Avatar land coming to Animal Kingdom!!

[Edgehopper]

Wow, the judgments based on the political nature of the film amaze me.

Don't the Disney-lovers pay attention? The company has long been liberal-minded (hiring policies, movie messages, et al.) That's why I love them!

I'm consistently surprised when people rail against Disney's progressive stance and claim to be true fans. And no, disapproving of our military policies does not equal hatred toward America. Not even close.

3 points in response:

1. Walt was solidly on the pro-American futurist side, and is pretty clearly on the American center-right--his vision of the future is of high-tech, prosperous, capitalist America. You can see that outlook in Tomorrowland and Epcot, and particularly in the earlier Epcot attractions (Horizons, Universe of Energy, Spaceship Earth).

2. Disney's left turn was heavily a product of the Eisner era, and Disney's move to message movies is what led to the end of the Disney Renaissance--as we got environmentalist/anti-Western Pocahontas, Tarzan, the overly feminist Mulan, and others. Again, there's a reason that Rafiki's Planet Watch is one of the least populated AK attractions. The best Disney movies in recent years haven't tried to take on society, but had more personal messages--there's nothing political in Meet the Robinsons, Bolt, Princess and the Frog, and Tangled.

3. Pixar is a little schizophrenic. The two movies with the most "political" messages are Wall-E and The Incredibles. Wall-E combines environmentalism with an extremely optimistic view of humanity, and appeals to both sides of the spectrum. In the Incredibles, we get the right wing-friendly message of, "If everyone's special, then no one is"...but then Bob is a corporate drone required to screw over old people for an insurance company. In any case, the "political" element isn't that pronounced, compared to Avatar's message.

 

[Ken_Breadbox]

Somewhere, deep in the bowels of the Disney merchandising think-tank, there is an intern designing blue Mickey ears with beaded braids hanging off of them.

Somewhere, in a test kitchen, hidden far from view, foods that were never meant to be blue are receiving a makeover...

Somewhere, there is a person figuring out how to facepaint your children like their favorite Avatar character for around $50

And all the while, Disney is doing what it knows how to do the best: make us smile and forget about reality while they extract every last dime of our vacation dollars from our wallets.

And somewhere--make that manywheres--there are a whole lot of people eager to see the blue Mickey ears, try the blue food, get their faces painted, and willingly spend every last dime in their wallets to extend the magic just a little longer.
Seriously, I thought this was the DISboards. It's looking like some kind of Fox News forum on this thread.

 

[JenM]

Wow, the judgments based on the political nature of the film amaze me.

Don't the Disney-lovers pay attention? The company has long been liberal-minded (hiring policies, movie messages, et al.) That's why I love them!

I'm consistently surprised when people rail against Disney's progressive stance and claim to be true fans. And no, disapproving of our military policies does not equal hatred toward America. Not even close.

True! Walt Disney was a conservationist himself (I swear, if Bambi was made today, the pundits would be screaming that it was a veiled anti-hunting, pro-gun control movie), and made a ton of films about animals and nature and the importance of protecting our forests.

This really isn't any different. The effects are just cooler.

 

[Anjelica]

A bit sad that the notion of taking care of the environment is polarizing. Perhaps an Exxon-land would give it some balance and appease your political sensitivities.

Interested to hear what they're going to do with it before passing judgment. Certainly the concept of the symbiotic relationship between living things that permeates the movie is something that fits in very well with the overall Animal Kingdom concept.

If the message that people's actions can harm the environment and destroy living things bothers you, maybe Animal Kingdom isn't the best park for you.

It wasn't so much the environmental portion of it that really bugged me but rather the overall tone of "people are bad" that left a bad taste in my mouth.

I have seen "Avatar", and, IMHO, I don't think it was about conservation. If anything, I think that was a minor theme. I felt the movie was about the evils of industrialized people colonizing (conquering) native populations. It was more "Pocahontas: Redux" than anything else to me.

Whichever, the movie didn't really keep my interest. I thought it was boring. Then again, outside of Terminator, T2 and the first 2 Alien movies, I think all of Cameron's movies are dull. To each his own, right?

That said, if this actually happens, I'll give it a go, with an open mind. Still, I'd rather WDW went with a LOTR themed land (not necessarily at AK). I'm not a big Tolkien fan, but that's closer to my interests.

Cameron readily admitted in his post Avatar interviews that he wanted to make a film about humans damaging the environment but since the masses aren't there to go see a movie that was forthcoming about that message he in turn made it into what we have today - Avatar.

I thought it was a very beautiful film but he lost me with his "bad human" message.

 

[colleen costello]

A friend told me about this today via text and I thought they meant Avatar the CARTOON. Had no clue why they were adding THAT... Didn't even occur to me it was Avatar the MOVIE. I am surprised but thrilled! Despite concerns people might have about the plot or what it represents, Avatar the film was unique in creating a whole different universe. It is much like "Lord of the Rings" or "Dune" in its detail and scope. The LOOK of the movie and its creatures and plants were totally unique. In fact, the first time I saw the film in the theater I actually teared up...In the scene where night falls over Pandora. It was breathtaking! Pandora really is a beastly kingdom and if they do this right (I believe they can) it will be fabulous.

 

[Babbletrish]

Oh, holy night, I just read through this whole thread and...

Thank Eywa the "Multiquote" function worked correctly for me here. (Cracks knuckles)

I do wish, however, that AK would add a broader array of animals to the park. I'd like to see animals from Australia and the Americas.

This. A million, billion times this. I honestly can't believe we've got only two Biogeographic Zones (and two geological eras) represented in this gigantic park.

Replace Dinoland with Avatar.

Honestly, although this would be a whole 'nother kettle of fish, let's replace the frankly insulting Dinoland with something brainstormed by paleoartists. Hell, I'll bet my buddies in the ArtEvolved club could come up with something worth visiting in an afternoon of sketching. Why oh why is half of this land in a Walt Disney World Park taken up by things I can see near home at the Yarmouth Clam Fest?

A bit sad that the notion of taking care of the environment is polarizing.

No kidding! I thought not wanting our decendants to suffer wouldn't be a controversial thing but, well, here we are.

Hmm... Let me see if I've captured the sentiment of those in absolute shock and disbelief and totally against by the idea of Avatar land being added to DAK:

Option #1 - "When I go see movies it has to fit with my perceived preconceptions or else it is an evil travesty. So either I hated this movie or I will never see it and have therefore classified it as godawful."

Option #2 - "How dare Disney use a movie that may or may not be interpreted by hardcore anti-environmentalists as a "preachy" (something 99% of the world population apparently didn't even think about) for a Land?!?!? Travesty!"

I like you.

would rather have unicorn and pink pony land

Sweet mother of Walt! The only thing that would have torn the internet and Disney World fandom in half more violently than this announcement of a Pandora park would have been (dare I even say it?) an Equestria park.

On that note, a tangent. If the show was targeted toward boys ("My Giant Warbeast: Violence is Awesome"), it would be totally okay for everyone to watch it. I am genuinely angry about this.

http://www.wdwmagic.com/Attractions...AVATAR-land-likely-construction-locations.htm

Woah. I didn't realize Kilimanjaro Safaris was so huge! And if the large open area in the upper-right is where Pandora is to go, then they might have been at this for a while.

I kind of liked the beastly kingdom idea but only if it didn't go overboard with the fantasy aspect. I think adding a mythical beast thrill ride to each of the lands was a better and more balanced approach. Only problem is that most mythical creatures are Eurasian (can't think of one that would relate for westerners out of Africa, Aus or SA).

Somewhere, a Mokele-mbembe, a Bunyip, and an Alicanto are crying quietly.

I'm sure most of the same people complaining that the Fantasyland expansion was too girl oriented are complaining about a new expansion that is more oriented towards boys.

Indeed. There's just no pleasing people is there?

I think a better expansion would have been a Studio Ghibli-themed Beastly Kingdom.

Oh, what could have been! Then again, that would require Disney to acknowledge the Ghibli catalog anywhere other then, err, Ghibli DVD releases (and maybe the department store in the Japan pavilion).

OK. My own opinions in the next post.

 

[ToddyLu]

My e-mail to Disney...

9-20-11

I just learned that Disney is teaming up with James Cameron to bring an "Avatar Land" to the Animal Kingdom Park. My first reaction is "Are you NUTS!!??"

I would like to take this opportunity to let you know that the movie Avatar makes me sick to my stomach and I found it offensive as an American. The movie does nothing but make the American military out to be murderous thugs. I'm shocked that Disney would want to affiliate itself with a brand that promotes such abhorrent anti-Americanism and desecrates the good men and women that make up our armed services and put their lives on the line everyday defending this great country. I know I am not the only person that feels this way, in fact I know people who love the movie BECAUSE of the way it presents the American military as brutal savages. Those people hate the American military and take joy in seeing it humiliated on the big screen and now Disney has decided to cater to those who would spit on an American soldier if he/she were to walk by. Shameful!

I am a DVC member at 2 resorts and am now going to take a step back and see what Disney decides from here. Will you retract from your announcement to partner with a hideous film and brand or will you scoff at those who take personal offense to the disgusting display of disrespect shown by James Cameron and Avatar. Your decision will affect mine.

Really, I mean really? I never even thought of the gunners in AVATAR as representing our heroic military--that is just a crazy analogy. Yeah, the actor spoke English and it was a violent movie with guns, planes and bombs but associating it with the US Military -- huh?!? And then ranting about it to Disney when they haven't even formulated an idea yet?

 

[dizkneedreamers]

First things first: I hope for the success of the parks so I can watch them grow and expand over the course of my life. Avatar was a huge success, so it would seem like a no brainer for Disney. With the WWHP at Universal, I am happy to see Disney jumping on something newer.

With that being said, Avatar takes very strong political views against the military. Very plainly, the US Marines were the enemy in the movie and as a member of the military it is disrespectful. James Cameron could have picked a lot of other "bad guys" but he didn't. I'm not sure if that is something that Disney wants to get involved in.

I am a DVC owner and stock holder, my family and I love WDW. I am very grateful for the discounts Disney extends to Military members, they are fantastic. I hope if the park is created that it's very successful, but I hope they do it right.

 

[Planogirl]

I'm surprised that so many Disney fans apparently have so little faith in Disney. Disney is certainly capable of making entertaining attractions and it would seem that making something based on the number one movie in the world would be a no brainer. I do question the choice of Animal Kingdom (aliens are animals?) but I don't blame them a bit for going with this franchise. Both James Cameron and Disney Imagineering are pretty brilliant IMO.

As for messages, seriously who cares? I love the Narnia movies even though they are all about religion and I'm not into that particular form. It's easy to respect another's beliefs and still enjoy how the message is delivered.

I also don't see the movie as anti-military or anti-people. People can do awful things (check your history) and so can factions of the military. That doesn't mean that all people or all of the military is awful.

I choose to have faith in Disney in this case and I'm not even a Disney zealot like some...

 

[Planogirl]

Really, I mean really? I never even thought of the gunners in AVATAR as representing our heroic military--that is just a crazy analogy. Yeah, the actor spoke English and it was a violent movie with guns, planes and bombs but associating it with the US Military -- huh?!? And then ranting about it to Disney when they haven't even formulated an idea yet?

ITA. Some people could cross canyons with their leaps in logic.

 

[MrsDuck]

So not happy about this.

 

[DCTooTall]

The issue with the movie is not that it is environmentalist. I think most people want to leave our kids with clean water and air and generally want to do what is good for our planet. These issues are not polarizing. What IS polarizing is the blantant anti-military, anti-business, anti-capilalist & ultimately anti-American slant that the movie took on. Sure, I suppose it is possible to watch the movie for the entertainment value alone, but the political overtures in the movie are so "slap-you-in-the-face" it is hard to see past them. The fact that this thread has turned into a political thread is PRECISELY why Disney should re-think this decision. Why would they want to bring this into their parks? I go to Disney to escape reality - politics and all. I don't want this in my beloved Disney parks. If I can take any solace at all it is that this will be added to the Animal Kingdom, which I don't mind skipping.

Having said all that - if they do go ahead with this - my HOPE is that they will find some way to make this work & keep it "Disney" - although I'm doubtful. Hope they prove me wrong.

Seriously... where was the un-American slant of the movie? I don't seem to recall ANY country being mentioned or seriously hinted at.

You had a bunch of Mercenaries.... which are soldiers who are doing what they do for money, not because of any cause or ideal. IOW's... they are only looking out for themselves.

You had a big evil corporation only looking out for the money.... ok.... i can see a potential anti-capitalism slant... but that's not always a bad thing. Money for the sake of money is never good... just look at all the trouble it causes.

There was the humans vs navi thing..... If anything, that's a case of anti-colonialism. Since America doesn't really do the whole colony bit, it's not really aimed squarely at the US. And MANY countries in history have been guilty of colonization and/or displacing the natives in the name of their own interest. Since this is an issue we have faced across all nationalities and across our history, this isn't really an issue aimed at any one national target.


So again.... where was the anti american slant?

3 points in response:

1. Walt was solidly on the pro-American futurist side, and is pretty clearly on the American center-right--his vision of the future is of high-tech, prosperous, capitalist America. You can see that outlook in Tomorrowland and Epcot, and particularly in the earlier Epcot attractions (Horizons, Universe of Energy, Spaceship Earth).

2. Disney's left turn was heavily a product of the Eisner era, and Disney's move to message movies is what led to the end of the Disney Renaissance--as we got environmentalist/anti-Western Pocahontas, Tarzan, the overly feminist Mulan, and others. Again, there's a reason that Rafiki's Planet Watch is one of the least populated AK attractions. The best Disney movies in recent years haven't tried to take on society, but had more personal messages--there's nothing political in Meet the Robinsons, Bolt, Princess and the Frog, and Tangled.

3. Pixar is a little schizophrenic. The two movies with the most "political" messages are Wall-E and The Incredibles. Wall-E combines environmentalism with an extremely optimistic view of humanity, and appeals to both sides of the spectrum. In the Incredibles, we get the right wing-friendly message of, "If everyone's special, then no one is"...but then Bob is a corporate drone required to screw over old people for an insurance company. In any case, the "political" element isn't that pronounced, compared to Avatar's message.

1. Are you factoring in how much the right and left have drifted since Walt's time? You are also neglecting to mention his true life adventures and attractions like the Jungle Cruise.... or I could say even Bambi. I honestly don't think Walt would've been the type to really get super political. He believed in the betterment of mankind and the use of science and technology towards that goal. I'm not sure how easy it would've been to classify him as left or right leaning within today's political spectrum.

(OMG!! The Experimental Prototype Community Of Tomorrow had everyone living in identical houses and not having cars to get to work in the central hub city!! That communist!!)


2. I'll agree Disney got a lot more political under Eisner's watch... but that was likely also just a sign of the times. Remember, Eisner also brought us the beginning of the Disney Animation Renaissance with Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, etc. He also brought Disney back from the edge of destruction after it started to spiral after Walt's death when they started to run out of "Walt's Projects" to complete. Eisner wasn't all bad..... he just started to go nuts as his ego got out of control.

And personally... I think Rafiki's Planet Watch's being so empty has more to do with it's remoteness and lack of anything of interest to the majority of vacationers than it does with any "message" it may be trying to deliver.

 

[TaylorsDad]

I am so glad Disney is willing to take a chance and add something unique to the park. I think the this will add some some needed variety to AK.I am surprised they are talking a whole land instead of one ride though. I guess to finance this venture ticket prices will need to rise dramatically over the next few years though. Any guesses to the price of one day base ticket cost by the year 2016

 

[DCTooTall]

First things first: I hope for the success of the parks so I can watch them grow and expand over the course of my life. Avatar was a huge success, so it would seem like a no brainer for Disney. With the WWHP at Universal, I am happy to see Disney jumping on something newer.

With that being said, Avatar takes very strong political views against the military. Very plainly, the US Marines were the enemy in the movie and as a member of the military it is disrespectful. James Cameron could have picked a lot of other "bad guys" but he didn't. I'm not sure if that is something that Disney wants to get involved in.

I am a DVC owner and stock holder, my family and I love WDW. I am very grateful for the discounts Disney extends to Military members, they are fantastic. I hope if the park is created that it's very successful, but I hope they do it right.

How were they the US Marines? First off... The took their orders from the Corporate Representative on the planet. Secondly.... There was no national representation in either uniforms, flags, or dialog, within the movie.

Based off those 2 factors as well as other things within the movie, it is a MUCH more logical assumption that the military units were Mercenaries. You would see Merc's taking orders from the company that hired them to do the job....

Now... just like real life, Many of the Mercs would very likely be ex-military. But just like you wouldn't accuse a unit from Blackwater (or whatever they are called now) of being Marines, you shouldn't accues the bad guys in Avatar of being Marines.

 

[Babbletrish]

Alright, setting the recent political wank aside (I don't EVEN have an opinion*).

So here we have Walt Disney World teaming up with James Cameron, a filmmaker who goes big, shoots for the moon, wants to blow the audience's mind, wants to show people things they've never seen before, has created some of the best-selling films of all time, and who, above all, basically invents technology along the way just to get a movie made.

Just like this filmmaker did:

Try to argue it.

So I have no problem whatsoever with a Disney/Cameron Marvel Teamup.

Now as far as the film "Avatar". Guys, very few people were enamored of the story, even the hardcore fans. Why did people keep coming back to the theater? Why were an alarming number of ordinary folks crying at night, wishing they could turn into Navi and live on Pandora**? I'll tell you why:

World. Building.

Pandora was built in excruciating detail from the ground up. Some of the most creative minds were put in charge of every detail. I was sold on the movie once I heard Wayne D. Barlowe and Neville Page were involved. (As you may have guessed, I am a creature design nutcase.) So this is indeed a world as detailed as, say, Hogwarts. (I'll give you Star Wars, since we're dealing with several planet's worth of Barlowe and Terryl Witlatch critters rather than one planet we haven't even seen the aquatic fauna of -- yet.)

So there are a lot of interesting opportunities to be had here. One possibility I like (aside from the fairly obvious "Trudy Lives!" flight simulator, "Soarin' on a Turok", and "Neytiri and her Forest Friends" ) is an exhibit of the real organisms who inspired the fictional creatures: Lemurs, Ocelots, Tube Worms, Birds of Paradise, Lanternfish, Butterfly Lizards, Tree Ferns, Raffelasia, Flower Hat Jellyfish, and a whole slew of plants and animals who are strange, awesome, and need more love.

I've got the same attitude I already had with the Fantasyland expansion: I'm trusting Disney can pull it off and am ready to enjoy something new.

Because in the end, we are getting a new themed land out of this. Y'all HAVE to agree that's worth getting excited over.

(Now what are the chances anyone's going to notice my one post in the deluge?

EDIT: Yay! [Enter overused Sally Field Oscar speech here.])

-----

* - Now that I alluded to it, does Disney still own the rights to the Miramax films made when they were part of Disney? Hell, we could have Tarantinoland!

(Seriously though, a defictionalized Jack Rabbit Slims in DHS would be neato if at all possible.)

** - To which I say, my God, pull yourself together and book an ecotour of Costa Rica. Earth is pretty too. And real.

 

[JenM]

It wasn't so much the environmental portion of it that really bugged me but rather the overall tone of "people are bad" that left a bad taste in my mouth.



Cameron readily admitted in his post Avatar interviews that he wanted to make a film about humans damaging the environment but since the masses aren't there to go see a movie that was forthcoming about that message he in turn made it into what we have today - Avatar.

I thought it was a very beautiful film but he lost me with his "bad human" message.

Again, you could easily see the same messages in Bambi: "man" is always referred to in an ominous tone, Bambi's mother is killed by a hunter, and wasn't it also the hunters who started the big forest fire at the end of the film too?

Avatar had the "bad humans," but it had plenty of good ones too: Jake, the scientists, the pilot who went against the mercenaries to help them. You definitely couldn't walk away with the belief that all humans were bad, there were just a selfish few who ruined things for everyone else.

 

[ChefMickey123]

And somewhere--make that manywheres--there are a whole lot of people eager to see the blue Mickey ears, try the blue food, get their faces painted, and willingly spend every last dime in their wallets to extend the magic just a little longer.
Seriously, I thought this was the DISboards. It's looking like some kind of Fox News forum on this thread.

Sorry, Ken Bread box-I thought the word "smile" would have more of an impact in my first post. You should know that I will be one of the first people in line to try the very things I was dryly joking about.

 

[nytimez]

My e-mail to Disney...

9-20-11

I just learned that Disney is teaming up with James Cameron to bring an "Avatar Land" to the Animal Kingdom Park. My first reaction is "Are you NUTS!!??"

I would like to take this opportunity to let you know that the movie Avatar makes me sick to my stomach and I found it offensive as an American. The movie does nothing but make the American military out to be murderous thugs. I'm shocked that Disney would want to affiliate itself with a brand that promotes such abhorrent anti-Americanism and desecrates the good men and women that make up our armed services and put their lives on the line everyday defending this great country. I know I am not the only person that feels this way, in fact I know people who love the movie BECAUSE of the way it presents the American military as brutal savages. Those people hate the American military and take joy in seeing it humiliated on the big screen and now Disney has decided to cater to those who would spit on an American soldier if he/she were to walk by. Shameful!

I am a DVC member at 2 resorts and am now going to take a step back and see what Disney decides from here. Will you retract from your announcement to partner with a hideous film and brand or will you scoff at those who take personal offense to the disgusting display of disrespect shown by James Cameron and Avatar. Your decision will affect mine.

Wow. Talk about reading into things. There's no response to this kind of crazy.

 

[coachb]

I LOVED Avatar. I'm embarassed to admit how many times I saw it, in all its versions. My 8 year old teases me about my "crush" on Neyteri.

Now, do I think there is an anti business, pro environment slant? Of course there is. Do I think it detracts from a wonderful movie? I don't. Is James Cameron a likely tree hugging Moonbat? Probably, but I could care less. And this is coming from a true environmentalist. True in the sense that I spend alot of time in the woods. Time that I cherish. A little environmental awareness isn't a bad thing in my book. This coming from someone more conservative than most.

The story in Avatar has largely been told before. It's a small part Pocahontas and a large part Dances with Wolves. It's the effects which make this movie special. They are like nothing seen before. This is no cartoon (like DW thinks). To be taken to a far away land, with a different language, different flora, animals, culture etc. Good conquering over evil...I mean, how Disney is that?

I think this is BIG news. In fact, I heard it on the radio on the way home from work tonight. I can't imagine what Disney/Cameron have in store for us. I think announcing this prior to the sequels is a stroke of genious. I will be all over this once it's up and running.

 

[Invisable89]

Alright, setting the recent political wank aside (I don't EVEN have an opinion*).

So here we have Walt Disney World teaming up with James Cameron, a filmmaker who goes big, shoots for the moon, wants to blow the audience's mind, wants to show people things they've never seen before, has created some of the best-selling films of all time, and who, above all, basically invents technology along the way just to get a movie made.

Just like this filmmaker did:

Try to argue it.

So I have no problem whatsoever with a Disney/Cameron Marvel Teamup.

Now as far as the film "Avatar". Guys, very few people were enamored of the story, even the hardcore fans. Why did people keep coming back to the theater? Why were an alarming number of ordinary folks crying at night, wishing they could turn into Navi and live on Pandora**? I'll tell you why:

World. Building.

Pandora was built in excruciating detail from the ground up. Some of the most creative minds were put in charge of every detail. I was sold on the movie once I heard Wayne D. Barlowe and Neville Page were involved. (As you may have guessed, I am a creature design nutcase.) So this is indeed a world as detailed as, say, Hogwarts. (I'll give you Star Wars, since we're dealing with several planet's worth of Barlowe and Terryl Witlatch critters rather than one planet we haven't even seen the aquatic fauna of -- yet.)

So there are a lot of interesting opportunities to be had here. One possibility I like (aside from the fairly obvious "Trudy Lives!" flight simulator, "Soarin' on a Turok", and "Neytiri and her Forest Friends" ) is an exhibit of the real organisms who inspired the fictional creatures: Lemurs, Ocelots, Tube Worms, Birds of Paradise, Lanternfish, Butterfly Lizards, Tree Ferns, Raffelasia, Flower Hat Jellyfish, and a whole slew of plants and animals who are strange, awesome, and need more love.

I've got the same attitude I already had with the Fantasyland expansion: I'm trusting Disney can pull it off and am ready to enjoy something new.

Because in the end, we are getting a new themed land out of this. Y'all HAVE to agree that's worth getting excited over.

(Now what are the chances anyone's going to notice my one post in the deluge?)

-----

* - Now that I alluded to it, does Disney still own the rights to the Miramax films made when they were part of Disney? Hell, we could have Tarantinoland!

(Seriously though, a defictionalized Jack Rabbit Slims in DHS would be neato if at all possible.)

** - To which I say, my God, pull yourself together and book an ecotour of Costa Rica. Earth is pretty too. And real.