Disney's Avatar land cancelled?

[mjp12831]

But does Avatar really have the staying power required to dedicate a whole land to it? I find this highly doubtful.

This is the thing that I am struggling to understand, and I share your doubt.

WWOHP probably will have staying power because the books are likely to continue to be must reads for pre teens and teens for years to come. This will mean that the movies will also have staying power. Much more staying power than anything Universal has ever had before, and more comparable to typical Disney movies that are based on classic tales.

Avatar was a good film imo and visually stunning - consider though that part of this was because it really introduced 3d movies to the American public. This certainly contributed to it's huge success at the time, and probably will be a reason why the next films will not be nearly as succesful because the novelty has worn off. This is probably similar to the first movie shown in color (Wizzard of Oz '39) - I'm sure that was a huge deal at the time it came out, but can you imagine a theme park land based on that being popular today?

Because of this, I agree with Mesaboy that this seems like a possible big miscalculation by Disney.

 

[Reddog1134]

That's the downfall of licensed attractions. Their "shelf life" usually only lasts as long as the popularity of the source material. Meanwhile, unique attractions are only dependent on the popularity of the attractions themselves.

That's why I think "Pandora" would be much better received if there was no "Avatar".

 

[Reddog1134]

This is probably similar to the first movie shown in color (Wizzard of Oz '39) - I'm sure that was a huge deal at the time it came out, but can you imagine a theme park land based on that being popular today?

Sorry to nitpick but Oz wasn't the first color film although it was probably the first "hit" to be in color so your point still stands.

 

[mking624]

I don't think there's much of a contradiction because I am referencing a real country and the concerns and objections voiced from a real citizen of that country versus a movie where the director is not only thrilled but has chosen Disney to interpret and represent his creations specifically at Animal Kingdom -- big difference. I think complaints are a good thing. I have long envisioned Australia at AK but after hearing the complaints about citizen(s) having a strong desire NOT to be represented at AK or defined by "just the Outback" and I'm assuming it's because of the possible stereotypes associated with it, such as "Crocodile Dundee", etc. -- it certainly changed my point of view. On the other hand, there is James Cameron who is excited, passionate and most importantly, he wants Avatarland at AK!!

While I appreciate you sharing more about why you feel this way, I feel the argument is illogical. While I can respect that one person may not like the idea, one person does not represent an entire country/continent. You will find plenty of people who do support an idea and plenty of people who don't. To take the view of only one person is to ignore everyone else. As far as "just the Outback," then is this person also up in arms about what is represented in Africa and Asia? Those basically only show savannahs and forests. Yet that's not all either continent has to offer, by far. I don't see any posts by people feeling offended by that....because the point of Animal Kingdom is to represent the animals by focusing on the areas where they flourish. I don't see anything offensive about that, and if Disney is able to do justice to Africa and Asia, I highly doubt they're suddenly going to go into stereotype mode by doing something along the lines of Crocodile Dundee (of course this argument about Australia would probably be best had with the person who is so upset by it).
Also, since you mentioned about a citizen feeling strongly about something...what about American citizens who feel strongly against the addition of Avatarland on US soil...not wanting that to be a representative of who we are when foreign tourists come? (obviously I'm taking this to an extreme, but you get my point) What about those who have seen the movie and absolutely hate it...are their complaints suddenly invalid? And of course James Cameron is excited about it and wants it there...it's his movie and it's $$$$ in his pocket. What man in his position wouldn't be excited?

Anyway, I do appreciate you taking the time to respond, and to do so in a polite way.

 

[xipetotec]

Sorry to nitpick but Oz wasn't the first color film although it was probably the first "hit" to be in color so your point still stands.

That being said, I'd rather see a whole land based on Oz than on Pandora

 

[Reddog1134]

That being said, I'd rather see a whole land based on Oz than on Pandora

Only if it has a Kansas mini-land that's all black and white.

 

[xipetotec]

Only if it has a Kansas mini-land that's all black and white.

Cool, now you're talkin' ! . We could walk through MunchkinLand, the woods, Emerald City and the witch's castle... I think it could be fantastic

 

[tofubeast]

I wouldn't mind seen Avatarland cancelled if it meant Beastly Kingdom or some modified/re-imagined Disney Sea'esque land. I just would rather have a land without a movie tie in at AK. But as Disney made the announcement not too long ago, and a public one at that, I wonder if this rumor has some bite to it. I imagine they might be waiting till after FL and Carsland to release more info about Avatarland.

I would also rather see more attention thrown to DHS. Something tells me they are awaiting to see what how DCA is received by patrons and we might see some elements from that park make its way to DCA. Not that I want a copy, I like keeping uniqueness to each park. As mentioned by many of you, I would love to see an expansion of Muppets and Star Wars.

And yes, I love the LOTR ideas thrown out here. And if I could throw out one more idea... how cool would it be to have a Wonka themed area as a theme park somewhere in the USA? I want to eat in THAT themed restaurant!!

 

[BNM]

Something like DisneySea would be great, but I doubt that's in the budget. Personally, I find the idea that someone would be offended by an Australia in AK a bit odd. I would enjoy it. It fits in a lot better in a park that is, after all, supposed to be about animals.

The animals there are already like a fantasy: I mean, a mammal with a duck's bill and a beaver's tail that lays eggs? You can't make this stuff up!

If they decide to go forward with Avatarland I would go and check it out, but I would be a lot more excited about something with more depth, such as LOTR, if they are going to go with movie franchises.

 

[Planogirl]

I don't understand the problem with Australia being represented in AK either. I think that it would be nice.

But then I've also never seen Universal empty enough to shoot a cannon through after several trips either. The Studios can be quiet in the morning since everyone is in Potter World but it always gets busy when we go. Bad luck I suppose.

I don't believe that those attendance stats mean much yet either. WWOHP didn't open until June of 2010 and you are looking at 3 Universal parks versus 6 Disney parks. It'll be interesting to see what it looks like when the new statistics come out.

 

[DRDISNEYMD]

While I appreciate you sharing more about why you feel this way, I feel the argument is illogical.

~There is no argument -- to opine that my 'opinion' is illogical, is an attempt to interject antogonism where none was warranted. I am not trying to persuade or force others, whose opinion(s) may differ from mine to accept my point of view. I openly expressed my opinion on this issue, so any criticism I may receive is a reasonable expectation. However, we should be able to exchange ideas and opinions through discourse in a respectable and engaging manner without having to resort to the means of ad hominem fallacy.

~The topic at hand is just a matter of opinion, there is no conclusive factual data to dispute. To suggest that my personal thoughts and feelings are illogical without any substantiated evidence to support your claim, is quite frankly "illogical". It's just a conversation, arguing conjecture as facts cannot be done, to do so would otherwise extend itself to a form of irrational thinking. Just because I don't feel the way you feel about a scenario, especially one that doesn't exist, does not make your feelings "logical" and my feelings "illogical", we're on the same platform.

While I can respect that one person may not like the idea, one person does not represent an entire country/continent.

~I never once suggested that one person represents the entire continent. I thought it was a great idea but I am going to have to assume that the one poster represents a certain segment of the populace who inhabit that region, and obviously take some offense in regards to this issue. I took that into account when forming my opinion. Now, I look at it differently and consequently I fell out of love with the idea. There are several other fabulous concepts available for consideration at AK. Again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I just don't like the idea anymore, my opinion.

You will find plenty of people who do support an idea and plenty of people who don't. To take the view of only one person is to ignore everyone else.

~With this logic, only two groups exist -- the "plenty of people who do" support an idea and the "plenty of people who dont." This means that my one person must belong to one of the two groups mentioned -- that being the "plenty of people who don't", key word --->plenty<---, this refutes your prior assertions that I am ignoring everyone else to take the view of only on one person. Clearly, my one person represents an entire group which is more than one point of view. Based upon your calculations that would be half the continent of Australia to the tune of 15 million inhabitants. So, this must mean that I'm not really "that" bad because I'm only ignoring "half" of the continent.

As far as "just the Outback," then is this person also up in arms about what is represented in Africa and Asia? Those basically only show savannahs and forests. Yet that's not all either continent has to offer, by far. I don't see any posts by people feeling offended by that....because the point of Animal Kingdom is to represent the animals by focusing on the areas where they flourish. I don't see anything offensive about that, and if Disney is able to do justice to Africa and Asia, I highly doubt they're suddenly going to go into stereotype mode by doing something along the lines of Crocodile Dundee (of course this argument about Australia would probably be best had with the person who is so upset by it).

~I don't fully understand, but I respect their opinion(s). I would never expect an individual to capitulate their country, their nationality, their cultural identity and compromise their philosophical allegiance, in order to satisfy my personal entertainment needs.

~Unfortunately, I didn't find the post I was looking for, it was quite random and happened to catch my attention. But I did come across two different posts that shared a commonality when voicing their concerns.

Poster #1​

As an Australian myself, I think Australia would be disserviced in the Animal Kingdom. Australia is full of cosmopolitan harbour cities with world class dining, art etc etc, just showing the outback, which pretty much no one inhabits (not counting our lovely native animals), would be a complete misrepresentation.

Greece would be very cool.

Poster #2​

As an Aussie I never really know how to take this when the subject comes up. Are people saying we aren't interesting enough as a country to join the World showcase, that the only thing going for us is koalas, kangaroos and wombats? I can understand somewhat why people think that but at the same time I think we'd have a great pavilion in WS. Don't think it would ever happen though, I think somewhere like Brazil or India is more likely.

Also, since you mentioned about a citizen feeling strongly about something...what about American citizens who feel strongly against the addition of Avatarland on US soil..

~I respect everyone's opinion. The posters in this thread presented different perspectives regarding how they felt about the proposed Avatarland and did not place any value judgements on each others personal opinions. With that being said, WDW is a private entity on private property, no one should go out of their way to pay money to visit someplace that offends them, when they can easily go somewhere else.

.not wanting that to be a representative of who we are when foreign tourists come?

~Again, Avatarland represents a fictional place, it does not represent America in the traditional sense, but it does represent American pop culture and with this, it's always a mixed bag, you have to take the perceived good with the bad.

(obviously I'm taking this to an extreme, but you get my point)

~No, I don't "get" your point. I really don't find it necessary to entertain wild hypothetical situations, especially when presented in the most extreme scenarios, and then there is the excessive amount of quasi-questions posed, there is simply not that much of a cause here to champion.

What about those who have seen the movie and absolutely hate it...are their complaints suddenly invalid?

~Here is yet, another fallacious assumption. I strain to grasp the conceptualization of the thought process behind this question. Why would I consider anyone's complaints to be invalid? Just because someone holds a point of view that differs from mine does not mean their complaints are "without merit" or "invalid". I respect everyone's opinion and I certainly don't shove mine down eveyone's throat when they don't agree with me.

~Would I be one of "those" you speak of? I am not a fan of the film, I've never seen Avatar in it's entirely, I quit watching after 30 minutes. But, just because I did not enjoy Avatar the film, does not mean I will not LOVE Disney's adaptation of Avatar and how it translates into a real experience. Disney Imagineers could interpret Avatar in the most creative way and tranform it into a phenomenal place that everyone could appreciate.

And of course James Cameron is excited about it and wants it there...it's his movie and it's $$$$ in his pocket. What man in his position wouldn't be excited?

~If Disney tries to cheapen the budget and cut corners like they did with the Yeti, you can bet the Cameron will be out of there faster than the speed of light. I'm sure he has some kind of exit clause. I would hope Disney has one too, if things don't work out as planned.

Anyway, I do appreciate you taking the time to respond, and to do so in a polite way.

~Likewise, it's been fun!

 

[Cheltenham]

I really hope Avatarland will be cancelled. Consider all of the better options for those Avatar dollars:

Lord of the Rings/ The Hobbit - classic books, three epic movies, two Hobbit movies on the way, great characters and settings. This could really compete with HP.

Beastly Kingdom - this would be a great addition to Animal Kingdom and would allow the flexibility for a variety of attractions and themes. It would not be tied to the popularity of a particular franchise.

Star Wars - The Muppets - Marvel - Pixar - All classic franchises already attached to Disney that would make great lands in the Studios

Renew Epcot. World Showcase could use more counties and attractions. Future World could use a new film in Sourin, a new attraction in the old Wonders of Life, a replacement for Captain EO, etc etc.

 

[suyama]

Where was it heard that Avatarland was cancelled? I just read this press release...seems official thats it's still in the works.

http://www.wdwmagic.com/Attractions...coming-to-Disney's-Animal-Kingdom-in-2015.htm

 

[suyama]

W

 

[PrincessKara22]

God, I hope so. That was a terrible idea.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

As an Australian myself, I think Australia would be disserviced in the Animal Kingdom. Australia is full of cosmopolitan harbour cities with world class dining, art etc etc, just showing the outback, which pretty much no one inhabits (not counting our lovely native animals), would be a complete misrepresentation.



With all due respect...you do know its the ANIMAL KINGDOM?.......if they were going to put in a Australian pavilion in Epcot and only represented the outback.......I would agree with you totally..but the Animal Kingdom is about the animals and their habitat.

Actualy I would LOVE a Australian Pavilion in Epcot.
AKK

 

[magicbob]

With all due resect...you do know its the ANIMAL KINGDOM?.......if they were going to put in a Australian pavilion in Epcot and only represented the outback.......I would agree with you totally..but the Animal Kingdom is about the animals and their habitat.

Exactly! Adding to Australia would not be like saying, this is all we think your country has (any more than the continents of Africa and Asia are portrayed in that way). It would be acknowledging that Australia's native wildlife is unique and should be featured prominently in a park whose primary focus is on animals from around the world. It is such an obvious fit with the theme of the entire park. That in no way implies that we think that Australia's ONLY feature is the Outback. It seems to me that it is a disservice to EXCLUDE Australia's wonderful animals from the Animal Kingdom.

 

[larryz]

The only SciFi/Fantasy movies I've watched more than the Star Trek or Star Wars series is the LotR trilogy...

I can't figure out why, after US did Hairy Plodder, Disney didn't go after Peter Jackson and the crew to build Middle Earth...

You could build a whole PARK around LotR and The Hobbit.

Think of it -- the Mine Train of Moria; the Way of the Dead dark ride; Gandalf's Duel with the Balrog in 3D, complete with the falling sequence simulator ride; The Nazgul Experience, a dual-duelling coaster with multiple close-up fly-bys; and of course villages called The Shire, Lorien, and a magnificent edifice representing Minas Tirith where you can feast in King Aragorn's Banquet Hall, or have a refreshing libation in Strider's Tavern down in the dungeon. Other food venues could exist in Bree -- The Prancing Pony, for example...

In the Helm's Deep adventure carrousel, you mount up on magnificent horses to save the day against the armies of darkness.

I'm sure I have barely scratched the surface of possibilities here, and I'm not even getting paid for it.

 

[minnie mum]

larryz that was BRILLIANT!! Disney ought to pay you for that one. One of the better brief sketches of the possibilities of a LOTR land. If only.. sigh.

 

[Me!Thatswho]

larryz, absolutely brilliant!