill ride I've ever been on. With those things in mind, I'm excited about this. It does still seem odd, though.
hehe. interesting twist. I for one will never see theater 3D as being a useful substitute for actual three dimensional experiences that are not stimulated on a screen. I dislike "3D technology" still and take the glasses off at times during the shows in order to avoid getting a migraine.
__________________
fromscratchmom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2011, 06:17 PM   #221
DCTooTall
Thinks He Can Escape Boo Boo
 
DCTooTall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: York, PA
Posts: 5,957

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrtoastyman View Post
Lots of back and forth on this, definitely interesting. I did have a thought that I didn't see raised elsewhere, though, on why this is a really odd move, thought I'd share and see if anyone had any feedback.

Avatar was an absolutely eye-popping movie, and it's not too difficult to imagine it being translated into a theme park, but as others have pointed out, it was the visuals, not the story, that drove people to the theaters. Part of the reason, I think, is that Avatar was the first 3D movie that actually offered the sort of immersive 3d experience that you got at -- wait for it -- places like Disneyworld. For eons, "good" 3D was only available at theme parks (with Disney leading the way IMO) and if you went to a 3D movie elsewhere, it meant you were going to see a movie that incorporated some choppy 3D effects from time to time.

With that in mind, there is certainly some irony in Disney welcoming with open arms a franchise that ushered in an era where great, immersive 3D could be found at any major movie theater anywhere in the country. I really wonder how some of Disney's 3D shows will stand up now that you can get quality 3D so easily -- sure, they have other interactive elements, too, but the "wow" factor of the 3D itself is going to slide away as more and more "regular" movies are made in 3D using technology that matches or exceeds what Disney has been using for years. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, I guess?

Now for a less original, but still related, thought: I'm concerned that Disney is basically all-in on this with no guarantee that the 2nd and 3rd movies are going to be good enough to create the sort of franchise that you can build a whole theme park land around. Avatar was visually groundbreaking, but by the time 2 and 3 come around, it will be commonplace to see great visuals like that. If they don't similarly push the envelope from a technological standpoint -- and there's little incentive for Cameron to do so, frankly, because he's going to make a mint either way -- then it has to rely upon story, and that's somewhere that Avatar kinda fell short. Not that the story was bad, it just wasn't particularly original, and it was fairly predictable.

I'm definitely rooting for Disney here, and it looks like they intend to sink enough money into it to do it the right way. Moreover, Avatar does lend itself to some pretty awesome ride experiences and could provide a vehicle for Disney to do something along the lines of what Universal did with HPatFJ, which is the single most impressive thrill ride I've ever been on. With those things in mind, I'm excited about this. It does still seem odd, though.
The interesting thing about Avatar I feel is that it had basically 3 different components.

1. Incredible 3D. This helped generate the buzz and helped push it into the money printing press that it was. It was one of the first films to utilize 3D as a way to add depth to a film, instead of just popping things out at you. (I still think of MuppetVision with the door sign...). To be perfectly honest, just about the only other instance I can really think of of 3D that utilized the depth aspect it gives vs just throwing stuff into the audience? HISTA w/ the stage.

2. Fully formed world and ecosystem. Yes, the Jungle was pretty.... but what's interesting is that the plant life and the animal life seemed to work together. The different Animal species all had the common traits you'd expect with animals living within a common world. You could basically see the "circle of life" as it were with animal species that seemed to really fit into their own hierarchy. It's was just "a horse with stuff added" because you wanted to show someone riding a horse to get around.... but a beast of burden that worked within the environment.

3. The story/narrative of the film. This would be your love story / Dances with Smurfs/ Ferngully: The Sequel / Pocahontas in Space / Whatever.



Most people see items 1 and 3.... but totally neglect item 2. In My Opinion, It's item 2 that is the real asset here. It's what Disney has to work with to create a compelling theme park environment with several attractions. Something that can fit pretty well into the AK landscape..... and leaves them free to create their own narrative within the land and attractions which don't even need to seriously reference the films in order to tell their story. It's what will allow whatever Disney does to stand on it's own feet instead of riding off the coattails of the film franchise.

And honestly.... Unlike a "Beastly Kingdom" which could very easily have turned into another DinoLand with a disjointed internal narrative w/ a common theme...... The fact that they already have a compelling and complete environment complete with plant and animal life to work with, gives them a very good head start in creating the story and experiences we look forward too without needing to first take time to create the backstory/setting of the narrative they want to treat us too.



(And also of note. Item 1.... It'll become old hat. With everything doing 3D these days, people are already getting bored with it and the novelty is quickly running out. Item 3..... As we've seen on the DIS, it's not something universally loved by everyone... and between the accusations of anti-capitalism/anti-military/ hardcore pro-nature/ etc etc etc.... it would be a very dangerous thing to build a theme park experience around without risking major splits on opinions of it and/or being exposed to becoming very dated very fast.)
DCTooTall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2011, 10:24 PM   #222
jrtoastyman
Purveyor of Fine Latex Products
 
jrtoastyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: STL
Posts: 1,123

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCTooTall View Post
...

2. Fully formed world and ecosystem. Yes, the Jungle was pretty.... but what's interesting is that the plant life and the animal life seemed to work together. The different Animal species all had the common traits you'd expect with animals living within a common world. You could basically see the "circle of life" as it were with animal species that seemed to really fit into their own hierarchy. It's was just "a horse with stuff added" because you wanted to show someone riding a horse to get around.... but a beast of burden that worked within the environment.
...
Most people see items 1 and 3.... but totally neglect item 2.
...
While the point about it being fully formed is a good one, your follow-up about it being largely ignored is also good one and makes me question whether it is something that Disney can hang its hat on. Seems a bit too heady for something that is designed to appeal to the mass market which, lets be honest, often prefers to have things spoon-fed to them. Even considering Animal Kingdom as it currently stands where most people fail to take advantage of the really incredible informational component of the park, I would be willing to wager that the overwhelming majority of the people that come are not going to get too wrapped up in something that nuanced. I realize that sounds very cynical, but I think it's also probably accurate.

Of course, the corollary of that is that if the attractions they put in there are cool enough, it won't really much matter what people think of some of the more subtle aspects of the area. I barely remember the movie "Song of the South," but I ride Splash Mountain every time I go to WDW, because I love that drop.
__________________

Owner since June 2011

Upcoming: BLT (Jan 2015) - DLR (July 2014)
DLR (May 2014) - BLT (Dec 2013) - Dolphin (May 2013) - BLT (Jan 2013) - BLT (Jan 2012) - Polynesian (June 2011 + UO/IOA) - Swan (Jan 2007) - Port Orleans French Quarter (Dec 1993) - Off-site (1986)
jrtoastyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2011, 09:45 PM   #223
jlindemer
Mouseketeer
 
jlindemer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 479

Just chiming in...

I had no desire to watch this movie until Disney announced that they were adding it to AK.

That said....I loved it! I loved the colors, the story, everything! I honestly think it is up towards the top of my favorite movies list!

I cannot wait to see it come to life at AK!
__________________
Jennifer





jlindemer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2011, 03:04 AM   #224
Friendly Frog
DIS veteran with a mouse on her back.
 
Friendly Frog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,562

I have to say that I am honestly surprised at the negative feedback. The very first time I watched the film I commented to my husband how cool it would look if Disney recreated some of the visuals seen on Pandora.

I think it is an good fit for Animal Kingdom. I did not see it as a "blue alien" movie but an environmental, living with the land /animals, circle of life movie. I could definitely envision it as the nighttime area for AK! Just like many guests leave future world in the evening for world showcase, why not leave the live animal area and go to the Pandora world, thus making AK a full day park!

I can also envision many possibilities for visual effects that would be even MORE stunning than fireworks shows. ( and I love fireworks) Twinkle lights in the walkways, soothing music, beautiful water areas, lots of glowing trees and cute little things, maybe even a little fog here and there, sprinkle in a few cute interactive things..pop up laser lights and water effects.... It could be an amazingly magical feel and something that could appeal to every age group. I am hopeful that it is Cameron's control/attention to detail that might just keep Disney from cutting too many corners.

Now my plea. PLEASE, please don't just do another cheesy movie ride in a moving car or one that will make half the family want to toss their cookies. This seems to be the trend but IMO is just a cop out. Build some real tangible sets and use some newer technology in them. Take our breath away with visuals rather than g force.

How I would love to be an imagineer working on this project. I can envision so many different types of experiences and rides that would fit.

Last edited by Friendly Frog; 10-02-2011 at 03:22 AM.
Friendly Frog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS Updates
GET OUR DIS UPDATES DELIVERED BY EMAIL



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright © 1997-2014, Werner Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved.