Avatar land coming to Animal Kingdom!!

[Rhonna]

I need concept art and ideas on what this is gonna look like when it's finish before I judge it

The only thing I have a problem with at the moment is why they didn't do this with George Lucas to add a SW land onto the studios

I was thinking rather than Avatar (not interested, thanks anyhow) they could have put the whole Ewok world in AK park. Would totally fit and they could do some kind of speed racer attraction. Add in a Wookie or two and we're good to go. Mythical creatures that everyone likes.

 

[Planogirl]

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.

You're winning me over to agreeing that it could fit in AK. I like it.

 

[wasabi girl]

And I've been wishing for Disney to invest some serious money for a long time...then when they do, this? Really?!? Blue cat people running around in thongs...just not that interesting. The world however was beautiful. Please let's hope that they just use the setting and leave out blue people.

I think though, that Disney Imagineering could have come up with fantastic concepts on their own, they are talented, creative, and no doubt full of ideas. Why anyone at Disney felt the need for Avatar-land, I'm sure I don't know.

 

[Planogirl]

And I've been wishing for Disney to invest some serious money for a long time...then when they do, this? Really?!? Blue cat people running around in thongs...just not that interesting. The world however was beautiful. Please let's hope that they just use the setting and leave out blue people.

I think though, that Disney Imagineering could have come up with fantastic concepts on their own, they are talented, creative, and no doubt full of ideas. Why anyone at Disney felt the need for Avatar-land, I'm sure I don't know.

This is why IMO:

Rumor was that Universal was considering Avatar as a replacement for one of its attractions.

 

[DCTooTall]

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.

 

[wasabi girl]

This is why IMO:

Rumor was that Universal was considering Avatar as a replacement for one of its attractions.

Hmmm....knee jerk reactions are not always best. I hope however that this partnership yields better results than I expect...

 

[morethananyonex]

This is why IMO:

Rumor was that Universal was considering Avatar as a replacement for one of its attractions.

I'm sure you're right, and I hate that (not you being right ).

Someone said in one of these many threads, Harry Potter was Universal's response to Disney, and I completely agree. Disney does not need to "respond" to it. Disney needs to keep doing what they've been doing these last 40 years at WDW (and more at DL), and that's making immersive attractions and lands without piggybacking off the success of an already existing franchise.

I was glad when I found out Harry Potter was going to Universal, and I wish Avatar was too. IMO they fit in much better there.

 

[MindyDean]

I didn't like that movie when my kids had it blaring one Christmas on the big screen T.V. I thought the blue people were plain weird. It sure doesn't fit my idea of Disney, but maybe some good rides will be in the land.

 

[brandanobash]

this is my response to all of the posts on this thread that talk about the american military in avatar, the political message in avatar, and if its what walt would of done if he was still alive. i dont mean to offend anyone:

it was a private company that went to pandora, not the american military. sam worthington said that 15 times in the movie. so i just destroyed this argument right then and there. BAM MIND BLOWN, i know you can thank me later. Also disney not playing the movie in the parks, they are making a land based off the movie, so all off the political mumbo jumbo will be gone. think of all of the indiana jones and star wars attractions in disney world THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLOTS OF THE MOVIES. BAM MIND BLOWN TWICE, i know i know im on a role. this just gives disney a chance to take you to a new world and experience new things. (someone that liked disneyland told us this "I don't want the public to see the world they live in while they're in the Park (Disneyland). I want to feel they're in another world.") i wonder who said that? but anyways! this is the perfect way to do that! pandora is another world that will amaze you! just like the worlds of star wars and harry potter. lets forget about the political mumbo jumbo and be happy that the disney company that you know and YOU TRUST is making something new. unless your a fan of dinoland U.S.A. then i understand your concern, try to ride TriceraTop Spin as much as you can (one of disney's greatest rides of all time next to sounds dangerous.) i believe disney will not make anything that will offend people unless you think stopping a super WAL MART from being built in a forest filled with animals is a bad thing.....

 

[Magical Kingdoms]

Posted this in the other thread already..

Don't like it.

I was glad Disney didn't get the rights to Harry Potter and I'm disappointed they're going in this direction. I would much prefer a new section that isn't based on an already existing successful movie/franchise. I'm sure it will be cool, but I much prefer the style of HM and POTC where the success of the ride came first.

I know. It's silly Disney would do this. They've always been original with a lot of their stuff, and now they are just trying to pull in the people who liked that movie, just like HP.

It's expected to open right around the time the 3rd Avatar movie comes out in 2015

Cameron's doing two more Avatars? Really? I didn't think it was THAT good! Does he have to do two more????? WHY?

 

[ftballfan7]

I've never seen Avatar and do not have an opinion regarding its worthiness for WDW. 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.

They have a ton of animals from the Americas already. Everywhere I look I see chipmunks and squirrels.

 

[Batch]

As many others have said, my first thought was that this is Disney's answer to Harry Potter. I think they're barking up the wrong tree. While Avatar has a loyal following, I seriously doubt they're going to see any WWOHP-type crowds with this Avatar expansion. I suppose that since there are apparently two more films being released, I could be proved wrong but I don't know. I just don't think Avatar appeals to a broad enough audience.

Really, I think my biggest issue is with adding this at AK. While there is the whole message of conservation that is all around AK, it just feels...out of place. Maybe I wouldn't mind it as much if they were building it at DHS where, you know, they've got that whole movie theme going on. I just think that something with animals would be much better at AK. An arctic area with polar bears and penguins? Or if that's too SeaWorld for you then maybe an Australian outback area? Just my two cents.

 

[CandleontheWater]

Well at least some people will be happy

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-11/...blues_1_pandora-depressed-posts?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ

I'll admit I think it is a little bit of a weird partnership, but if it is done right (which I have no reason to doubt it will be), I think it will be a slam dunk.

I know that it might be a fleeting pop culture blip, but if it is done right, then it will be able to stand alone, regardless of how the movie fares in the future.

Think about it, how many of us have seen Song of the South in the past decade (or longer) but Splash Mountain is still a hugely popular ride. Also I doubt that many people watch the black and white Twilight Zone episodes religiously, but still they queue up for Tower of Terror. Heck, I'm not even an Aerosmith fan, but I do love RnRC.

If Imagineering does what it does best, it will build off the ideas and images found in Avatar and make something really amazing and worthy of the Disney brand.

 

[DCTooTall]

I know. It's silly Disney would do this. They've always been original with a lot of their stuff, and now they are just trying to pull in the people who liked that movie, just like HP.



Cameron's doing two more Avatars? Really? I didn't think it was THAT good! Does he have to do two more????? WHY?

Oh Totally Agree! Disney has ALWAYS been 100% Original with their stuff. A.A Milline, The Brothers Grimm, George Lucas, Jim Henson, Rod Serling, Pretty much every World's Fair for the past 200 years....and classic folk stories didn't have ANYTHING to do with any of the stuff currently in Disney parks....



And why does he have to make 2 more movies? Because the first one made over $2bil. It's the same reason why EVERY movie made these days has to be in 3D.

 

[morethananyonex]

Well at least some people will be happy

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-11/...blues_1_pandora-depressed-posts?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ

I'll admit I think it is a little bit of a weird partnership, but if it is done right (which I have no reason to doubt it will be), I think it will be a slam dunk.

I know that it might be a fleeting pop culture blip, but if it is done right, then it will be able to stand alone, regardless of how the movie fares in the future.

Think about it, how many of us have seen Song of the South in the past decade (or longer) but Splash Mountain is still a hugely popular ride. Also I doubt that many people watch the black and white Twilight Zone episodes religiously, but still they queue up for Tower of Terror. Heck, I'm not even an Aerosmith fan, but I do love RnRC.

If Imagineering does what it does best, it will build off the ideas and images found in Avatar and make something really amazing and worthy of the Disney brand.

My issue is that they're creating an entire land off of this movie franchise. If it was one attraction only, I'd be okay with it. I don't disagree that if they are able to create a good ride out of this that it will be popular.

Basing a land off a franchise is not "Disney" to me. I much prefer the general lands like Asia, Africa, Tomorrowland, Adventureland, etc. Disney have never been followers, but that's exactly what this move screams to me.

Oh Totally Agree! Disney has ALWAYS been 100% Original with their stuff. A.A Milline, The Brothers Grimm, George Lucas, Jim Henson, Rod Serling, Pretty much every World's Fair for the past 200 years....and classic folk stories didn't have ANYTHING to do with any of the stuff currently in Disney parks....



And why does he have to make 2 more movies? Because the first one made over $2bil. It's the same reason why EVERY movie made these days has to be in 3D.

It's not even up for debate that most of the Disney stories are based on previously existing ones. It's also obvious that there are major attractions in the parks that do not have original Disney content. BUT, how many lands and entire sections of the parks have been based off an already successful franchise?

That's what I do not like about this whole thing. I'm sure Disney can pull it off beautifully, but that doesn't change anything for me.

 

[Babbletrish]

I know that it might be a fleeting pop culture blip, but if it is done right, then it will be able to stand alone, regardless of how the movie fares in the future.

Think about it, how many of us have seen Song of the South in the past decade (or longer) but Splash Mountain is still a hugely popular ride. Also I doubt that many people watch the black and white Twilight Zone episodes religiously, but still they queue up for Tower of Terror. Heck, I'm not even an Aerosmith fan, but I do love RnRC.

If Imagineering does what it does best, it will build off the ideas and images found in Avatar and make something really amazing and worthy of the Disney brand.

Well said!

 

[wasabi girl]

It's not even up for debate that most of the Disney stories are based on previously existing ones. It's also obvious that there are major attractions in the parks that do not have original Disney content. BUT, how many lands and entire sections of the parks have been based off an already successful franchise?

That's what I do not like about this whole thing. I'm sure Disney can pull it off beautifully, but that doesn't change anything for me.

Agreed, and most of the other non Disney items have a richer source than just a movie...okay...well I guess Star Wars and Indiana Jones began with just one movie. But I still don't see Avatar as being something people want to see in a couple of decades...blue cat people, really?!?

 

[OhioDisneyDad]

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.

Have you even watched the movie? Maybe they'll open a clue store so you can buy one. I think that's the only way you'll be getting one.

 

[Ltl Mermaid]

When I 1st heard about this, my thought was "Finally the people at the DIS will be happy because so many people there want more from AK" and it looks like I was wrong again lol.

I for one am very excited! I liked the movie (not a die hard fan) but I do see the potential for amazingly immersive experiences that will stand alone, regardless of the films future success. An example of this (for me) is Indiana Jones. I have never seen any of the movies, yet the ride at DL is my all time fave ride anywhere!

I have no doubt that this will be amazingly popular and will be done "right" by the Imagineers. So far I have yet to be disappointed, and growth at the parks is a good thing for everyone. Heck, even if you don't like it, it leaves other areas less crowded for you!

I do think this is an excellent fit for Disney, with the environmental tones and respecting the earth.Very similar to Pocahontas, which of course is a classic Disney movie!

Anyhow, I am so shocked by the reaction, which I expected to be overwhelmingly popular...and this is from someone who liked but wasn't bsessed with Avatar!

I think once it is open it will wow everyone!

 

[Babbletrish]

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.

Important point about both movies, just in case anyone wants to bring this up again:

The main characters are not human*.

Given their main interaction with humans is, err, hunting season and an incident inspired by the one that eventually caused the formation of the Pachamama Alliance, no wonder they don't have the highest opinion of us. It's arguably the flip side of a grown man who hates all dogs because one of them barked loudly at him as a baby. (Should also be noted that the novel Bambi was a bit more nuanced about this.)

Sorry, this (to borrow a phrase) just bugs me. Carry on, my wayward thre-e-e-ead.

* - OK, Jake and Grace and Weird Lanky Guy are kind of a grey area here. Whatever.