Avatarland!!!!

[Eaglefan9727]

I never liked the movie, So I think this whole thing about a Avatarland is just plain dumb in my opinion.

 

[mvk]

I never liked the movie, So I think this whole thing about a Avatarland is just plain dumb in my opinion.

LOL, and here we are YET again.

Would this make sense to you, if said 25 years ago...

I never liked the movie, So I think this whole thing about a Splash Mountain based on Song of the South characters is just plain dumb in my opinion.

The movie is just a reference point, to provide visual concepts that people may recognize. Though, the theme of the movie (conservation, protecting the environment that we live in, living in harmony with nature) not only fits the Animal Kingdom to a T, but the look/visual concepts fit in perfectly as well.

 

[mvk]

One more note - to all of those saying "you probably haven't seen Song Of the South, so how could you like Splash Mountain blahdy blah." It's because Splash Mountain is a great ride on its own. I did not know SotS even existed until a few years ago (I'm still young, I promise. And people are too sensitive.) but Splash Mountain has been my favorite ride since I can remember. I don't think that argument is valid in this situation because we don't know if "avatar land" will be an attraction that they could have made without the movie, and be entertaining. I don't know if this makes sense to anyone else. I guess just keep an open mind while going into it, because maybe you will be surprised. Or, like when I went on the mermaid attraction, maybe you won't be surprised and will be a little pissed off.

Military Wife & Disney Lover. be there December 15-18.

This is exactly what most rational people are trying to say, though... these people have no idea what the attractions are going to be like, and they are blasting the thing anyway. Most people know nothing about Song of the South, yet Splash Mountain is one of the most popular rides at the Disney Parks, because it is a great attraction. And the movie was over 45 years old when the attraction opened, not just 6 or 7 years old with 3 sequels on the way. If they build a great attraction in an immersive environment for Pandora (or Avatar Land or whatever), then there is no reason to not love it, especially because you didn't like the movie.

It's funny, because Song of the South did really well... $65M in 1946 on a $2.1M budget... and of course Avatar did really well... highest grossing movie of all time. Using some online inflation calculators, that $65M in 1946 would be close to $800M today.

Hope you have a great time on your visit in December!

 

[Viva Las Disney]

Obvously I must have watched a different movie than some of the respondants here. Flowers and trees that glow, mythical looking animals. A society that is centered on taking care of their environment and living in harmony with it. Did I miss something or doesn't this sound like something the Imagineers could go all out with.

I enjoyed the movie but have to admit I love the concept for Disney and can't wait to see what they do with it. The scenery with glowing plants and floating mountains has huge potential but even more so with all the flying machines, flying animals, ground machines, ground animals, Navi, etc ... I just think the over the top Avatar storyline has a ton of potential for Disney to do amazing things with.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

I enjoyed the movie but have to admit I love the concept for Disney and can't wait to see what they do with it. The scenery with glowing plants and floating mountains has huge potential but even more so with all the flying machines, flying animals, ground machines, ground animals, Navi, etc ... I just think the over the top Avatar storyline has a ton of potential for Disney to do amazing things with.

This exactly!

Trust the Disney force, Luke.

 

[SpectroMagic*o*]

I agree that I was not thrilled that they are basing an entire land on one single movie. But the land in the movie was beautiful and I think it has potential to be a nice spot to visit, lush landscapes blend very well with the ecological aspects of the park. I am curious to see how it turns out. I had never watched one single Harry Potter movie and nor do I care to, but they did such a fantastic job in that section of Universal that I am visiting in Dec and very much looking fwd to it. I know the 2 aren't really comparable as Harry Potter was a huge phenomenon that spanned many years but I think the point is depending on how well Avatarland is put together, it can attract even the strongest of non believers...or deter the biggest fans. Only time will tell!

 

[Disco]

When people start saying that “Avatarland is going to be stupid because the movie was stupid” and similar such statements, I like to reference Waterworld. It was one of the biggest box office bombs of all time and panned by critics and movie goers.

However, Universal was able to use this movie to make what is considered to be one of the best theme park shows in existence.

Actually, Waterworld did well at the box office. It pulled in over 260m which wasn't blockbuster status but definitely not bad in 1995. I agree that it is still a crappy movie but it did make money (unfortunately).

 

[Disney Blues]

Actually, Waterworld did well at the box office. It pulled in over 260m which wasn't blockbuster status but definitely not bad in 1995. I agree that it is still a crappy movie but it did make money (unfortunately).

Yeah but it cost $250 million to make

 

[DCTooTall]

Why the creative and imaginative company stockholders of course.

I'm trying to keep an open mind, but still holding out hope that they'll shelve this whole thing.

Why not just revive the Beastly Kingdom concept? And if they really went on a creative streak, do something similar to New Fantasy Land with park visitors being transported to lands based on The Jungle Book, The Lion King ,Pocahontas and Tarzan? But I guess Uncle Bob probably wouldn't like that because he wants more franchises in the parks.

One of the big reasons? Because many of the basic ideas, look, and even an attraction idea for the Beastly kingdom project ended up being built over at Universal as part of the Lost Continent area of the Islands of Adventure park.

After Disney laid off a lot of the Imagineers who were working on that part of the Animal Kingdom project, They ended up getting hired by Universal Creative. Even if the exact concepts where now owned by Disney, the general ideas and the people behind those ideas where now part o the Universal family after Disney let the creative people go. Because of that relationship, I have a hard time seeing Disney being able to pull off the Original Beastly Kingdom plans without having them seem very derivative of aspects of the Lost Continent. [which would look even worse since the Lost Continent lost a large part of it's area when Harry Potter phase 1 was built, so it could appear that Disney decided to invest in an idea that Universal decided was the easiest to get rid of for an expansion]

 

[skier_pete]

I am usually Mr. Positive, but I'll gonna tell you straight up why there is no Beastly Kingdom: Name Recognition

Sure - the folks on this board would've been pumped to see Beastly Kingdom - this group of fans that make up what 1 % of the demographic going to Disney World...the 1 % that is going to go NO MATTER WHAT, which is why we are the easiest to ignore.

Criticize Avatar all you want - but you and everyone else on the planet knows what it is. And Cameron is now claiming (I say "claim" because he's not Mr. Reliable.) that he will be putting out THREE more movies, which again like it or not will probably be IMMENSELY popular worldwide.

So, what I say - for those that complain - pretend Avatar doesn't exist. Instead, when you visit this land, imagine you are in Beastly Kingdom: a land full of mythical creatures and amazing foliage like something out of a fantasy world...cause that's what it is...whether or not it's called Pandora or Beastly Kingdom or the World of Pokemon.

 

[umichigan10]

Another reason there's no beastly kingdom and never will is because most of the ideas could be found in the opening day IOA

 

[twebber55]

I am usually Mr. Positive, but I'll gonna tell you straight up why there is no Beastly Kingdom: Name Recognition

Sure - the folks on this board would've been pumped to see Beastly Kingdom - this group of fans that make up what 1 % of the demographic going to Disney World...the 1 % that is going to go NO MATTER WHAT, which is why we are the easiest to ignore.

Criticize Avatar all you want - but you and everyone else on the planet knows what it is. And Cameron is now claiming (I say "claim" because he's not Mr. Reliable.) that he will be putting out THREE more movies, which again like it or not will probably be IMMENSELY popular worldwide.

So, what I say - for those that complain - pretend Avatar doesn't exist. Instead, when you visit this land, imagine you are in Beastly Kingdom: a land full of mythical creatures and amazing foliage like something out of a fantasy world...cause that's what it is...whether or not it's called Pandora or Beastly Kingdom or the World of Pokemon.

Well said as always

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I'm with you, Pete...


But I'll take it to a little more sinister place.

Beastly whatever....is DOA because of no commercials synergy or tie ins...

I doubt we'll ever see another ride or major addition built without direct film, TV or other media correlation:

Why? You guessed it...to sell cheap commercial Chinese crap in giftshops
(I know... I tend to harp on this... But do you know why? Because its always 150% true!!!
Everybody loves a winner ;p )

Also... Don't overlook James Cameron....

It's maybe wasn't always Disney's way. (Actually this is EXACTLY star tours 20 years later)...but the fact that Cameron is loaded and can blow alot of his own cash on this is a prime draw.

Yes, your hundreds of billions of dollars of entertainment megacorporation wants a coupon off its bill.

That made avatar a "winner" out at the Dwarf Building.

Also...on a lighter note... We've all heard that the destruction of "beastly kingdom" was the scorned imagineers to universal... But I think that is a little more urban legend than truth in some ways.

That area was scrapped for budget and no other reason. The damn park cost too much... And chief accountants Eisner had to pull the plug.

Rumored costs were 2-3 billion and they opened with nothing...and if you want a culprit there... Blame crazy joe rhode...

A true " artist " with the economic instincts of a drunken college freshman at his first frat party.

Beastly kingdom was probably never going to be built... Lets Be honest...animal kingdom changed Disney forever - I believe - when they brutally found out that "sky was no longer the limit"

The budget was...and led to more disaster in the run 4 of "cheap parks"

 

[skier_pete]

I doubt we'll ever see another ride or major addition built without direct film, TV or other media correlation:

I thought that was what I was saying. I agree with this exactly. It will be a long time before we ever get another area not specifically themed to an existing property. EE was probably the last...though maybe they will prove us wrong with the imagination refurb...though "figment" may count as an existing property.

 

[agavegirl1]

You know, Australia has name recognition, cool animals, the possibility of an interesting themed ride...and seems to fit better with Africa and Asia as themed "lands".

 

[old lady]

Space Mountain= no movie
Pirates of the Caribbean= spawned a movie based on the ride
Splash Mountain= an obscure cartoon
Big Thunder Mountain Railroad= no movie
Expedition Everest= no Movie
Kilimanjaro Safari= no movie
Haunted Mansion= spawned a movie based on the ride (a very bad movie too)
Soarin=no movie
Rockin Roller Coaster= no movie

You forgot the Country bears disaster. I wish they wouldn't mess with those rides and not make them movies. They don't need movies to advertise them or to promote their parks. Those posters that they had under Disney Railroad were fine and they have plenty of commericals online and T.V.
I have no problem with making rides out of movies, but I prefer making rides not based on movies. The rides without movies are better or without being based on movies are better in my opinion.

 

[old lady]

You know, Australia has name recognition, cool animals, the possibility of an interesting themed ride...and seems to fit better with Africa and Asia as themed "lands".

That sounds like a good idea or maybe focusing on other neglected lands of interest.

 

[tinkerpea]

I'm joining this! I hate this idea! I would rather have any other land in AK then a stupid movie. I did not like the movie. This will drive me away! I'm more excited about death than this recent development! If they go through with this I will never enter that area again. Ew.

Katie

This has to be 1 of the top most stupid posts on the Dis!

I'm going through life saving treatment right now and your saying you would rather die then ride Avatar ride......please grow up!

 

[Reddog1134]

I thought that was what I was saying. I agree with this exactly. It will be a long time before we ever get another area not specifically themed to an existing property. EE was probably the last...though maybe they will prove us wrong with the imagination refurb...though "figment" may count as an existing property.

It goes one step further than that. After the Lone Ranger film bombed, I believe Disney said they would no longer make films based on new properties. (they consider Lone Ranger a "new" property because it's been out of the public consciousness for a while)

So we'll get rides recycled from a movie which are recycled from an older movie or TV show or comic book...

 

[Suger Mag]

It goes one step further than that. After the Lone Ranger film bombed, I believe Disney said they would no longer make films based on new properties. (they consider Lone Ranger a "new" property because it's been out of the public consciousness for a while)

So we'll get rides recycled from a movie which are recycled from an older movie or TV show or comic book...

That makes no sense... Lone Ranger so old it is new? I can't believe Disney would ever say NO they will NEVER use a new property idea... I think Disney is open to whatever they think will make them money... old or new.