Is Disney World becoming a shell of its former self?

[DDLand]

Really? The movie is about conservation and not destroying an animal or for the movies matter the Navi home. AK is all about animals and conservation hence why the Disney conservation fund is heavy there.

I could write a long essay on why Avatar Land is wrong for DAK and WDW, but I'll try and keep it brief.

Have you ever noticed what two forces are always at battle inside of DAK? The constant tension between two forces grappling for control? One of the strongest messages that prevails throughout the entire park? It's man's struggle to balance out the short term demands for profit, glory, or culture with the need to protect animals and keep these precious resources long term.

We see this in Kali River Rapids, man's greed in essence destroys beautiful if not magical rain forests.

We saw (I know Little Red wasn't real, but it killed me when they removed the plot) this in Kilimnjaro Safari, man mindlessly kills a beautiful animal that did nothing wrong. The reason Big Red, is condemned to death is for growing two beautiful tusks that some cultures find extremely valuable.

We see this in Expedition Everest when entrepreneurs think overriding customs and traditions is worth it for the extra profit as the Forbidden Mountain's sanctity is essentially invaded.

We even see this in Countdown to Extinction, as a man hungry for glory and science circumvents the laws of nature and the circle of life. It was wrong, and he nearly kills people. I think that's something that goes over people's heads because it is a goofyish attraction, but because of this man's thirst for glory he almost kills you and all your family. Think about that seriously. Kind of gives you the shivers doesn't it?

All of these displays of disregard, idiocy, and sometimes outright evil are powerful messages that are left in each visitor's mind. I think it's important that we all walk away with a new sense of understanding that we can help with promote conservation and do our part. I do think that's all important, but misses the other part of the deeper message of DAK. The strong rebuttal to each of those cases is there's a better way.

The people who want money can have it. The people who want glory can have it. The cultures can be saved.

We see this in Kali River Rapids, what are we riding in that attraction? We're on an ambitious entrepreneurs new business bringing life to the area. By utilizing Ecotourism, she's helping everyone increase prosperity, and saving the Tigers and rain forests. It's a win win.

In the fictional town of Harambe, it's anchored by an influx of tourists flocking to visit the wildlife in the reserve. Once again profits follow as a thriving town is built up around the gateway, and people find new prosperity. If poachers were allowed to kill all the elephants, there'd be no prosperity except for the greedy few. Once again a win win.

In Expedition Everest, man is shown how to coexist with the Forbidden Mountain and essentially all of nature by respecting it's strength. Nature is powerful, don't mess with forces you can't understand. Respect is critical in this ride. You can have a prosperous relationship living near the Forbidden Mountain, but don't even think about disrespecting it's power.

Countdown to extinction, simply leave good enough alone. Sometimes messing with nature just isn't worth the risk to yourself and others. Shifting and playing with the forces you just can't comprehend can be fun, and some may have a near insatiable appetite for it. Be careful. Nature takes its own course. You may be able to manipulate it, but you'll soon be swept away yourself.

This is the thing I love about Disney Animal Kingdom. Not only does it present a list of things we shouldn't do, but it also teaches exactly what we should be doing. We should view nature with respect, focus on sustainable solutions, and don't underestimate its sway. Of course those are all just incentives to keep a beautiful set of diverse species and ecosystems alive. These are the keys.

At the same time, and this may be my #1 reason I love DAK, they don't banish humans. It never suggests nature is too good for humanity. It teaches us respect, but at the same time the door is wide open. Instead of trashing humans, they show us what we can do to save our ecosystems and preserve the planet. The door is wide open for the youngest kids, to the oldest guests to experience nature. To appreciate nature. To respect nature.

The attractions that show human ills (like greed and idiocy) only embolden guests to do good. They teach us ways to be sustainable, and smart. They also help us learn to love animals.

It's all about hope. Hope that humans and animals can coexist together. That humans can live their lives while supporting and growing animal habitats. It's never a tale of we're screwed, but of how can we be better.

Now Avatar... During the course of the movie we learn that humans have completely annihilated Earth. It's basically a barren rock with humans on it. Think about that for a second. Earth is something almost sacred in DAK. It's our shared home. Hope is eliminated because it's too late. There's no chance for innovation. No chance for getting smarter. No chance for guests to be better.

We're screwed.

Too late... Moving on, they get to Pandora and what do they do? They start screwing everything up there like they did on Earth. But there's hope. A bold man steps up and says we shouldn't repeat the mistakes we've already made. Instead of heeding his call, they ignore and keep up. They keep on ruining everything because humans are evil, except that one guy. So long story short the humans never learn, they never grow, they only destroy.

Human coexistence with nature is nowhere to be found. In fact the main character has to literally give up being a human and shun his humanness to finally give up his evil ways. The most critical element of Animal Kingdom is starkly at odds with this movie.

You can tell me they're both generally conservation based, but I look at it differently. I see one as hopeful of human nature, and one incredibly dismissive of human nature. One is so in keeping with Walt Disney that it makes me proud to be a fan, the other says we're evil.

I love Disney because of optimism and hope. That's why, along with several other reasons I won't go into, I think Avatar Land is one of the most vile, pathetic, repulsive things ever undertaken. It's going to be breathtaking, but I won't ever love it. Never.

 

[DDLand]

Also, I'll never forgive Staggs for making Rohde scar his theme park.

 

[rteetz]

I could write a long essay on why Avatar Land is wrong for DAK and WDW, but I'll try and keep it brief.

Have you ever noticed what too forces are always at battle inside of DAK? The constant tension between two forces grappling for control? One of the strongest messages that prevails throughout the park? It's man's struggle to balance out the short term demands for profit, glory, or culture with the need to protect animals and keep the resources long term.

We see this in Kali River Rapids, man's greed in essence destroys beautiful if not magical rain forests.

We saw (I know Little Red wasn't real, but it killed me when they removed the plot) this in Kilimnjaro Safari, man mindlessly kills a beautiful animal that did nothing wrong. Except of course growing two beautiful tusks that some cultures find extremely valuable.

We see this in Expedition Everest when entrepreneurs think overriding customs and traditions is worth it for the extra profit as the Forbidden Mountain's sanctity is essentially invaded.

Other than you saying this I can't really say I have put much thought into this notion.

We even see this in Countdown to Extinction as a man hungry for glory and science circumvents the laws of nature and the circle of life. It was wrong, and he nearly kills people. I think that's something that goes over people's heads because it is a goofyish attraction, but because of this man's thirst for glory he almost kills you and all your family. Think about that seriously. Kind of gives you the shivers doesn't it?

All of these displays of disregard, idiocy, and sometimes outright evil are powerful messages that are left in each visitors minds. I think it's important that we each walk away with a new sense of determination that we can help with conservation and do our part. I do think that's all important, but misses the other part of the deeper message of DAK. The strong rebuttal to each of those cases is there's a better way.

The people who want money can have it. The people who want glory can have it. The cultures can be saved.

We see this in Kali River Rapids, what are we riding in that attraction? We're on an ambitious entrepreneurs new business bringing life to the area. By utilizing Ecotourism, she's helping everyone increase prosperity, and saving the Tigers and rain forests. It's a win win.

In the fictional town of Harambe, it's anchored by an influx of tourists flocking to visit the wildlife in the reserve. Once again profits follow as a thriving town is built up around the gateway, and people find new prosperity. If poachers were allowed to kill all the elephants, there'd be no prosperity except for the greedy few. Once again a win win.

In Expedition Everest man is shown how to coexist with the Forbidden Mountain and essentially all of nature by respecting it's strength. Nature is powerful, don't mess with forces you can't understand. Respect is critical in this ride. You can have a prosperous relationship living near the Forbidden Mountain, but don't even think about disrespecting it's power.

Countdown to extinction, simply leave good enough alone. Sometimes messing with nature just isn't worth the risk to yourself and others. Shifting and playing with the forces you just can't comprehend can be fun, and some may have a near insatiable appetite for it. Be careful. Nature takes its own course. You may be able to manipulate it, but you'll soon be swept away yourself.

As for Dinosaur I kind of think you're looking too much into that no offense.

I agree there are some interesting messages but they don't strike me as something that I should be concerned about. Every Disney ride has a back story and thats part of it. I really do feel AK has a conservation message. The deforestation in Kali shows why we shouldn't do that. I can't say I have put that much into the Harambe Back story. EE is about a fictional character being the Yeti, you yes disrupt the yeti but being a fictional character and the fact that you haven't really destroyed his habitat just adventuring through it not knowing what he will do or if he is even there.

This is the thing I love about Disney Animal Kingdom. Not only does it present a list of things we shouldn't do, but it also teaches exactly what we should be doing. We should view nature with respect, focus on sustainable solutions, and don't underestimate its sway. Of course those are all just incentives to keep a beautiful set of diverse species and ecosystems alive. These are the keys.

At the same time, and this may be my #1 reason I love DAK, they don't banish humans. It never suggests nature is too good for humanity. It teaches us respect, but at the same time the door is wide open. Instead of trashing humans, they show us what we can do to save our ecosystems and preserve the planet. The door is wide open for the youngest kids, to the oldest guests to experience nature. To appreciate nature. To respect nature.

The attractions that show human ills (like greed and idiocy) only embolden guests to do good. They teach us ways to be sustainable, and smart. They also help us learn to love animals.

It's all about hope. Hope that humans and animals can coexist together. That humans can live their lives while supporting and growing animal habitats. It's never a tale of we're screwed, but of how can we be better.

This I'll agree with.

Now Avatar... During the course of the movie we learn that humans have completely annihilated Earth. It's basically a barren rock with humans on it. Think about that for a second. Earth is something almost sacred in DAK. It's our shared home. Hope is eliminated because it's too late. There's no chance for innovation. No chance for getting smarter. No chance for guests to be better.

We're screwed.

Too late... Moving on, they get to Pandora and what do they do? They start screwing everything up there like they did on Earth. But there's hope. A bold man steps up and says we shouldn't repeat the mistakes we've already made. Instead of heeding his call, they ignore and keep up. They keep on ruining everything because humans are evil, except that one guy. So long story short the humans never learn, they never grow, they only destroy.

Human coexistence with nature is nowhere to be found. In fact the main character has to literally give up being a human and shun his humanness to finally give up his evil ways. The most critical element of Animal Kingdom is starkly at odds with this movie.

You can tell me they're both generally conservation based, but I look at it differently. I see one as hopeful of human nature, and one incredibly dismissive of human nature. One is so in keeping with Walt Disney that it makes me proud to be a fan, the other says we're evil.

I love Disney because of optimism and hope. That's why, along with several other reasons I won't go into, I think Avatar Land is one of the most vile, pathetic, repulsive things ever undertaken. It's going to be breathtaking, but I won't ever love it. Never.

Ok, there are a lot of movies that show how humans have destroyed Earth, heck Disney and Pixar created one in Wall-e. That first message that humans have destroyed Earth in Avatar should tell us to not destroy Earth because of what it will end up like. I still think it works, the overall message is to not destroy your planet or any other planet for that matter. Everything Avatar shows is what we shouldn't do and isn't that what every other attraction at AK does? they show us that we shouldn't destroy nature and animals. We all know Avatar didn't have the best story line it was popular because of the effects and visuals but it still has a conservation message. Should Disney have used avatar vs. something else no but it is what it is at this point and I think the land and rides will be visually stunning like the movie was.

 

[rteetz]

Also, I'll never forgive Staggs for making Rohde scar his theme park.

Nothing else was on the table and AK needed work. All Staggs and Iger want is IP at this point and Rohde wants original stuff. I love Joe's work with the rest of AK but you have to follow orders I guess. I don't think Joe wanted how Dinoland turned out and I'm sure Joe would much rather have Beastly kingdom but they just never happened unfortunately.

 

[Planogirl]

Disney does tend to put things in odd places nowadays, I would agree with that. (I won't go there but see WS.) However, I'm on the fence when it comes to Avatar so I've decided to embrace it. It does have that message about conservation. I just see it more as a warning of what could happen rather than the milder idea that we all need to play with each other nicely.

 

[pilferk]

It is not arrogance, but thanks for being so judgmental. I have always wondered why boards all about Disney are so full of nasty people. The fact is, Disney is a world unto itself. It isn't just an amusement park, its' something special, and for all the complaining about them here, look at their attendance numbers. For 2014, Universal's two parks in Orlando placed 11th and 16th in attendance. Both of them put together didn't equal just the Magic Kingdom. Not by a long shot. Nine of the top ten were Disney parks. The numbers so far for 2015 look similar. While Universal has increased it numbers, so has WDW and the gap remains. BTW, the phone analogy, for all it's detail, is not relevant. There was nothing magic about Motorola or their phones. They were not loved by generations. They were just phones. Not so with Disney. They are not just another amusement park. When discussions of theme parks crop up, there is Disney, and then there are all the rest. You see it in people's eyes when they talk about it. There's a magic about Disney. When people talk about Universal, other than Harry Potter, which is pretty cool, it's just another park with rides.

The thing is....WDW IS just a resort. It IS just a bunch of theme parks with rides. It is a collection of hotels offering lodging.

"We" (and I count myself among that number) see it as "more", because the brand has sentimental meaning to us. We, essentially, create the "magic" in our emotional attachment to the brand. And kudos to Disney, a BUSINESS, for helping to foster that connection. That brand loyalty serves them well, and has built them up some "emotional capital" with many of their fans/consumers, that helps to fill their coffers.

But, at the end of the day, the sausage is being made. The Wizard is running things from behind the curtain. And Disney is making BUSINESS level decisions, based on BUSINESS factors.

It's totally OK to not want to know how the sausage is made. It's totally OK to not want the curtain pulled back to see the Wizard working the machine. But I'm not sure it's OK to expect EVERYONE to feel that way. I said this in another thread: Business discussions revolving around Disney are as old as the disboards are. I wouldn't expect them to stop, or to suddenly factor in "magic".

As for the Motorola discussion....I don't think presenting a cautionary parable is quite the same as saying "Disney is doing this, and will fail within the next 5 years". I think it's more a "in business, arrogance can bite you in the butt" example, based off a sentiment expressed that Disney doesn't care what their competition does (which, FYI, I don't think is true....while I don't think Disney reacts to Uni, overtly, I think they definitely monitor and react....just not necessarily in the ways people expect). Ask Coke about it (though they righted the ship). Ask IBM. Ask Kodak. There are tons of businesses, across almost every industry, who have tried to dictate the market to the consumer, and had it come back to haunt them.

 

[pilferk]

Who is resting on their laurels? They have been putting out great content with original, classic, & acquired IPs. They're also throwing billions into WDW over the next 3-5 years. Spending the billions on technology over the past few years on MM+ will allow them to manage things better in the future with increase in guests and increase in capacity.

MM+ and Disney Springs are the infrastructure buildouts needed prior to the expanded resort. Seems like pretty good planning and use of resources though widely mocked here and elsewhere in the WDW internet community.

First up, note the "if" in the OP. I don't think the suggestion was that they are, but that they COULD choose to do that, and the eventual outcome.

Second, IN the parks, I don't see a lot of "great content". I see content..but nothing I would label as "great" for the past...oh....7 years or so.

The RUMOR is they're throwing billions into park expansions. I hope that's true, and will certainly go a long way toward refreshing the parks that really need some updates/additions. But, even with the updates, I expect some hits...and some misses. And, honestly, I believe nothing rumored from Disney until there is vertical construction. There are TOO many examples of rumored, and even announced, Disney projects that never come to fruition. Some of them even broke ground (Eagle Pines?). It's interesting discussion fodder, I'll grant you, but I refuse to bank heavily on it.

MM+ has been mes a mes for the CONSUMER, which is why you see the complaints/mocking. Because they stem from seeing Disney spend billions on something that provides marginal faced forward improvements to the guest, has had (and in some cases continue to have) annonying technical issues that plague guests, and, in some cases, are directly related to what they see as DECREASED guest experiences (FP vs FP+), rightly or wrongly.

I would agree with you that MM+ is a clear winner for Disney, especially when it comes to analytics, throughput management, logistics, staffing predictors, and a whole host of other backward facing business reasons. It was likely worth the investment for them, in spades.

 

[pilferk]

I agree with your general premise, but I don't understand the need for pessimism. These guys who are leaking this stuff are some of the best around. They were right about The Magic of Walt Disney Animation Closing, about Wilderness Lodge adding DVC, Martin for example was right about upgrades to Illuminations lasers that recently took place. They're in the know. Spirit also gave a full write up of the entire Shanghai Disneyland ride lineup a year ago.

There's a definite chance that things could fall through, (though now that the budget is ago, it's far harder) but it's more likely that it won't. Universal has been building to great success recently, why can't Disney? I always had this feeling that the naysayers who said Disney would never build would be right over and over again, until suddenly they're not. Frankly you're on the wrong side of history here, DHS is looking like it's about to be radically changed, and WDW is going to be a better place a few years down the line.

Why don't you enjoy it? You're obviously a Disney fan, why don't you get excited and start thinking about the possibilities?

If this is all goes down in a pathetic way, than who loses? Sure we may be a bit disappointed, but there's always something to be excited about.

Not to me, but I'm gonna chime in.

There is a difference between "being excited for something" as a potential consumer and "banking on something" in terms of a business level discussion.

As a future guest, I'm excited by the rumors and possible announcements at d23.

As someone discussing Disney's current business climate, operations, decisions, and general strategy....I'm not willing to count on ANYTHING that is a) not currently in vertical construction and b) not likely to open for 5 years or more (since, in business "long term" is generally pegged at a 5 to 7 year strategy).

 

[pilferk]

I have to say, I still have this lingering feeling that DHS will still not be a "full day park" after this is all done and finished. I feel like in the same way Animal Kingdom will have the potential or will be one step closer to being a full day day park, they'll need more. DCA's slate remained better than DHS's and DAK's, and I'm concerned those two parks need more. Now the flip side is if they build and find success, then they'll build more. I sure hope they find success! I guess I just need to remember that a park doesn't become Magic Kingdom or Disneyland in one expansion. It takes years of constant consistent attraction add ons (and not very many closings) to create a park like that.

Edit:Come to think of it, I'd say DCA needs several new E Tickets too. Space is really really tight over there, but DCA has around half the attendance as Disneyland. That should change. The Marvel Stuff will help, but it needs more. Disneyland is arguably the best Park in the world, but still DCA should have closer margins.

IF the rumors are true (fingers crossed)...Carsland, at DCA, is rumored to have cost about 1 billion. About 1.8 billion of the rumored budget is direct park build outs (with a billion for infrastructure, parking, etc). That means you're dedicating about TWICE what CarsLand at DCA cost. That MIGHT nudge DHS to "full day" status...or something very close.

 

[DDLand]

Other than you saying this I can't really say I have put much thought into this notion.

Next time you go, really just look all around at the immersive story. DAK maybe has one of the most impressive, deep, powerful stories of any Disney Park globally. Instead of crudely just thrusting you into a random theme park, you walk into nature as you make your journey there. Once you've arrived at the animal kingdom, you journey outward and explore. Different realms rienforcing humanities love of animals. No theme park in the chain has such an interconnected storyline, even the much venerated Tokyo Disney Sea, doesn't attempt something of DAK's efforts. For a park that opened with like 11 attractions (many of them trails and shows) it was incredibly ambitious. So just look for the story.

As for Dinosaur I kind of think you're looking too much into that no offense.

No offense taken I went on that ride for years, and I never even tried to look for a deeper meaning. The thing you have to remember is everything at DAK has a deeper meaning (Besides triceratops spin and nemo), so Countdown to Extinction really is trying to pull something off. I think I've gotten pretty close to the message of that attraction. Though over thinking is part of of the of Disney World. Because Imagineers really over think things themselves. It's like an over thinkers play ground!

I agree there are some interesting messages but they don't strike me as something that I should be concerned about. Every Disney ride has a back story and thats part of it. I really do feel AK has a conservation message. The deforestation in Kali shows why we shouldn't do that. I can't say I have put that much into the Harambe Back story. EE is about a fictional character being the Yeti, you yes disrupt the yeti but being a fictional character and the fact that you haven't really destroyed his habitat just adventuring through it not knowing what he will do or if he is even there.

I know you think you're not concerned about all this stuff, but I'm pretty sure subconsciously you know that Imagineers have put great care into this world. You may not ever even realize the deeper messages, but they're left on you. You know that they're there. That's really all the "Disney Magic" is. It's Imagineer's extra care and love of their work.

Though for example the Yeti, I think your missing how powerful the plot line is there. Do you remember all those shrines you go through? Their messages are essentially saying keep out, you don't understand and you're disrespecting a powerful force. We don't need the warnings for the sake of profits, and look where that gets us. Nearly killed by a powerful creature because we ignored the warnings.

Ok, there are a lot of movies that show how humans have destroyed Earth, heck Disney and Pixar created one in Wall-e. That first message that humans have destroyed Earth in Avatar should tell us to not destroy Earth because of what it will end up like. I still think it works, the overall message is to not destroy your planet or any other planet for that matter. Everything Avatar shows is what we shouldn't do and isn't that what every other attraction at AK does? they show us that we shouldn't destroy nature and animals. We all know Avatar didn't have the best story line it was popular because of the effects and visuals but it still has a conservation message. Should Disney have used avatar vs. something else no but it is what it is at this point and I think the land and rides will be visually stunning like the movie was.

Alright, so as for Wall-e, I have to say I didn't enjoy that movie very much. However, even then there's a message far more consistent with DAK. Basically the whole point of that movie is humans when we put our mind to something can overcome the odds. We may lose our way, but we'll realize our wrong and beat the odds. Also it's still a message of hope because we can fix our ways. That's the big difference.

Humans are the enemy in Avatar. They're evil. They're murders. They're psychopaths. In DAK humans can be all those things but the whole point is that we can rise above our state. We can be better. One is about hope, one is about basically humans suck. That is at incredible odds.

It will look amazing, but it just doesn't fit in at all.

 

[Tarheel girl 1975]

While unrelated I don't think it's horribly placed. I'd much rather have avatar in AK because of its conservation message than somewhere else in WDW.

Pandora would not have been my choice for AK. Mainly because I would have rather seen Disney develop their own IP. However, it is going into the portion of the park that was originally supposted to be dedicated to mythical beasts and if Disney does it right and really makes it immersive, it will probablly be better than we think.

 

[peg110]

Wow... Step away from my computer for a couple of hours, and all of sudden, I am 40 messages behind......

Ok, here is where I stand on these.

BTW, the phone analogy, for all it's detail, is not relevant. There was nothing magic about Motorola or their phones. They were not loved by generations. They were just phones. Not so with Disney.

I partially agree and disagree. I believe it's relevant that despite the fact that Motorola was not "Beloved", the message is still the same. I think current generations still have a love for Disney because many of us remember the Sunday "Wonderful World of Disney" shows and similar offerings on TV. I just don't think the Disney TV shows now-a-days garner the same love as they did back then. I could be wrong though, it's just my thoughts. Either way, if Disney doesn't work to keep that "Love", it will fade and they will fall. Much like Motorola not keeping up with the latest technology... Love or no Love, it can happen.

Last December we did a Disney Universal trip, 2 nuts at Universal and 7 at Disney. Got to admit Universal is surpassing Disney in everyway when it comes to Price wait times for rides ( we stayed at universal resort and did not wait on line for any rides) and overall enjoyments and excitement of their parks. Love Disney with all my heart but lately the price keeps going up as the quality of the service declines....

Maybe so, but what happens when Universal gets more popular. They don't have the space to expand like WDW does. Then their lines will get longer and/or their prices will increase and/or the EP may go away or get more restricted/expensive. To me this is a sign that, at least currently, Universal is still not close to overtaking WDW.

They didn't need to do it but they did so as not to be left behind. They did not need to add to Soaring or TSMM, but they want to decrease wait times. These "small" changes do have big impacts that cant always be seen.
Everyone complains about how slow the changes come and how slow building is. It takes time and they want to minimize the impact. I know that they could just close the doors to a section, let all the heavy machinery go guns a blazing and have it done in half the time. But even when we were there this past March and half of AK was boarded up, except for some tight squeezes in places my family did not even notice.

It really doesn't matter if the "Close the doors" to a section and bang out an update/upgrade (or whatever) or if they do it slowly to try and keep as much open as possible. People will complain either way. This thread is proof of that. They complain if they DO upgrade, they complain if they DON'T upgrade. They complain if the ADD, they complain if they TAKE AWAY. Sometimes I think we aren't happy unless we complain (I know, I am probably in that category too, so no need to point it out! )

There are a total of 5 rides in the park, period. I don't know that I'd call that a "good amount" of anything. Sure in my eyes, 4 of them are quality (I'll never get the love for TGMR) but I'd say that they lack rides PERIOD, heck according to Disney's own website, there are only 9 "Attractions" in the park. https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/attractions/hollywood-studios/

Disney parks (at least for me and our family) aren't just about Rides. It's about Shows and Atmosphere. At DHS, I LOVE the Beauty and the Beast Show. My DW LOVES the Animation studio where she is taught how to draw the characters. We totally enjoy the Fantasmic show. This is just to name a few. Same with the other parks. Let's face it, many of the rides are little more than a slow moving car to watch a "Show" in motion.

Let's not forget the shops... While I am not a shopper, my DW and DDs are all into the shops too. I also love the character interactions and street shows too.

 

[Kimosabe]

The horribly unrelated and placed Avatar Land will help, but it needs more. Just like DHS needs more than SW and Pixar.

While my gang loves DAK, and while I am looking forward to the new additions, I can agree that a couple of other rides outside of Avatar would definitely enhance choices and make it more appealing for everyone, including myself. My personal recommendations are a "flying" coaster in DinoLand, themed after a Pterodactyl, and a Jungle Book dark ride, but that park was never really set up to be as ride-focused as MK, and that's OK.

As for what DHS needs, I actually think that SW and Pixar could make that park the best on property for people who love a little more excitement in their rides (even with the concept that the park needs to appeal to all family members), but it annoys me to no end that the plan appears to be for almost all of "Pixar Place" to be Toy Story-focused. There are so many other Pixar movies that could lend themselves to great rides....and they are being summarily ignored, or so it would seem.

I would love WDW to keep an area in one of the parks that showcases Walt's history ("One Man's Dream"), animation and movie making, but it would not offend me if they put that sort of thing over in Epcot - honestly, I think it could help enhance the World's Fair feel to Epcot. What will offend me is if they are yanking it from DHS and not planning to put it back anywhere at all.

 

[Andrew015]

Human coexistence with nature is nowhere to be found. In fact the main character has to literally give up being a human and shun his humanness to finally give up his evil ways. The most critical element of Animal Kingdom is starkly at odds with this movie.

You can tell me they're both generally conservation based, but I look at it differently. I see one as hopeful of human nature, and one incredibly dismissive of human nature. One is so in keeping with Walt Disney that it makes me proud to be a fan, the other says we're evil.

One thing to consider. Avatarland will be opened in close proximity to the release of the 2nd movie. Perhaps the sequel starts heading down the path of coexistence, showing that the two species can live together. Just a thought. In general, I agree with your sentiment. While visually stunning, my main takeaway from the movie was that all humans are evil, which never sat right with me (hence my lack of excitement for the new land).

 

[rteetz]

Next time you go, really just look all around at the immersive story. DAK maybe has one of the most impressive, deep, powerful stories of any Disney Park globally. Instead of crudely just thrusting you into a random theme park, you walk into nature as you make your journey there. Once you've arrived at the animal kingdom, you journey outward and explore. Different realms rienforcing humanities love of animals. No theme park in the chain has such an interconnected storyline, even the much venerated Tokyo Disney Sea, doesn't attempt something of DAK's efforts. For a park that opened with like 11 attractions (many of them trails and shows) it was incredibly ambitious. So just look for the story.
No offense taken I went on that ride for years, and I never even tried to look for a deeper meaning. The thing you have to remember is everything at DAK has a deeper meaning (Besides triceratops spin and nemo), so Countdown to Extinction really is trying to pull something off. I think I've gotten pretty close to the message of that attraction. Though over thinking is part of of the of Disney World. Because Imagineers really over think things themselves. It's like an over thinkers play ground!
I know you think you're not concerned about all this stuff, but I'm pretty sure subconsciously you know that Imagineers have put great care into this world. You may not ever even realize the deeper messages, but they're left on you. You know that they're there. That's really all the "Disney Magic" is. It's Imagineer's extra care and love of their work.

Though for example the Yeti, I think your missing how powerful the plot line is there. Do you remember all those shrines you go through? Their messages are essentially saying keep out, you don't understand and you're disrespecting a powerful force. We don't need the warnings for the sake of profits, and look where that gets us. Nearly killed by a powerful creature because we ignored the warnings.

Alright, so as for Wall-e, I have to say I didn't enjoy that movie very much. However, even then there's a message far more consistent with DAK. Basically the whole point of that movie is humans when we put our mind to something can overcome the odds. We may lose our way, but we'll realize our wrong and beat the odds. Also it's still a message of hope because we can fix our ways. That's the big difference.

Humans are the enemy in Avatar. They're evil. They're murders. They're psychopaths. In DAK humans can be all those things but the whole point is that we can rise above our state. We can be better. One is about hope, one is about basically humans suck. That is at incredible odds.

It will look amazing, but it just doesn't fit in at all.

I definitely see your point but if I had to choose what park of the four avatar goes into it would be AK.,

 

[rteetz]

While my gang loves DAK, and while I am looking forward to the new additions, I can agree that a couple of other rides outside of Avatar would definitely enhance choices and make it more appealing for everyone, including myself. My personal recommendations are a "flying" coaster in DinoLand, themed after a Pterodactyl, and a Jungle Book dark ride, but that park was never really set up to be as ride-focused as MK, and that's OK.

As for what DHS needs, I actually think that SW and Pixar could make that park the best on property for people who love a little more excitement in their rides (even with the concept that the park needs to appeal to all family members), but it annoys me to no end that the plan appears to be for almost all of "Pixar Place" to be Toy Story-focused. There are so many other Pixar movies that could lend themselves to great rides....and they are being summarily ignored, or so it would seem.

I would love WDW to keep an area in one of the parks that showcases Walt's history ("One Man's Dream"), animation and movie making, but it would not offend me if they put that sort of thing over in Epcot - honestly, I think it could help enhance the World's Fair feel to Epcot. What will offend me is if they are yanking it from DHS and not planning to put it back anywhere at all.

That flying ride is what we are getting with avatar except it's a banshee. A dark ride is talked about time and time again but I have to think is AK the type of park for dark rides? I don't think so. If they were to do a Jurassic park or splash mountain type ride I think that would work but a HM or pan type dark just doesn't seem like it should be in AK.

I agree with you on Pixar place but of course we don't know official details those are just the rumors at this point.

One mans dream could very well stay or go back to DHS when work is finished or they could put it on main street where they had that type of thing before DHS.

 

[DDLand]

My personal recommendations are a "flying" coaster in DinoLand, themed after a Pterodactyl, and a Jungle Book dark ride, but that park was never really set up to be as ride-focused as MK, and that's OK.

I actually, forgive me if I'm wrong, believe they're putting in a ride like the one you mentioned in USJ in their Jurassic Park section. So not outside the realm of possibility, but not at DAK. There's no plot on how the animals got there in the first place.

 

[DDLand]

I definitely see your point but if I had to choose what park of the four avatar goes into it would be AK.,

I say just cram it into DHS with the rest of the stuff that does't make sense and call it a day.

 

[rteetz]

I say just cram it into DHS with the rest of the stuff that does't make sense and call it a day.

Yes and no. Thematically I feel the bioluminescent forest and floating mountains will have that nature feel and work in AK regardless of the message of avatar. Originally DHS was supposed to get avatar but it was only a small single attraction at that point. Jon Landau is the one who said why not a land in that park you have that's all about animals. If avatar wasn't coming to AK would we be getting anything there currently? Probably not.

 

[DDLand]

Yes and no. Thematically I feel the bioluminescent forest and floating mountains will have that nature feel and work in AK regardless of the message of avatar. Originally DHS was supposed to get avatar but it was only a small single attraction at that point. Jon Landau is the one who said why not a land in that park you have that's all about animals. If avatar wasn't coming to AK would we be getting anything there currently? Probably not.

The message that it evokes is inseparably connected to the theme of the park. I guess there's continuity from trees and forested areas to more forested areas but that's still not a reason cram it in.

You''ve got the story almost 100% right. One thing happened differently though, it was (according to the NYT) Staggs that suggested it. He made this mess.

According to the article they basically accepted the fact that DAK was having issues, I don't think it would've taken IP to start the movement to build more there.