Avatar land coming to Animal Kingdom!!

[brightonpratts]

maybe they are thinking tons of us loved the movie and would pay to go see the attraction at AK. It is one of our fav parks, and this movie and the tree \ one with nature \ all God's creatures is a great fit! Looking forward to hearing more! (and we love Harry too!)

 

[nytimez]

I guess I'm in the minority here but my first thought was "what about the nearly naked Na'vi"? Disney execs spend hours and hours discussing whether or not Donald Duck needs to wear pants. He is not similar to a human, he is an animal. Mowgli, Kokoum (Pocohantas), and Peter Pan's Indians all wear more. I can't think of any humanoid Disney character in the parks with costuming similar to the Na'vi.

Yes, I know that costumes can be made with body suits and the CMs will be fully covered, however the illusion will still be there. I looked up the reason for the PG-13 movie rating and sensuality was one of them. Yes, I understand there is a short, sensual scene in the movie but the very minimal costumes apparently also played a part in the movie rating.

In a G/PG theme park with rules for no thongs in the swimming pools, I don't know how they can make the Na'vi G/PG without altering the original character concept.

I liked the movie. I agree that making Pandora the Disney-way could be incredible. The beastly characters could make fantastic attractions. I just don't want to take my pre-teen grandkids for pics with a Na'vi or go thru a land with those images.

BTW, for those of you that want a nightime Pandora attraction...... this is the AK. They close at dusk 6 days out of 7.

For years, until very recently, Ariel met kids and took photos with them wearing nothing but a pair of clamshells from the waist up. Jasmine ain't exactly modestly dressed either...

 

[Invisable89]

I also get the impression that many posters on this thread have not seen the film? Because they don't understand how AVATAR can fit into DAK.

& I also think people are thinking that Disney will be focusing on the characters of the film & turning them into 'Disney characters' & will design attractions based on them - that is definitely something that has NOT been mentioned if you read all the releases of this. WDI & Cameron seem to want to focus on Pandora (the planet the Na'vi people live on) which is the creatures, the human-to-nature relationship, nature in general & the culture.

 

[ScoJo15]

I guess I'm in the minority here but my first thought was "what about the nearly naked Na'vi"? Disney execs spend hours and hours discussing whether or not Donald Duck needs to wear pants. He is not similar to a human, he is an animal. Mowgli, Kokoum (Pocohantas), and Peter Pan's Indians all wear more. I can't think of any humanoid Disney character in the parks with costuming similar to the Na'vi.

Yes, I know that costumes can be made with body suits and the CMs will be fully covered, however the illusion will still be there. I looked up the reason for the PG-13 movie rating and sensuality was one of them. Yes, I understand there is a short, sensual scene in the movie but the very minimal costumes apparently also played a part in the movie rating.

In a G/PG theme park with rules for no thongs in the swimming pools, I don't know how they can make the Na'vi G/PG without altering the original character concept.

I liked the movie. I agree that making Pandora the Disney-way could be incredible. The beastly characters could make fantastic attractions. I just don't want to take my pre-teen grandkids for pics with a Na'vi or go thru a land with those images.

BTW, for those of you that want a nightime Pandora attraction...... this is the AK. They close at dusk 6 days out of 7.

1. Star Wars Episode 3 is rated PG-13, should we put a warning on Star Tours now? Same can be said for not wanting to have people see a half naked Carrie Fisher and some huge blob that has a dog collar around her neck. I don't think we have anything to worry about regarding the imagery of Avatar

2. One would have to believe that the park hours will be revisited with a new addition. There is nothing in stone that says AK has to stay a 5 or 6pm park forever.

 

[KellyNY]

I guess I'm in the minority here but my first thought was "what about the nearly naked Na'vi"? Disney execs spend hours and hours discussing whether or not Donald Duck needs to wear pants. He is not similar to a human, he is an animal. Mowgli, Kokoum (Pocohantas), and Peter Pan's Indians all wear more. I can't think of any humanoid Disney character in the parks with costuming similar to the Na'vi.

Yes, I know that costumes can be made with body suits and the CMs will be fully covered, however the illusion will still be there. I looked up the reason for the PG-13 movie rating and sensuality was one of them. Yes, I understand there is a short, sensual scene in the movie but the very minimal costumes apparently also played a part in the movie rating.

In a G/PG theme park with rules for no thongs in the swimming pools, I don't know how they can make the Na'vi G/PG without altering the original character concept.

I liked the movie. I agree that making Pandora the Disney-way could be incredible. The beastly characters could make fantastic attractions. I just don't want to take my pre-teen grandkids for pics with a Na'vi or go thru a land with those images.

BTW, for those of you that want a nightime Pandora attraction...... this is the AK. They close at dusk 6 days out of 7.

Interesting twist however, Ariels top is somewhat questionable as well but she is not covered.

 

[kathy884]

Although I didn't care for the Avatar movie, I'll be very curious to see what comes out of a James Cameron / Disney partnership. Like or hate James Cameron, the guy is pretty amazing -- His determination, vision, attention to detail, research he put into his films is pretty incredible and over the top. Cameron and Disney imagineers to me sounds like a very interesting combination. Cameron doesn't do anything half heartedly.

 

[ScoJo15]

Although I didn't care for the Avatar movie, I'll be very curious to see what comes out of a James Cameron / Disney partnership. Like or hate James Cameron, the guy is pretty amazing -- His determination, vision, attention to detail, research he put into his films is pretty incredible and over the top. Cameron and Disney imagineers to me sounds like a very interesting combination. Cameron doesn't do anything half heartedly.

Well said!

 

[ScoJo15]

Isn't the movie FICTION??? I mean seriously people need to chill out. I simply sit here in shock (with a side of mild humor) at how a fictional movie, with undertones of environmentalism and, well, anti-bullying for lack of a better word, can p*$$ people off so much. Geesh. This is probably one of the more shocking degradations of a thread I've seen on the Dis in my many years and that is saying a LOT....just.freakin.wow. Soooo....Pocahontas didn't paint the early settlers, our American ancestors, in the best light? Beauty & The Beast AND Bambi is anti-hunter am I right, please alert the NRA? I mean COME ON!?!?! Where does it end?! I like the concept of AK being a land with undertones of conservation which fits well with Avatar. Beyond that, I don't think it's an evil liberal conspiracy. It is an opportunity for the Imagineers to have a blast creating unique rides and venues that will offer a new "land" within AK that will, in fact, draw a heck of a lot of people to WDW. Which I do believe is the point.

Is there an applauding smiley somewhere?

 

[butterfly71076]

OK, true, I have never seen the movie. Also, true, I know alot of people like it. I have no desire, whatsoever, to see it. But, besides special effects and it made so much money, what about is so good? All I kept reading was, it had amazing effects and made alot of money. No one seems to say, it's a really great movie because......and this is why it's worthy of it's own land. I am very interested in some real answers of people who really like this movie.

I just think, Disney, should reconsider the idea of a whole land. I have been thinking about the parks, talking FL, not CA, and I can't recall an entire land being built around one movie, and it's not even a Disney movie. If anyone can, please correct me in this. I would love to have my memory jogged, it has been over a year since I've been.

 

[KellyNY]

OK, true, I have never seen the movie. Also, true, I know alot of people like it. I have no desire, whatsoever, to see it. But, besides special effects and it made so much money, what about is so good? All I kept reading was, it had amazing effects and made alot of money. No one seems to say, it's a really great movie because......and this is why it's worthy of it's own land. I am very interested in some real answers of people who really like this movie.

I suggest you to watch it, then you will know if it is actually good or bad.

 

[awdwnut]

It doesn't change the fact that it sounds ridiculous....and just proves that there really was nothing original in Avatar.

Yes, by all means, lets criticize a science fiction movie because it contains a ridiculous sounding word, even if is a real term used in the engineering field.

I am sure the Koch brothers will help organize protests the day the new land opens for those who feel the need.

awdwnut

 

[dizfan]

Regardless of whether you like the movie or not, technologically it opened eyes.
Avatar was the movie that turned heads and resulted in many entertainment companies pursuing 3D. Look at the newer television sets and blu-ray players and 3D is everywhere.

The way I see it, this continues in Walt's tradition of earth shattering movie experiences coming to Walt Disney parks.

We had Walt's visions, Star Wars, Pixar, and now Avatar. Seems like a pretty good model.

Seems like Disney has realized that WDW has needed something new. MK getting Fantasyland expansion. DHS rumored to be receiving more DHS (Monsters Inc ride). AK getting Avatar.

 

[butterfly71076]

I suggest you to watch it, then you will know if it is actually good or bad.

Like I said, I have no desire, at all to see it. Not a big fan of science fiction, with the exception of Star Wars, the original 3. But then again, watching a young, good looking Harrison Ford running around in skin tight pants was enough for me!

 

[ppony]

Love the idea too. Avatar, to me, was a feast for the eyes. Just beautiful. The story, was fine, but that wasn't what made me buy a big flat HD screen, the BEAUTY did. Visual beauty is what Disney is GREAT at. So I see it as a good fit.

 

[DrDoofenshmirtz]

Except that Cameron didn't direct the first Alien movie. Ridley Scott did.

You are, of course, absolutely right. And, I would've remembered that if it weren't for that pesky platypus blowing up my rememberinator! Curse you, Perry the Platypus!

 

[Sweettears]

For years, until very recently, Ariel met kids and took photos with them wearing nothing but a pair of clamshells from the waist up. Jasmine ain't exactly modestly dressed either...

Been to CRT within the last few years and my perception is that the princesses attract more than the stated audience.

 

[Sweettears]

I also get the impression that many posters on this thread have not seen the film? Because they don't understand how AVATAR can fit into DAK.

& I also think people are thinking that Disney will be focusing on the characters of the film & turning them into 'Disney characters' & will design attractions based on them - that is definitely something that has NOT been mentioned if you read all the releases of this. WDI & Cameron seem to want to focus on Pandora (the planet the Na'vi people live on) which is the creatures, the human-to-nature relationship, nature in general & the culture.

I have not yet seen it and therefore agree with you. That is why I stated early that I reserve judgement. In Disney I trust.

 

[ppony]

In Disney I trust.

Agree!!!!!!

 

[Planogirl]

I have not yet seen it and therefore agree with you. That is why I stated early that I reserve judgement. In Disney I trust.

Exactly! I'm still amazed that some people seem to have no faith in Disney.

 

[ChisJo]

Seriously? Avatar? I have seen this movie and was BORED through the entire thing. I HATED it! Visually stimulating, sure, but a movie that is making 2 sequels? Seriously?

And how did they incorporate this into the ANIMAL kingdom? When I think of the Animal Kingdom, I think of being able to see NON-fictional lands and the animals that inhabit them. Sure, the yeti may be fake, but at least it isn't the basis for a whole land.

Sure, the environmental aspects of that movie equates a great message, and it would be nice to teach that message, but come on, a whole land on a FICTIONAL place? What are they going to do for ANIMALS???? Have a bunch of animatronic things?

If people want to compare this to Harry Potter, fine....BUT, Harry Potter was a phenominon that took hold of so many people, young and old, and continues to do so. I know FAR more people who would lose their mind in the Harry Potter aspect of Universal Studios than I would in an Avatar land. I just don't see Avatar taking hold of someones attention and keeping it held for 2 more movies.

Seriously disappointed....I have no intention of going here.