What will you do with Animal Kingdom Poll!

Discussion in 'Disney Rumors and News' started by bom_noite, Feb 5, 2013.

?

If it was your choice, what would you do in the area designated for Avatar?

  1. Love the Avatar Concept! Pure Disney Genius!

  2. Scrap Avatar! Give me the Australian Outback instead.

  3. Like the idea of something new, but, neither Avatar or Australia are doing it for me.

  4. The area is lovely now - just leave it as is!

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. bom_noite

    bom_noite <font color=blue>DVC-Trivia Contest - April, 2006:

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2003
    Messages:
    638
    What would you do:
     
  2. Avatar

    Google AdSense Guest Advertisement


    to hide this advert.
  3. arfisher12

    arfisher12 Earning My Ears

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    72
    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
     
  4. DizCaptain

    DizCaptain °o° Disney Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Messages:
    612
    I would visit it and look at the animals.
     
  5. jgh

    jgh Peter Pan!

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    574
    I'm definitely not super excited about Avatarland (though of course I'll go see it if it happens). I hadn't heard about the Australian Outback...that might be cool. I'm really not sure WHAT I would like them to do with AK...but they DO need to do SOMETHING. :)
     
  6. bom_noite

    bom_noite <font color=blue>DVC-Trivia Contest - April, 2006:

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2003
    Messages:
    638
    The Australia idea, was not born from any rumor past or present (as far as I know). Rather, a few people on posts regarding Avatar tossed it out as a different option.
     
  7. DRDISNEYMD

    DRDISNEYMD *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* *+*~The Snow Queen~*+* ~A gi

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,485
    ~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! :goodvibes
     
  8. bom_noite

    bom_noite <font color=blue>DVC-Trivia Contest - April, 2006:

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2003
    Messages:
    638
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  9. lockedoutlogic

    lockedoutlogic DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,506
    Basically...its a tiny little park (think Studios Paris) with a huge, oversized drive through safari attached.

    Its kinda like Six Flags Great Adventure...if you only include the drive through safari and kiddie land.

    I don't honestly care what they build...it could be avatar, australia, some kinda make believe land, or seamonkeys on the moon...

    Just finish the damn park.

    This to me was the start of the decline of the Eisner period...and is just a big of a construction flub as california adventure...just not so much PR egg on their faces.

    Half built parks are not even worth building.
     
  10. wiigirl

    wiigirl DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2012
    Messages:
    15,980
    :rotfl2: I'd be in for that! :)
     
  11. Safari Queen

    Safari Queen Now 14 miles from my happy place.

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,291
    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.
     
  12. DRDISNEYMD

    DRDISNEYMD *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* *+*~The Snow Queen~*+* ~A gi

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,485
    ~bom noite, there is no need to apologize! :goodvibes 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.

    ~Conjecture. I saw the "leaked" schematic, it could have come from anywhere, but I hope it's real.

    ~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.

    ~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.
     
  13. Masonmj84

    Masonmj84 DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,291
    Here's an idea for an Australia-themed area:

    1. A nature trail similar to those in Africa and Asia with animals indigenous to Australia.

    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 realize the second concept would likely be prohibitively expensive (and for that matter, entirely unfeasable). But it would be so cool.
     
  14. raidermatt

    raidermatt Beware of the dark side. Anger...fear...aggressio

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2000
    Messages:
    6,459
    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. Clearly they are still trying to find ways to make the park more compelling for more people.

    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.

    Australia, just like Asia and Africa, is a perfect fit for Animal Kingdom.

    But should Disney ever decide World Showcase is worth the trouble of them spending some of their own money, there's no reason Australia couldn't be in both WS and AK. Asia is currently in AK and China/Japan are in WS and it works fine. Clearly the focus would be different.

    In AK, Australia wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, be represented as a country, but rather as a continent. A geographic entity, not a nationality. Again, just like Asia and Africa. There will always be somebody upset, just as I'm sure there are people who live in Asia and Africa that don't like Disney's depiction in AK.

    As I'm sure you know, the dragon is representative of Beastly Kingdom, an area originally planned and announced by Disney to be added to AK after it opened. Of course, Disney retreated after the public's less than enthusiastic response to AK when it opened, and BK never came to be.

    But the idea was that yes, mythical creatures would be included, but they would have their own area. Asia and Africa would remain based on actual animals.

    Obviously Disney no longer believes in that philosophy as you correctly point out that the Yeti is in Asia. But that doesn't mean the idea is going to sit well with everyone. After all, there were very valid creative reasons for keeping the mythical creatures seperate, and nothing has changed that.
     
  15. Stacy's a freak

    Stacy's a freak wrangles snakes

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,534
     
  16. Marshypooh

    Marshypooh Mouseketeer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    122
    I am not opposed to an Avatar themed land as I think it could be quite beautiful and have exciting rides as well. However, I would prefer a section, devoted to Australia or North or South America. I love the animal trails in Asia and Africa and would so much like to see the wildlife and natural beauty of other continents represented. And if the imagination is put to good use there really are many possibilities of exciting rides, too, that would fit into the theming of those countries.
     
  17. bom_noite

    bom_noite <font color=blue>DVC-Trivia Contest - April, 2006:

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2003
    Messages:
    638
    I agree with what you are saying: MORE OF THE SAME may not be healthy for the park, and, attendance.

    I do think as you do though - Australia is a perfect fit.

    As a family we trudged down there 10 straight years and avoided AK for the first 4 - I love animals but will not go across the street to see them. Our opinions changed the first time we went. It is now our favorite park and we never go without a visit to AK.

    Too me it is not Everest or the Animals - it is the subtle details and picturesque beauty that makes it a wonderful place to spend a day.

    The problem Disney faces is that the family from Topeka who goes once every 10 years limited time / funds. AK would be the one they skip. Disney has to find a way to get these folks in the door - and - I admit that Australia may not do it.

    While I am still anti-Avatar, I do agree with that fact it may get people in the door - and - that may not be a bad thing.
     
  18. raidermatt

    raidermatt Beware of the dark side. Anger...fear...aggressio

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2000
    Messages:
    6,459
    Oh, I think Australia could get people in just fine. The key of course is what is built. Avatar may sound sexier because we think of a special effects laden film whose strength was it's striking visuals.

    But an Australia done on the right scale, complete with an E-ticket and a supporting attraction or two to go along with the well-done animal exhibits could do very well I think.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm also fine with going in another direction, like North America, South America, or even bringing back the Beastly Kingdom idea.

    I understand the tempatation to look at what AK is and say it's not really working so why do more of the same. But I look at it this way, KS and E:E are the two biggest draws in the park. Without them, they'd probably be closing the doors at 3pm. I think the concept, with some tweaking, is fine. They just haven't done enough of it.

    As for Avatar, I just think entering into a complicated partnership with another entity is asking for trouble. Especially when the ability of that property to become a lasting franchise is highly questionable, or at the very least unproven.

    Avatar is not a Pixar or Star Wars.
     
  19. bom_noite

    bom_noite <font color=blue>DVC-Trivia Contest - April, 2006:

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2003
    Messages:
    638
    I agree with what you are saying: MORE OF THE SAME may not be healthy for the park, and, attendance.

    I do think as you do though - Australia is a perfect fit.

    As a family we trudged down there 10 straight years and avoided AK for the first 4 - I love animals but will not go across the street to see them. Our opinions changed the first time we went. It is now our favorite park and we never go without a visit to AK.

    Too me it is not Everest or the Animals - it is the subtle details and picturesque beauty that makes it a wonderful place to spend a day.

    The problem Disney faces is that the family from Topeka who goes once every 10 years limited time / funds. AK would be the one they skip. Disney has to find a way to get these folks in the door - and - I admit that Australia may not do it.

    While I am still anti-Avatar, I do agree with that fact it may get people in the door - and - that may not be a bad thing.


    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.
     
  20. raidermatt

    raidermatt Beware of the dark side. Anger...fear...aggressio

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2000
    Messages:
    6,459
    Oh my, no.

    There are, I believe, spots for at least 5 more pavilions in WS. The original plan was to continue adding countries over time, but they haven't. You can see the space on a satellite view. One is obviously where the current refreshment outpost is. But there are other spots between current countries.

    On the economics.... the reason they haven't built any new countries in 25 years is that Disney requires big money from the sponsoring entity, be it a tourism bureau, a company, whoever. Nobody finds that to be a good deal anymore, hence no new countries. Disney is holding fast to that strategy, figuring that it's better to keep the current pavilions under more favorable terms than it would be to give-in to new pavilions.

    FW has its problems, but space isn't one of them (unless you mean Mission:Space). Regardless, there is an unused pavilion right now, so there is room to do more if they wish. But other than that, needing to add more isn't so much the problem as what they have.

    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.
     
  21. bom_noite

    bom_noite <font color=blue>DVC-Trivia Contest - April, 2006:

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2003
    Messages:
    638
    He is / was actually a very big proponent of FW as he worked there. He felt it was under loved and under appreciated. We walked through it together in December. I was aghast at the landscaping that had not been properly attended too and the buildings in desperate need of paint! Buildings that were closed with no plan on what was coming next.

    He also tells me about guests who were just amazed that FW even existed. He told me about countless guests that were just mystified that Epcot was not just the WS and asked him his opinions on what to do and where to go. They suggest these kids use their days off to really study the area they work in: Where is the nearest bathroom, smoking area, drink vendor, etc. He is a studious kid and did what he was asked and spent days exploring FW (with female CP's of course). I had been to Epcot 20 times, he took me to a dozen places I had no idea existed.

    FW, he felt, was a hidden gem that was under-loved. And, if it was under-loved by the guests and management - just transform it! Take what is good and keep it. The rest, build new Nations.
     

Share This Page