Avatar land coming to Animal Kingdom!!

[kaligal]

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

I have faith in Disney's ability to do great things. If they wanted to, they could create an amazing land or mythical creatures that is aesthetically fascinating. And they could put great rides in it. If they were willing to "do the impossible" and follow up on the "What if we..." type stuff, I have no doubt they could make a place I'd be dying to see.

I just don't for the life of me understand why they decided to go with the God-awful Avatar when they could have just gone with Ye Olde Beastly Kingdome.

I also wish that rather than add new shopping, dining and meet-n-greets they would just add a few rides and put back a crapload of stuff they've cut out in the last 10-15 years. It's all that extra little stuff that made it amazing instead of great.

 

[UMADDBG]

I LOVED Avatar and can't wait for the sequels to come out! I hope that Disney gives me a chance to ride an ikran.

Me too! I would love to soar through that breath taking canopy!

 

[butterfly71076]

Have you ever seen Dances With Wolves? If you have, then you have seen Avatar. Essentially the same movie, different time period.

Thanks! Yes, I have seen Dances with Wolves, many times. Right now, I'm not looking too forward on this new Disney endeavor, but, I guess we'll see.

 

[JenM]

You have made very valid points and I fully acknowledge Harry Potter for the powerhouse that it is. However, we will have to agree to disagree -- I think it is very unrealistic to think that Harry Potter will sustain the heightened level of interest it has had for a decade now -- to sustain over the long term. I'm not sure if it will have the lasting power of Star Wars but who knows.

You are very correct in regards to the books, but again there are no new books to anticipate. For one to assume that future generations that may or may not be introduced to the Harry Potter series will have the same heightened interest is a bit far reaching IMO. Harry Potter was a kind phenomena that had everyone in the world reading each chapter simultaneously. Harry Potter books were what I considered highly interactive, as readers anxiously awaited the next volume. Generations of kids grew up with Harry Potter in real time -- it was an experience like no other. It swept readers off their feet and took them on a continuous fascinating journey for over a decade, I get it.

Those who are just introduced to Harry Potter will have a very different reading journey, they wont experience all the hype and buzz surrounding the next new volume -- the midnight releases at Barnes & Noble -- the Harry Potter sleep-ins and release parties. It was really something magical to receive the next new HP novel fresh off the press. Sorry, but having the complete boxed gift set of Harry Potter books with accommodating dvds is just not the same. But, as the saying goes all good things must come to an end and at least for now HP has seemed to reach it's peak.

The Wizarding World of Harry Potter is nothing to scoff at. I never go to Universal but I am planning a trip because of HP. Harry Potter is not going away, I'm not saying that, it will continuously attract new readers and fans but not at level it once did. With no new books and/or movies in the works, its natural to expect interest to dwindle and things to level off. I really wasn't trying to bash HP.

It's just that I think that Disney's new Avatar land is going to crush Harry Potter world, seriously. I'll still visit though.

But what made Harry Potter special isn't that we had it when it was new. What made it special was that it was a great story that appealed to all generations - and that second generation is already happening. My friends' kids, a few of which weren't even born yet when the first book was released, are getting into the books now, and they love them just as much as we did, even though the series is finished and they have a whole Harry Potter multimedia empire at their disposal now.

I saw the original Star Wars trilogy when it was new. Nothing will ever replicate hearing an audience react to the Death Star getting blown up for the first time, or finding out that Darth Vader was Luke Skywalker's father. But somehow...it remains as big today as it was back then, even though the several generations have passed since the original trilogy ended.

I did all that new release stuff for Harry Potter, but I didn't stop being a fan because there won't be any more Barnes & Noble midnight parties and because the movies are over. I love Harry Potter. I'm reading the books for the fifth time right now, and they're as good as they've ever been.

A good story will keep it's appeal for a good long time, and I think Harry Potter will have fans for a very long time.

 

[kaligal]

Avatar was a movie that a lot of people went to see. Some liked it, some didn't. Not everyone who saw it liked it and of those who did, it was generally the special effects that impressed them, not the movie itself.

Harry Potter is a series of books that many people read and loved, especially children. They became movies that had people salivating in anticipation. They went to see the movies because they already loved the world and the characters.

You really can't compare the two. And there is no reason for it, anyway.

 

[morethananyonex]

Can I ask a question? Why is it more valid to be excited about a land we have no details about rather then to dislike the idea of a land we have no details about? Many people including myself have said we are not excited and it has nothing to do with the movie or its content.

I have not once said I am smarter and more creative then an imagineer. What I have said is the fact that Disney is planning on creating an entire land based off one franchise bothers me and that it is very unlike them to do something like that for an entire land. I have no doubt it will be beautiful and I have no doubt they will be able to pull it off. I also am fairly confident they will make the attractions in said land enjoyable, however none of that negates the fact that it still makes me uncomfortable that this is the direction they are going. This very much screams "TAKE THAT, UNIVERSAL!" and I don't think they needed to respond to Harry Potter at all.

I am well aware many of the attractions we have now are not based on original concepts, however they are just that, attractions. This is not one attraction, and if it was I think it would be different. This is an entire land we're talking about.

Finally, Disney has made huge mistakes in the past, not everything they touch turns to gold. California Adventure anyone? Look at all the money they just had to put back into it because of how unsuccessful it was. And why was it unsuccessful? It strayed from what Disney was about (similar to Dinoland) and that worries me. Disneyland Paris was also a huge flop at the beginning, so much so that marketing textbooks even refer to what went wrong there. None of that means that's how this new land will turn out, I know that, but let's stop pretending just because Disney is doing it means it's going to be amazing no matter what.

 

[nytimez]

Can I ask a question? Why is it more valid to be excited about a land we have no details about rather then to dislike the idea of a land we have no details about? Many people including myself have said we are not excited and it has nothing to do with the movie or its content.

I have not once said I am smarter and more creative then an imagineer. What I have said is the fact that Disney is planning on creating an entire land based off one franchise bothers me and that it is very unlike them to do something like that for an entire land. I have no doubt it will be beautiful and I have no doubt they will be able to pull it off. I also am fairly confident they will make the attractions in said land enjoyable, however none of that negates the fact that it still makes me uncomfortable that this is the direction they are going. This very much screams "TAKE THAT, UNIVERSAL!" and I don't think they needed to respond to Harry Potter at all.

I am well aware many of the attractions we have now are not based on original concepts, however they are just that, attractions. This is not one attraction, and if it was I think it would be different. This is an entire land we're talking about.

Finally, Disney has made huge mistakes in the past, not everything they touch turns to gold. California Adventure anyone? Look at all the money they just had to put back into it because of how unsuccessful it was. And why was it unsuccessful? It strayed from what Disney was about (similar to Dinoland) and that worries me. Disneyland Paris was also a huge flop at the beginning, so much so that marketing textbooks even refer to what went wrong there. None of that means that's how this new land will turn out, I know that, but let's stop pretending just because Disney is doing it means it's going to be amazing no matter what.

Neither one is more valid than the other. But if you love Disney World and what they've done with the parks, I think it's fair to give them the benefit of the doubt -- at the very least until you know more about it so you can say, for example, "OK, I don't like X, Y or Z, which will be a big part of this ride, so I think it's going to stink."

But to simply say, "I don't like/haven't seen/am not interested in Avatar, therefore it's going to stink" sorta puts a dagger into the heart of the relationship we all presumably have with Walt Disney World.

 

[Anjelica]

Neither one is more valid than the other. But if you love Disney World and what they've done with the parks, I think it's fair to give them the benefit of the doubt -- at the very least until you know more about it so you can say, for example, "OK, I don't like X, Y or Z, which will be a big part of this ride, so I think it's going to stink."

But to simply say, "I don't like/haven't seen/am not interested in Avatar, therefore it's going to stink" sorta puts a dagger into the heart of the relationship we all presumably have with Walt Disney World.

I love Disneyworld and Disneyland - but after experiencing DCA its hard to give Disney "benefit of a doubt" with every new idea. They have proven in the past that not all of their ideas are great.

 

[ppony]

Neither one is more valid than the other. But if you love Disney World and what they've done with the parks, I think it's fair to give them the benefit of the doubt -- at the very least until you know more about it so you can say, for example, "OK, I don't like X, Y or Z, which will be a big part of this ride, so I think it's going to stink."

But to simply say, "I don't like/haven't seen/am not interested in Avatar, therefore it's going to stink" sorta puts a dagger into the heart of the relationship we all presumably have with Walt Disney World.

^^^ Yeah that. We're all here for one basic reason, we love the essence that is Disney. Or however you'd liem to define it. Do we all argee w/ everything theu've done? no. Have they made mistakes? Yes. I guess I'd rather see the cup half full when it comes to this kind of thing. I'm not excited about the Fantasy land expeansion (except the dueling Dumbos) but hey, I'll give it a shot. I'm not a princess lover and I have a fmaily of boys so they definitely aren't either. Still, I trust that it'll be done well and if we don't like it? Just one less place to stand in line.

 

[nytimez]

I love Disneyworld and Disneyland - but after experiencing DCA its hard to give Disney "benefit of a doubt" with every new idea. They have proven in the past that not all of their ideas are great.

You're missing the point. Just because they HAVE screwed up doesn't mean it's fair to assume they will ALWAYS screw up.

 

[Planogirl]

Why am I not suprised by the cheering for this on here? The dis was better when it was an objective fansite, not a contest to see who could break there arms patting every decision on there backs contest.

That's a bit unfair. I'm more of a Universal fan than a Disney fan and I thought that Universal might get this. I'm a little disappointed. However I do believe that Disney will do a good job with this.

 

[morethananyonex]

Neither one is more valid than the other. But if you love Disney World and what they've done with the parks, I think it's fair to give them the benefit of the doubt -- at the very least until you know more about it so you can say, for example, "OK, I don't like X, Y or Z, which will be a big part of this ride, so I think it's going to stink."

But to simply say, "I don't like/haven't seen/am not interested in Avatar, therefore it's going to stink" sorta puts a dagger into the heart of the relationship we all presumably have with Walt Disney World.

But most people in here have not been jumped on for being too positive have they? Have they been told to wait and see, cause it might suck? Maybe by one or two people, nothing compared to the opposite.

Your post kind of proved my point. It isn't okay to say "I don't like Avatar so I won't like this" but it is okay to say "I love Avatar so I will like this"? Same thing.

 

[Planogirl]

Those against this have some valid points but I see this fantasy world as being right up Disney's alley. When they bought Marvel I said "huh?" (and still kind of do) but a mythical land of great beauty with amazing creatures just seems to fit.

I guess that it's true though that only time will tell.

 

[Wadecool]

That's a bit unfair. I'm more of a Universal fan than a Disney fan and I thought that Universal might get this. I'm a little disappointed. However I do believe that Disney will do a good job with this.

The only reason Universal ended up with Harry Potter is that Disney screwed that deal up. I'm thinking Disney would like to have that one back too.

 

[morethananyonex]

Those against this have some valid points but I see this fantasy world as being right up Disney's alley. When they bought Marvel I said "huh?" (and still kind of do) but a mythical land of great beauty with amazing creatures just seems to fit.

I guess that it's true though that only time will tell.

I agree with you about Marvel, and I do think Avatar fits better with Disney then Harry Potter and Marvel do. With Avatar, they don't necessarily have to stay close to the movie, it gives far more options for making an immersive land.

Still, I would prefer they didn't purchase the rights to any franchise for use for a land. I would't want to see a full land based on any movie or movie series, that's my issue here.

 

[KellyNY]

Avatar was a movie that a lot of people went to see. Some liked it, some didn't. Not everyone who saw it liked it and of those who did, it was generally the special effects that impressed them, not the movie itself.

Harry Potter is a series of books that many people read and loved, especially children. They became movies that had people salivating in anticipation. They went to see the movies because they already loved the world and the characters.

You really can't compare the two. And there is no reason for it, anyway.

I would not answer for everyone. As I said before, I watched it on my phone without any special effects and loved the story itself and there are plenty who understood the meaning.
BTW, as much as I love HP, not everyone gets it as well and even I loved it more in a beginning then later when every next book felt as a stretch. I will honestly say that I could not wait for all that to finally come to some sort of conclusion and I was not even nearly as excited as I used to be after first few movies. I do believe that while HP will definitely stay the classic and generations to come will read and enjoy it, popularity will absolutely go down as no way future generations will simultaneously be interested in it.
We cannot really compare Avatar yet, simply because it was only 1 movie so far and we have no idea how story will turn in sequels.

 

[Anjelica]

You're missing the point. Just because they HAVE screwed up doesn't mean it's fair to assume they will ALWAYS screw up.

I'm not missing the point - I'm not assuming they always screw up. But on the flip side of the coin to assume that they never have any bad ideas - well its just not fact as they have "screwed" up in the past.

I love Disneyworld/Disneyland so much so I even invested in DVC. But just because I love DW/SL doesn't mean I am blinded by the almighty Disney "dieties" and think that every single idea Disney has come out with has been a great idea.

 

[Planogirl]

The only reason Universal ended up with Harry Potter is that Disney screwed that deal up. I'm thinking Disney would like to have that one back too.

Disney had the chance to make the right proposal to JK Rowling. She simply preferred what Universal offered. I do wonder what Disney did offer though.

 

[pilferk]

Remember when the Matrix came out, and people really loved it. Not everyone, obviously, but love for the film was very wide-spread.

Then Matrix Reloaded came out, and a whole lot of the people who loved it kinda went, "Uh, what?"

Then Matrix Revolutions came out, and even more people who loved the original film said, "Uh... no, just NO." After the third movie, the property's momentum pretty much died. The second and third movies sorta killed it for a lot of people.

I can easily see this happening with Avatar. Disney makes an enormous deal to make an Avatar land, after the FIRST film of a planned trilogy. It's too soon to commit that much land and that much money to an entire land based on one property that Disney doesn't even own. If that was the route they wanted to take, the long rumoured "Star Wars Land" update to DHS should have happened first. Even with many of the reviled prequels and changes to the original films, Star Wars has retained an incredibly huge following and isn't going anywhere. If anything it's only become stronger as a brand....

Remember when Star Wars came out...and it was a huge cultural event? People flocked to theaters, drive ins, etc to see it?

And then remember when Empire Strikes Back came out and it started all over, and only grew larger?

I can totally see that happening with Avatar.

Or maybe not.

But that's the point...you can't draw direct parallels to the Matrix, and ignore the ones to Star Wars. Both are a possibility. Neither is a certainty.

I will say this: I have more faith in Cameron than I did in the W. Bros. I'd seen both Assassins and Bound LONG before the Matrix, and was non-plussed by both. The Matrix was great, but as soon as the sequels were greenlit....you had to worry more than a bit.

Cameron, on the other hand? I look at his resume since '84 and I have a hard time picking out a single project I haven't liked. "True Lies", maybe? I guess his producer credit on "Solaris" might be a low point....but other than that, he's made movies I tend to enjoy (fiction and non), that seem to make a ton of money. That's a pretty good track record.

 

[Sean O]

Disney's Animal Kingdom is my favorite theme park on earth. It has the greatest detail and atmosphere I've ever experienced. And in turn, when they desperately need another high-quality land, they decide to theme it to Avatar, a deeply insipid movie transparent in its source-material theft.

Astonished. The only way they could have made a more hateful decision is if they built Tea Party Land, or Cruella's Creationist Kingdom. killself.