Avatarland is being delayed

[pilferk]

The only reason Disney walked away or was it actually JK who walked away, is because Disney got a huge ego and they did got scared when Universal got HP contract and this is why they came out with FLE.

JK talked to Disney first.
Disney tried to convince JK to make changes to her proposal.
She refused to consider their advice, BUT DID NOT WALK AWAY. Disney could have accepted her terms..and you'd have WWOHP at DHS.
They didn't. Thus, they walked.

That last bit...is in your opinion. Do you have anything to support it? That FLE was a reaction to WWOHP? Or that WWOHP "scares" them (because Iger, himself, says otherwise in a recent Bloomberg article).

Maybe it was...but I've seen nothing convincing me. I could be swayed either way.

I think you getting me wrong, I am not suggesting that Disney suffers because of HP or that they needed it desperately, I suggest that HP turned to be a success bringing money and new customers and Disney could use it. There is no such thing as too much profit. Instead they got competition on their hands. Game changed, people go to Universal more while they could go to Disney.

No, I get you just fine.

But they're not going to Disney any less (and, actually, more).

Which is the only thing Disney really cares about.

The game didn't really change that much...at least not for Disney. Well, it got better (they're making more money)...but not the way you're implying.

If they're not suffering from it's loss...and didn't need it desperately....then you've basically just made my point. It likely wasn't worth it.

The only way to prove that Disney made no mistake with HP, is to show that project turned to be lame and unsuccessful and no matter how you twist it, it is simply not true.

No, actually, it's not. Because you have no idea what form the Disney version of the project would have looked like.

You show the decision was a mistake, IN BUSINESS, by showing a negative effect..either on the projected bottom line or some other quantifiable. There just aren't any.

YOU, as a fan, can judge it however you want. But then you say just that.

So all the talking about people spending more money, attendance goes up not even related to the fact that people could spend even more and attendance could be better filling those rooms already built and being built.

Because one is based in reality..which we have.

The other is a big game of "what if". And our game of "what if" is based on what little information we have at our disposal to play it. All of it shows Disney coming up roses.

DISNEY'S game of "what if", done during the negotiations, was fully informed. They decided it wasn't worth it.

Universal simply showed those biggest gorillas that they can do things just as good. As for half day parks. Universal is compact, less walking, more hit rides, less fillers. You will do much more in half day at Universal then you will at Disney because rides are spread, because there are only that many popular rides in each park. Obviously you need more time for Disney but how much time you actually waste with all the transportation and walking? And having 4 parks is nice but 2 of them are half day parks and not because you can complete it in half day but because there is not much to do there. How many of us combine DHS and AK in one day and go there only to hit few rides. Disney got a lot of work to do with those 2 and with Universal breathing at their necks they better do it fast.

Breathing down their necks, how?

Not in terms of attendance.

Again, the two "flawed" Disney parks (which was what I was referring to when I was talking about 1/2 day parks) outdrew IOA by 2 million visitors EACH, in 2011. That's more than 25% more than IOA's total attendance.

That's not breathing down anyone's neck.

Disney maybe be biggest but it is not a time to relax, there is a lot of competition going on and believe me they know, this is why they came out with Avatarland and we will see if they actually drop it or will be smart and create something great and well needed.

And they're not relaxing. They haven't been relaxing. There's no reason to think they're going to relax.

But not relaxing doesn't mean "needs HP". They've got plenty of other options, in house.


Edit: I think we're sufficiently far off topic of Avatarland, at this point. If you feel the need to respond...feel free to have the last word. I've more than made my point, IMHO.

 

[KellyNY]

JK talked to Disney first.
Disney tried to convince JK to make changes to her proposal.
She refused to consider their advice, BUT DID NOT WALK AWAY. Disney could have accepted her terms..and you'd have WWOHP at DHS.
They didn't. Thus, they walked.

That last bit...is in your opinion. Do you have anything to support it? That FLE was a reaction to WWOHP? Or that WWOHP "scares" them (because Iger, himself, says otherwise in a recent Bloomberg article).

Maybe it was...but I've seen nothing convincing me. I could be swayed either way.



No, I get you just fine.

But they're not going to Disney any less (and, actually, more).

Which is the only thing Disney really cares about.

The game didn't really change that much...at least not for Disney. Well, it got better (they're making more money)...but not the way you're implying.

If they're not suffering from it's loss...and didn't need it desperately....then you've basically just made my point. It likely wasn't worth it.



No, actually, it's not. Because you have no idea what form the Disney version of the project would have looked like.

You show the decision was a mistake, IN BUSINESS, by showing a negative effect..either on the projected bottom line or some other quantifiable. There just aren't any.

YOU, as a fan, can judge it however you want. But then you say just that.



Because one is based in reality..which we have.

The other is a big game of "what if". And our game of "what if" is based on what little information we have at our disposal to play it. All of it shows Disney coming up roses.

DISNEY'S game of "what if", done during the negotiations, was fully informed. They decided it wasn't worth it.



Breathing down their necks, how?

Not in terms of attendance.

Again, the two "flawed" Disney parks (which was what I was referring to when I was talking about 1/2 day parks) outdrew IOA by 2 million visitors EACH, in 2011. That's more than 25% more than IOA's total attendance.

That's not breathing down anyone's neck.



And they're not relaxing. They haven't been relaxing. There's no reason to think they're going to relax.

But not relaxing doesn't mean "needs HP". They've got plenty of other options, in house.


Edit: I think we're sufficiently far off topic of Avatarland, at this point. If you feel the need to respond...feel free to have the last word. I've more than made my point, IMHO.

Considering how FLE was announced it is pretty clear to many, not just me it was the answer to HP and moreover it was attempt to get attention from HP project and Universal. You may be convinced that Disney made no mistake but it is your opinion vs. mine, do you really know how Disney feels about not getting all the benefits of HP? I guess not. And you do not need to have equal attendance numbers to have competition. Every $ that goes away from Disney or not going to Disney when it could, counts, why do you think they raise prices every year just a little bit, because they want profit. You seem to believe that Disney is the best of the best of the best and nothing can come close it. OK, it is your opinion. I believe they could do better and they lost opportunity and this is my opinion. You have just as much facts as I do. And we are not off topic as Avatarland situation is pretty much repeat of HP situation, I see it, you don't, and that is fine.

 

[Reddog1134]

I think Universal gained significantly more from HP than Disney would have. I doubt that every guest from that 30% increase in attendance was new to Orlando. A imagine a good portion of them were Disney guests making day trips.

Disney may have seen a bigger increase in their attendance over the previous year if they had HP but even now, they don't seem to be suffering from the "loss".

 

[DCTooTall]

Something else to consider with the WWoHP thing and it's impact on Disney.

There are strong reports that Disney's attendance actually saw an increase when the WWoHP opened. This is something that makes perfect sense when you think about it.

Harry Potter has a HUGE following, including places outside the US. For all those European fans of the series, It may have been hard to justify a trip to the US to Visit Disney (especially with EuroDisney much closer) .... However, They were just as eager as everyone else to come see the Harry Potter park. Since they were making the ocean crossing anyways to see Harry Potter, It would be almost stupid to not also take the opportunity to check out the Disney parks. To a lesser extent, this also works for US based Harry Potter Fans who never felt the desire to make a trip to Florida for Disney.

 

[prfctlyximprfct]

Personally, I'm glad avatar land is being delayed. I hope it's cancelled altogether!! But animal kingdom needs something, anything!! Please!

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[MJMcBride]

Personally, I'm glad avatar land is being delayed. I hope it's cancelled altogether!! But animal kingdom needs something, anything!! Please!

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

Australia

Incorporate Nemo. Add a Eucalyptus Forest Trail with koalas, snakes, crocs, tree kangaroos, etc etc

Add a Flume ride maybe Croc Falls

Some entertainment like digeragoos

 

[fuzzlekins]

I think that could be in based in part on a couple factors.

1. The people here who are looking forward to the potential of the new Pandora area have started to get tired of posting in every thread on the "Avatarland sucks! It doesn't fit" genre of trying to get people to give something they don't know anything about a chance.

2. This is a Disney Fan Forum.... and just like there are a LARGE number of Hardcore Disney Fans who automatically badmouth or think less of the Universal parks because 'they aren't Disney', You will see a larger percentage of people posting here automatically thinking bad about the Pandora section of AK because 'It isn't Disney'.

3. In general, People are always MUCH more likely to complain about something then post something positive about it. It happens everywhere.

4. The people who are indifferent about the Pandora project or have yet to make up their mind about it due to he lack of any concrete details on it yet, Aren't likely to be spending time reading the Avatar rumor threads around here.

And Don't forget.... While the Disney fan community on sites like the DIS may be very vocal in their love of Disney and thoughts on all things Disney... We are still a very small percentage of the overall number of Disney Guests who annually visit the parks. Even if there is a majority of our Demographic which is against this idea, It doesn't mean that would translate into the larger group of people who go to Disney any given year. It also may not be indicative of the feelings of those who have yet to go to Disney....which might be the same demo Disney is trying to potentially interest in giving them a shot.

Points taken, and I realize that Cameron is a good horse to bet on, but why bet at all? Why begin construction on a project that already has some doubt shadowing it, two more movies in the making that may or may not be hits (what if they're lousy?), and no real proven track record? Unlike Star Wars, Toy Story, and Harry Potter, Avatar hasn't proved anything but box office success. I seem to remember seeing a lot of Avatar products in clearance bins. Fifty Shades of Grey is the biggest selling book of all time but I wouldn't recommend making a Disney theme area around it. If there are viable options out there with proven track records, why go with a gamble? And by viable with proven track records, I mean sustained popularity, rabid fans, and the ability to move merchandise. If the cartoon based attractions are what pull in the small children and they're looking to capture a different market, then I still think Star Wars is a strong candidate. Grown men in their 40s and 50s would go to Disney for a SW land. A well done technologically advanced space theme would likely appeal to teens as well. Aside from the thematic elements that could really appeal to everyone, getting the teen demo is in the coasters. They need to incorporate a good coaster no matter what.

I'm not a die-hard Disney fan or Universal fan - I'm a newbie compared to most here. I love Disney but didn't visit until I was 39 and my daughter was 3. I visited both Universal parks on the same trip. I visited Disney & IOA on my second trip. I would've skipped IOA on my upcoming trip but we're spending a day there. Why? Because my 42 yr old husband and 5 yr old daughter both insist on visiting the WWOHP. Neither is interested in an Avatarland. Both would want to go to a Star Wars land or Cars land. Hmmmm.

We're just one family and this is all just my opinion. But I am speaking from a business woman's perspective rather than a die hard Disney traditionalist or groupie or whatever. In the end, I think Disney does amazing work with virtually everything they do. I'll check out whatever they throw out there. The only issue will be how quickly I rush back and how much it draws in the "new" crowd other people claim they're looking for.

 

[prfctlyximprfct]

Australia

Incorporate Nemo. Add a Eucalyptus Forest Trail with koalas, snakes, crocs, tree kangaroos, etc etc

Add a Flume ride maybe Croc Falls

Some entertainment like digeragoos

Or something pocohantas like a canoe ride!!

 

[fuzzlekins]

KellyNY: I see your point and mostly agree. I don't necessarily think that FLE was in response to WWOHP. I think (and I really mean think - I have nothing factual to base it on) Disney just recognized a deficiency and an opportunity and developed it. Princesses are huge! I'd be willing to bet princesses sell more than the mouse (movie and merchandising wise). Walk around Disney and you can't miss all the princess gowns on the little girls - those girls are there for the princesses. That's why there's a Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique and Cinderella's Royal Table in the mouse's house (so to speak). I don't think they could go wrong by devoting more park to the princesses.

As for HP - I absolutely think that's a lost opportunity for Disney. Are they hurting for it? Clearly not, but I don't know how anyone could question it being a lost opportunity. I've seen articles touting what a massive impact by theme park stds WWOHP had on IOA. Universal clearly gets that b/c they're building it in CA and adding on in FL. And they did it all after HP was virtually "over" from a book perspective. But the track record, the cult following, the merchandising, and the classic status was there. No wonder it was and still is huge. I would have loved to have seen it at Disney but oh well. I also don't think Universal and Disney are direct competition. Most families that I know with small children are spending all or the bulk of their time in Orlando at Disney parks. They may spend a day at Universal. Families I know with older kids might spend a day at MK or Epcot but spend most of their time at Universal. I think they'll only potentially be in direct competition if one aggressively goes after the other's market. But for now, they seem like completely different animals to me. One likely helps the other b/c if you're in the neighborhood, it's not hard to visit both.

 

[CaptainKat]

I haven't seen Avatar, really have no interest, so I'm really not sad to hear that a land for it in AK may be shelved. I just feel like Disney has a lot of it's own stories and ideas that would convey the same message as an Avatarland would, while keeping it tied to our own planet that needs our help. Heck, conservation of the Earth plus outer space also equals Wall-E!

I really wish Disney had more stories developed that take place in South America; the rainforest setting would be perfect, a real world Pandora, and a place that has ties to major needs and movements of conservation. Not to mention a ton of very interesting animals! We do have Up, though; great opportunity for a Meet & Greet, and some sort of balloon ride or a tour of Carl and Ellie's house like Minnie and Mickey's were in Toontown fair. Not sure if that's substantial enough for a new land, but it could be really interesting.

I do also think Australia would be a great addition to AK, especially with the talk that they were thinking of moving FotLK over to Africa for the Avatar expansion. If they're willing to do that they could then do some remodeling of that show's pavilion, and scoot Finding Nemo: The Musical in there with it's new land. Then add some hands-on sea life exhibits, koala's and fuzzy friends etc. as animal attractions, Nigel's Pelican Rides (similar to Dumbo, maybe) and maybe even an East Australian Current-themed coaster to pull in more thrill seekers. Definitely put in some aboriginal cultural information/experience, which would involve woking with the tribes in Australia, of course. And of course, a BBQ restaurant! You could even throw in some Rescuers Down Under references (though it's not a big enough movie to really do anything major); I think a Bernard and Bianca's TS restaurant would be so cute.

I have so many ideas now, haha. It's days like this when I wish I worked as an Imagineer so I could pitch stuff like this and see what the Disney people thought. Ah well, maybe someday, if I'm lucky

 

[DCTooTall]

Points taken, and I realize that Cameron is a good horse to bet on, but why bet at all? Why begin construction on a project that already has some doubt shadowing it, two more movies in the making that may or may not be hits (what if they're lousy?), and no real proven track record? Unlike Star Wars, Toy Story, and Harry Potter, Avatar hasn't proved anything but box office success. I seem to remember seeing a lot of Avatar products in clearance bins. Fifty Shades of Grey is the biggest selling book of all time but I wouldn't recommend making a Disney theme area around it. If there are viable options out there with proven track records, why go with a gamble? And by viable with proven track records, I mean sustained popularity, rabid fans, and the ability to move merchandise. If the cartoon based attractions are what pull in the small children and they're looking to capture a different market, then I still think Star Wars is a strong candidate. Grown men in their 40s and 50s would go to Disney for a SW land. A well done technologically advanced space theme would likely appeal to teens as well. Aside from the thematic elements that could really appeal to everyone, getting the teen demo is in the coasters. They need to incorporate a good coaster no matter what.

I'm not a die-hard Disney fan or Universal fan - I'm a newbie compared to most here. I love Disney but didn't visit until I was 39 and my daughter was 3. I visited both Universal parks on the same trip. I visited Disney & IOA on my second trip. I would've skipped IOA on my upcoming trip but we're spending a day there. Why? Because my 42 yr old husband and 5 yr old daughter both insist on visiting the WWOHP. Neither is interested in an Avatarland. Both would want to go to a Star Wars land or Cars land. Hmmmm.

We're just one family and this is all just my opinion. But I am speaking from a business woman's perspective rather than a die hard Disney traditionalist or groupie or whatever. In the end, I think Disney does amazing work with virtually everything they do. I'll check out whatever they throw out there. The only issue will be how quickly I rush back and how much it draws in the "new" crowd other people claim they're looking for.

The advantages I see with the Avatar deal (and I've gone into detail with other threads on this subject) are not with the Movie storyline or tie-in, but more with the amazing Work Cameron did on the location and world he created. What a lot of people may not realize who are focusing just on what was seen in the movie, is that he actually developed an entire world, complete with plants and animals that are connected within that environment, just like you can see connections between the plants and animals on our planet. Even if you saw the movie (which many here seem to admit not watching), you may have easily missed this because of the distraction of the whole space marines vs. big blue people storylines... But the plants and animals in which they interacted were much more fleshed out.... and visually interesting.... than your typical "sci-fi movie on an alien planet" design work which tends to be more focused on creating individual cool creatures or settings to fill a need within the film without much concern for thoughts of "how would this creature survive in nature? Would it be a predator or prey? What and how would it hunt? How would it's prey have adapted to defend itself?". These are questions Cameron actually contemplated when designing the alien life on the Pandora planet.


Soooo.... From a Disney standpoint, The Avatar deal gives the imagineers access to a fully flesh out, visually interesting and exciting, mythical ecosystem upon which to work their magic. Instead of working on an "Avatarland" built around a movie narrative, They are able to focus on creating interesting stories and experiences of their own within the "Pandora" section of AK. Similar to how the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror was not based off a single Twilight Zone story, but used the Twilight Zone (Which BTW... Also not a Disney Property) to set the stage and mood of the attraction they designed, "Pandora" can be used to set the stage and atmosphere of a new set of stories and experiences for the guests. Even better, The alien Jungle with it's 'mythical animals' could fit in quite nicely with Animal Kingdom's existing look and feel.... especially with as lush as the Oasis and that side of Discovery Island already are. In My personal opinion, focusing on the so-so narrative of the first movie is the wrong way for both us as Disney fans, and Disney itself, to approach this whole deal.


And From a Guest standpoint, There are potentially several huge pluses for us with this deal. First off, The world of Pandora looked absolutely amazing at night with all the bio-luminescent plants and animals. Between liberal use of fiberoptic lighting effects, and even Disney's recent announcement of their plant-interface tech, Just imagine how amazing this area would be at night.....

Secondly... They have the land and ability to create for us another quality headliner attraction/ride within Animal Kingdom. I don't think anyone would complain about another attraction at the park, And it could even help flesh out the AK from the 1/2day park many believe it to be, to closer to a full day park. As an added bonus, With another major attraction in the park to draw people in and "eat the crowds", Disney may finally feel like they have enough breathing room to down Expedition Everest for an extended refurb to fix Betty the Yeti. (Currently, as what many see as being the only real headline ride in the park [outside the safari], It's harder to justify a months-long refurb to fix a show element that doesn't directly impact the ride's operation... and which many guests don't even realize isn't working properly).

And Third... Currently Animal Kingdom is the only park that routinely closes early. This is due to several factors including the lack of attractions or draws to the park once the animal based attractions need to start shutting down to allow them to care for the animals. With the Pandora section's wonderful nighttime lights, Disney would have something to help convince people to stay late. The plot is also much further from the majority of the animals, so between it's location, atmosphere, and new construction, it would allow Disney to finally add something that MANY MANY people think is lacking at the Animal Kingdom..... The Grand Finale show at the end of the day. While pyrotechnic effects can't be used due to the concern for the animal welfare (many animals don't handle fireworks/explosions well), It would provide an amazing setting for Disney to bring the East Coast a version of the World of Color show. (Complete with light-up ears! )


So here are several of my opinions on why Avatar may have been a good deal, and could turn out very well, and possibly even better than many other properties they could build a land off of. [at least, within the AK... which is the only park that really has the room for a major expansion like this].

 

[jce2]

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.

Yup! I thought it was nothing special. Some stunning special effects (but others were better) and the same old tired story line....Bunch of Tree Huggers attacked by militarisitic uncaring coporations.....yawn. At least Pocohontas had some decent music!

 

[fuzzlekins]

DCTooTall - All excellent points! I definitely understand your perspective. I don't disagree that Disney could do amazing things with the land, and I would love to see them extend the hours at that park. We can easily spend an entire day there, but not two full days. It would be nice to spend one longer day there. I guess my hangup with what you're describing is attaching the name Avatar to it. That seems risky, given that the remaining movies aren't out yet and there seems to be considerable backlash for the first. If the second movie tanks, that is sooo not going to be good for what could be a great attraction. If the second movie is stellar, obviously that would be good. But it could really go either way. It's such a big investment. I don't know that I'd have the guts to pull the trigger on that if I worked at Disney. I guess it remains a wait and see proposition. It should be interesting....

 

[DCTooTall]

DCTooTall - All excellent points! I definitely understand your perspective. I don't disagree that Disney could do amazing things with the land, and I would love to see them extend the hours at that park. We can easily spend an entire day there, but not two full days. It would be nice to spend one longer day there. I guess my hangup with what you're describing is attaching the name Avatar to it. That seems risky, given that the remaining movies aren't out yet and there seems to be considerable backlash for the first. If the second movie tanks, that is sooo not going to be good for what could be a great attraction. If the second movie is stellar, obviously that would be good. But it could really go either way. It's such a big investment. I don't know that I'd have the guts to pull the trigger on that if I worked at Disney. I guess it remains a wait and see proposition. It should be interesting....

That's actually why I'm loath to use the name "AvatarLand". Too easy to make assumptions to jump to conclusions about the area. I much prefer to use the name "Pandora" to describe the area. When you think about it, With at least the way i see things, the focus of the area would be the planet, Pandora, and it's inhabitants, and not the "Avatar" creations which the space marines used to interact with the natives.

 

[fuzzlekins]

That's actually why I'm loath to use the name "AvatarLand". Too easy to make assumptions to jump to conclusions about the area. I much prefer to use the name "Pandora" to describe the area. When you think about it, With at least the way i see things, the focus of the area would be the planet, Pandora, and it's inhabitants, and not the "Avatar" creations which the space marines used to interact with the natives.

That is true, and I agree that Pandora would be a better name.

 

[wishing4PA]

Thanks for the comments and explanation.
Yes, somehow it is easier to visualize a Pandora there than an Avatarland.
Yet I still don't care that much if it gets delayed or shelved.

And I retain the perogative of changing my mind if it is built and turns out to be fantastic.

 

[PetePanMan]

Disney would probably rather put a Carsland in DHS anyways...

 

[LunarDistortion]

I'm glad...
I mean,They thought mythical beasts had nothing to do with animals,But Avatar's does?
Plus,Why don't they build another Lion king Attraction? That would be great!

I'm just rambling now....

 

[KellyNY]

The advantages I see with the Avatar deal (and I've gone into detail with other threads on this subject) are not with the Movie storyline or tie-in, but more with the amazing Work Cameron did on the location and world he created. What a lot of people may not realize who are focusing just on what was seen in the movie, is that he actually developed an entire world, complete with plants and animals that are connected within that environment, just like you can see connections between the plants and animals on our planet. Even if you saw the movie (which many here seem to admit not watching), you may have easily missed this because of the distraction of the whole space marines vs. big blue people storylines... But the plants and animals in which they interacted were much more fleshed out.... and visually interesting.... than your typical "sci-fi movie on an alien planet" design work which tends to be more focused on creating individual cool creatures or settings to fill a need within the film without much concern for thoughts of "how would this creature survive in nature? Would it be a predator or prey? What and how would it hunt? How would it's prey have adapted to defend itself?". These are questions Cameron actually contemplated when designing the alien life on the Pandora planet.


Soooo.... From a Disney standpoint, The Avatar deal gives the imagineers access to a fully flesh out, visually interesting and exciting, mythical ecosystem upon which to work their magic. Instead of working on an "Avatarland" built around a movie narrative, They are able to focus on creating interesting stories and experiences of their own within the "Pandora" section of AK. Similar to how the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror was not based off a single Twilight Zone story, but used the Twilight Zone (Which BTW... Also not a Disney Property) to set the stage and mood of the attraction they designed, "Pandora" can be used to set the stage and atmosphere of a new set of stories and experiences for the guests. Even better, The alien Jungle with it's 'mythical animals' could fit in quite nicely with Animal Kingdom's existing look and feel.... especially with as lush as the Oasis and that side of Discovery Island already are. In My personal opinion, focusing on the so-so narrative of the first movie is the wrong way for both us as Disney fans, and Disney itself, to approach this whole deal.


And From a Guest standpoint, There are potentially several huge pluses for us with this deal. First off, The world of Pandora looked absolutely amazing at night with all the bio-luminescent plants and animals. Between liberal use of fiberoptic lighting effects, and even Disney's recent announcement of their plant-interface tech, Just imagine how amazing this area would be at night.....

Secondly... They have the land and ability to create for us another quality headliner attraction/ride within Animal Kingdom. I don't think anyone would complain about another attraction at the park, And it could even help flesh out the AK from the 1/2day park many believe it to be, to closer to a full day park. As an added bonus, With another major attraction in the park to draw people in and "eat the crowds", Disney may finally feel like they have enough breathing room to down Expedition Everest for an extended refurb to fix Betty the Yeti. (Currently, as what many see as being the only real headline ride in the park [outside the safari], It's harder to justify a months-long refurb to fix a show element that doesn't directly impact the ride's operation... and which many guests don't even realize isn't working properly).

And Third... Currently Animal Kingdom is the only park that routinely closes early. This is due to several factors including the lack of attractions or draws to the park once the animal based attractions need to start shutting down to allow them to care for the animals. With the Pandora section's wonderful nighttime lights, Disney would have something to help convince people to stay late. The plot is also much further from the majority of the animals, so between it's location, atmosphere, and new construction, it would allow Disney to finally add something that MANY MANY people think is lacking at the Animal Kingdom..... The Grand Finale show at the end of the day. While pyrotechnic effects can't be used due to the concern for the animal welfare (many animals don't handle fireworks/explosions well), It would provide an amazing setting for Disney to bring the East Coast a version of the World of Color show. (Complete with light-up ears! )


So here are several of my opinions on why Avatar may have been a good deal, and could turn out very well, and possibly even better than many other properties they could build a land off of. [at least, within the AK... which is the only park that really has the room for a major expansion like this].

I agree that Avatarland could be great without story line at all but by simply exploring the beauty of the place. Story line is not that simple, many see it as cry for nature, I personally see colonization as the main theme in this movie and this theme is not exactly parks friendly. So the only way to make it successful imo is to concentrate on beauty and world of Pandora, without bringing in politics. I wonder which direction story will go in future movies and would working with Disney actually affect it.

 

[bellaally]

Love avatar the movie it was visually stunning, love Disney. Together would be epic!