Avatar land coming to Animal Kingdom!!

[Babbletrish]

So, wild speculation time. What kind of attractions do you think we can expect? I recently learned about the very unusual theme park Futuroscope and wondered if Disney might do something along these lines.

EDIT: Page 45!

 

[Invisable89]

I perfectly understand that everyone is entitled to their opinion but what isn't right is when people argue & argue about their opinion being the right one until that person admits defeat. Remember opinions are not facts.

Not everyone is going to like everything let alone at Disney. But if you haven't even watched the film how do you actually know Disney is making a mistake? Surely that's not fair? You really shouldn't judge something until you've tried it out. & The argument that AVATAR has no longevity is a bit premature as there's only been one film out so far (which is the highest grossing film of all time). & An awful lot of popular Disney attractions are based on films that didn't do very well or are let alone remembered, Splash Mountain anyone? That's based on 'Song Of The South' which i've never even watched (& I wasn't aware until recently that it was even based on a film).

So that's my two cents on it all. I personally think AVATAR will fit in perfectly at DAK, i can't think of much else that would be a good fit... Beastly Kingdom just doesn't appeal to me, most children aren't really into Dragons, Unicorns etc these days. So i think it would be pretty boring or unoriginal if Disney did decide to bring it back, if it was done as originally planned in the 90's i think it would have been amazing - but times move on, unfortunately.

 

[W.E.D.]

I don't know how I feel about this.

On one hand, I know Disney will come through on making it an eye-popping, jaw-dropping land and experience with plenty of stuff for folks of all ages.

On the other hand, I do think they are making a BIG gamble on the films. Yes, the first was a blockbuster and well received by most people. But the other two haven't even been released yet. People could lose interest. The films could tank. Highly unlikely, but always a possibility.

 

[mking624]

I perfectly understand that everyone is entitled to their opinion but what isn't right is when people argue & argue about their opinion being the right one until that person admits defeat. Remember opinions are not facts.

Not everyone is going to like everything let alone at Disney. But if you haven't even watched the film how do you actually know Disney is making a mistake? Surely that's not fair? You really shouldn't judge something until you've tried it out. & The argument that AVATAR has no longevity is a bit premature as there's only been one film out so far (which is the highest grossing film of all time). & An awful lot of popular Disney attractions are based on films that didn't do very well or are let alone remembered, Splash Mountain anyone? That's based on 'Song Of The South' which i've never even watched (& I wasn't aware until recently that it was even based on a film).

This is true...BUT the difference here is that those Disney attractions are based on Disney movies. Their property. So it does make sense for a Disney park to include a Disney themed attraction based on a Disney movie, regardless of how popular or unpopular that film may be. While people here might not care for particular attractions at Disney, I've yet to see anyone say "that attraction based on a Disney film just doesn't belong in a Disney park."

So that's my two cents on it all. I personally think AVATAR will fit in perfectly at DAK, i can't think of much else that would be a good fit... Beastly Kingdom just doesn't appeal to me, most children aren't really into Dragons, Unicorns etc these days. So i think it would be pretty boring or unoriginal if Disney did decide to bring it back, if it was done as originally planned in the 90's i think it would have been amazing - but times move on, unfortunately.

I love how you start out saying that opinions are not facts (which I wholeheartedly agree with) and then go on to say how most children aren't really into dragons, unicorns, etc...as if that were a fact you were pointing out. Ironic, no? Actually I know plenty of children who are (and for something supposedly so unpopular as dragons and unicorns, it's curious why both were used in Harry Potter). And to use your own argument, if you haven't experienced something like Beastly Kingdom, as it hasn't existed at Disney, how would you know it would be boring or unoriginal? Surely that's not fair? You really shouldn't judge something until you've tried it out.

 

[Invisable89]

This is true...BUT the difference here is that those Disney attractions are based on Disney movies. Their property. So it does make sense for a Disney park to include a Disney themed attraction based on a Disney movie, regardless of how popular or unpopular that film may be. While people here might not care for particular attractions at Disney, I've yet to see anyone say "that attraction based on a Disney film just doesn't belong in a Disney park."


I love how you start out saying that opinions are not facts (which I wholeheartedly agree with) and then go on to say how most children aren't really into dragons, unicorns, etc...as if that were a fact you were pointing out. Ironic, no? Actually I know plenty of children who are (and for something supposedly so unpopular as dragons and unicorns, it's curious why both were used in Harry Potter). And to use your own argument, if you haven't experienced something like Beastly Kingdom, as it hasn't existed at Disney, how would you know it would be boring or unoriginal? Surely that's not fair? You really shouldn't judge something until you've tried it out.

Yes, i do agree with that. But i'm really struggling to come up with a Disney film that would make a great Land in DAK? I think that's the problem. But realistically Disney can't really afford to fund something big enough of their own backs (aswell as the new Fantasyland), so that's why they have to incorporate another film/series with another funder (Cameron) & AVATAR is the nearest film to DAK's message that i can think of.

& That was my opinion - i wasn't trying to say it was a 'fact', maybe i didn't state that clearly enough. & I would happily try out Beastly Kingdom i was just stating that i don't think it would work now, i wasn't trying to knock it before i tried it, & Again the boring & unoriginal (if Disney stuck to the original plans) comment was an opinion. But unlike ALOT of Posters on here i would, like i said, try out Beastly Kingdom before i rejected it.

 

[mking624]

Yes, i do agree with that. But i'm really struggling to come up with a Disney film that would make a great Land in DAK? I think that's the problem. But realistically Disney can't really afford to fund something big enough of their own backs (aswell as the new Fantasyland), so that's why they have to incorporate another film/series with another funder (Cameron) & AVATAR is the nearest film to DAK's message that i can think of.

& That was my opinion - i wasn't trying to say it was a 'fact', maybe i didn't state that clearly enough. & I would happily try out Beastly Kingdom i was just stating that i don't think it would work now, i wasn't trying to knock it before i tried it, & Again the boring & unoriginal (if Disney stuck to the original plans) comment was an opinion. But unlike ALOT of Posters on here i would, like i said, try out Beastly Kingdom before i rejected it.

Oh I'm with you on trying it out. I'm not a fan of Avatar, but it's not like I've got this undying hatred for it that I'd completely avoid the land. I am curious to see how it will turn out. I love the idea of adding more to AK (though I prefer something be done with DHS...I could skip that park and not miss it), just wish it didn't revolve around Avatar specifically. I'll still check it out. My hope is that they make the land amazing enough to stand on its own two feet...that way, if/when they were to ever decide to strip the land of the movie tie-in, it would still make sense and blend in seamlessly.

 

[DCTooTall]

OK, now you're just making yourself look foolish. MGM studios was built specifically in response to Universal Studios coming to Orlando. That's fact, you can even look it up if you wish. Further, both the Fantasyland expansion and this proposed Avatar addition are directly the result of the success of WWoHP.

Sorry, but I get tired of this nonsensical argument from Disney fanboys stating that Disney doesn't respond to its competition. It's laughable and demonstrably false.

I don't even know if that's true. If you look at many of the "Official" histories of the parks, You will come across stories of a proposed "Movie Pavilion" at EPCOT which was to tell the story of how movies were made. The idea was shelved, but later pulled off and used as the basis for a whole new park.

MGM was also built during the huge WDW Building boom of the late 80's that also brought us all the onsite Disney Hotels and the beginning of Disney's policy of trying to become an all encompassing vacation Destination that gave guests a complete vacation experience on site without needing to ever venture into the tourist traps along 192.

True... both MGM and Universal Studios Florida opened around the same time frame, but I don't know if one really prompted the other to build.

Eh... They kinda have been right from the beginning. Universal was built almost immediately after WDW announced the then-Disney/MGM Studios.

THAT said, when theme parks compete, tourists win.

I still don't know who came first, or if there was any direct competition intended.... or if it was a case of just 2 companies deciding to do something similar at the same time.

In universal's Case, Universal Studios Florida was originally almost a clone of some of the key attractions of Universal Studios Hollywood. That time frame there was a LOT of building going on in the Orlando Area with everybody building a tourist trap or attraction since it was a major growing vacation destination with lots of money to be made.

 

[Invisable89]

Oh I'm with you on trying it out. I'm not a fan of Avatar, but it's not like I've got this undying hatred for it that I'd completely avoid the land. I am curious to see how it will turn out. I love the idea of adding more to AK (though I prefer something be done with DHS...I could skip that park and not miss it), just wish it didn't revolve around Avatar specifically. I'll still check it out. My hope is that they make the land amazing enough to stand on its own two feet...that way, if/when they were to ever decide to strip the land of the movie tie-in, it would still make sense and blend in seamlessly.

Yep, the hatred for it just seems very over the top especially if they haven't even watched the film - i just cannot get my head around that. But even if people have watched the film but just simply didn't enjoy it - that's fine but don't knock it before we've even seen any plans. & I really don't think Disney/Cameron will concentrate on the characters (maybe Grace as her character/role is very inspiring) as much as they will the 'other' message of the film - nature, conservation etc. I doubt we'll have CM's walking around dressed as Na'vi - but i could be wrong. Who knows? I'm really excited to see what the creative genius's come up with.

 

[RedSox68]

Jake Who??? The article says Avatar had no MEMORABLE hero. Which it DIDN'T! No one beyond the most enthusiastic Avatar "fanboys" (to borrow your term) has a clue what the guy's name was because he was completely forgettable. Ask ANYONE who Harry Potter is and they can tell you (whether they like HP or not). Casting all those insults about just because you disagree or don't like what he said about your beloved Avatar says more about you than the author.

I don't think this comparison works -- HP had seven books and several movies when the deal was made with Universal and Rowlings. Avatar has had ONE movie and absolutely no literature. Unfortunately, that's not much to base a park on, but Disney apparently has faith in it. But to compare a new "franchise idea" like Avatar to one like HP that's been around more than a decade is not a fair example IMO. Oh, and I think the hero was VERY memorable! In fact, all the characters in the movie were essential and played strong rolls to the storyline.

I was a naysayer at first, but the more I think about this the more I think it could be wonderfully unique! I remember when the first HP movie came out -- I knew absolutely no one that was interested or had seen it or read the books. By the time the third movie came out, all of a sudden everyone I worked with wanted to read the books and see the movies. It slowly caught on and then was unstoppable. Who knows, this may be a full out effort by Cameron to bring more attention to his upcoming movies, and by Disney to bring something over the top and fresh to their parks. Time will tell

 

[RedSox68]

Glad you find that funny. Would love to know why you think Peter Jackson would PAY to help Disney -- or anyone -- make a Lord of the Rings theme park, though.

But hey, if you'd say that...

Hey, nobody thought Rowlings would let her baby become a theme park even though it was rumored for years! And wah lah....there it is.

 

[RedSox68]

They have more space than most people think. They have some massive backstage areas and parking areas that could be reconfigured, including a giant employee parking lot that's just flat ground... they could easily replace it with a multi-level parking garage that takes up a fraction of the space.

They also have large attractions/lands that could go -- like the whole Lost Continent area that seems earmarked for the eventual Harry Potter expansion.

And I know this seems like sacrilege to some... but Jaws and Disaster may have both run their course. That would free up a TON of space on the US side of things.

But yes, Disney has a lot more space to work with. I believe CMs say they could build everything they've built so far again and STILL have room left over... I don't know if that's an exaggeration, but it certainly sounds believable.

Off topic, but we were all surprised at how "small" Harry Potter land was. Loved it, but done in just a couple of hours unless you wanted to hang around for the atmosphere I hope they do expand as there is so much more they can add - and I really wish they'd have more characters around, too.

 

[mouseman41]

I am just amazed how negative so many people are about something that is just in the planning stages. It could be a wonderful thing or it could be a big flop. With the parties envolved it could be amazing. I just can't go off and be critical of something we really don't know anything about. I loved the movie mostly because it was so creative and cutting edge. I hear there was a guy with the Disney company years ago that had that same mindset!

 

[Jennasis]

I am interested to see how many people would be thrilled if Disney announced Twilight-land? I guess they could put it in DHS. Then again it's got wolves so maybe it could work in AK?


It's made a lot of money, so we know it's popular. In fact I think two of the films are in the top 50 all time money makers, AND it's a hit book series.


I think it is entirely possible to like the thought of expansion and look forward to the attractions, without loving the premise for the expansion. For the FLE I am happy to see Little Mermaid and The Beauty and the Beast stuff, but will never set foot in Pixie Hollow or the Princes meet and greet or probably in the circus area. Does that make me a hater? That stuff just ain't my thing. But I will enjoy the couple of attractions that are.

I'm sure the new area will be pretty and the attractions state of the art and a lot of fun, but I just don't dig the premise of it all.

 

[RedSox68]

First of all, except for the few posts that got unnecessarily personal, this has been a great thread of ideas, suggestions and movie discussion.

My favorite comment among them all though has been "Disney is going to build it and you can't stop it". You all might be pleasantly surprised in 7 years.

So many ideas have come and gone, many many mentioned above as Disney's fiascoes. Remember The Disney Institute? Many probably don't even know about it. But this is a big one, and I hope for Disney's sake it is a big success. hey, I'm crazy about Miss DiVine in AK (see link below) -- if she can perform on stilts and blend into the greenery, then maybe I do believe in 9 foot blue people

http://www.studioscentral.com/column/world-of-opportunity/“divine”-visit-disney’s-animal-kingdom

 

[jackirkh]

I really enjoyed the movie and I can't wait to see the future films. I dont know about anyone else but I thought the comparison between native Americans and the indigenous people of Avatar was more powerful than the whole environmental theme.

Anyway.... I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I'm kinda super excited about this! Like I said I enjoyed the movie and cant wait to experience the Avatar world. On the other hand, I'm also kinda put off by this. It seems like Disney is trying to cash in on the popularity of this film (I don't blame them, I mean thats just corporate business) rather than relying on their greatest attributes: innovation and creativity.

Seems like they are taking the easy road. But with that said, I'm sure they are going to do a good job with the new land. They don't mess around haha

 

[UMADDBG]

Not at all. But one ride and one show at DHS (a park where "random" movies fit much better IMO) is different to me then an entire land in AK based on a franchise that has had one successful film so far.

For the record, I would also hate to see a "Jungle Book Land" at AK. Would it fit? Yes. Is it Disney? Yes, but that's just not what makes WDW what it is to me. Their best attractions IMO are the ones that were based on nothing more then creativity on the part of the Imagineers.

I think Rudyard Kipling might disagree with you about the Jungle Book belonging to Disney.

 

[nytimez]

I think Rudyard Kipling might disagree with you about the Jungle Book belonging to Disney.

It's funny how many of the people opposed to Avatar because "it's not Disney" don't realize how much of Disney is... well... "not Disney."

 

[UMADDBG]

It's funny how many of the people opposed to Avatar because "it's not Disney" don't realize how much of Disney is... well... "not Disney."

Very...true......Mickey and Friends and most of Pixar moveis are about all that are Disney orginal ideas.

 

[DCTooTall]

Very...true......Mickey and Friends and most of Pixar moveis are about all that are Disney orginal ideas.

Except Pixar isn't a Disney original. It was an outside production company that Disney did the distribution for. It was only a few years ago that Disney bought Pixar.

(remember, Eisner almost blew it by pushing Pixar away and thinking he could do his own CGI movies in-house. It was that decision that helped convince people that it was time to push him out.)

 

[JimmyV]

It's funny how many of the people opposed to Avatar because "it's not Disney" don't realize how much of Disney is... well... "not Disney."

Pooh-not Disney
Snow White-not Disney
Tom Sawyer's Island-not Disney
Anything associated with Cinderella-not Disney
Anything associated with Sleeping Beauty-not Disney
Anything associated with Beaty and the Beast-not Disney
Pinocchio-not Disney
Dumbo-not Disney
Mad Tea Party and anything associated with Alice-not Disney
Splash Mountain characters and story-not Disney
Anything associated with Alladin-not Disney

And that's just the MK. The point is, Disney is pretty good at co-opting ideas and converting them for its own entertainment value. (Notwithstanding the numerous outcries about classic stories being re-written and ruined by Disney. Not here to debate that point). Avatar is no more a Disney vehicle than Star Wars. Yet the Star Wars area in DHS is pretty cool, and the ride isn't bad either. Not my favorite ride (or movie series), but I give Disney props. I suspect that there will be a pretty cool, state of the art Avatar ride waiting for us in a few years. Spiderman appears to be a pretty big hit ride for US, and frankly, I can't stand the movies. But the box office results speak for themselves and the ride is popular.