No Carsland Announcement today at "Around Our World"

[Mouse14]

Although movies are usually created primarily for entertainment, many are designed to send a message as well. Watch Blood Diamond; it sends it's message about as subtly as Avatar does.

How does it send the same message? One is a Tru story about an African country and one is about a make believe land... ?? The ignorance on that is funny

 

[Corrine 1973]

I for one really enjoyed Avatar. I saw it twice in the theatres (once on 3D)and own it on BluRay. But than that is just my humble opion amoungst thosands of other opionions. I can't wait to see what some of the concepts are for DAK and than I will make my oppion about the expansion of that. I am also looking foward to the possible Carsland at DHS because my kids love Cars, but if it doesn't happen I will get on with my life. It's not a big deal. I also like the idea of a possible Star Wars themed area.

And I see the point of view about people leaving the movie with a negative idea about corperations. But when I left the theatre I wasn't thinkng negatively about all corperations, I was thinking negatively about corperations that put all else aside in persuit of the all mighty buck. The movie did not show a corpuration trying to better mankind, they were purely ready to destroy the land and civilization because something under the ground could make them alot of money.

This is all my humble opinion. Please respect mine, as I respect yours. We can have a diffrence of opinion with out attacking each other.

 

[Red24Red30]

How does it send the same message? One is a Tru story about an African country and one is about a make believe land... ?? The ignorance on that is funny

I said Blood Diamond sends it's message about as subtly as Avatar does. I didn't say they send the same message. I was responding to the fact that you seemed to disagree that films can send messages, so I used Blood Diamond to show that a movie can send a deliberate message.

I suggest you read and understand comments thoroughly before calling a comment "ignorant".

Semantics. So michael jordan sucks im not wrong my opinion = flawed logic. Your point of view all art is subjective monet mozart etc.... Anyway

If you think that Michael Jordan sucks, he sucks (to you). Someone else might think he's great. That's their opinion, just as you have yours. Even if the vast majority think he's great, that doesn't make him inherently so. "Great" is an opinion, and everybody has a different interpretation, as well as different criteria, for what counts as "greatness".

What you are trying to do is equate opinion to fact.

Here is a fact:

Michael Jordan made 2,514 steals in his career in the NBA.

That is not a matter of opinion. It cannot be argued. However, nowhere in that sentence is it determined that he is "great". In order to associate the idea of "great" to that sentence, the reader has to apply his own personal judgement about it. In other words, he has to create an opinion.

And opinions are, by nature, subjective.

Recently, I just finished a historical text on WWII called "The Best War Ever", referring to a common belief of Americans at the time as well as now. Was it the best war ever? Can a war even be "great"?

The author makes the argument that in many ways, it wasn't great. He uses considerable historical evidence, interviews, and government and military documents, facts, and figures to back up his argument. But guess what? It's still his opinion, and it's one that some of his fellow historians disagree with, and some don't.

And as for art, such as films? That's often even more subjective.

I apologize if I misunderstood your post; I had a bit of difficulty with your grammar (I don't mean that as an insult, I'm just not quite sure if I addressed your comment correctly).

I for one really enjoyed Avatar. I saw it twice in the theatres (once on 3D)and own it on BluRay. But than that is just my humble opion amoungst thosands of other opionions. I can't wait to see what some of the concepts are for DAK and than I will make my oppion about the expansion of that. I am also looking foward to the possible Carsland at DHS because my kids love Cars, but if it doesn't happen I will get on with my life. It's not a big deal. I also like the idea of a possible Star Wars themed area.

And I see the point of view about people leaving the movie with a negative idea about corperations. But when I left the theatre I wasn't thinkng negatively about all corperations, I was thinking negatively about corperations that put all else aside in persuit of the all mighty buck. The movie did not show a corpuration trying to better mankind, they were purely ready to destroy the land and civilization because something under the ground could make them alot of money.

This is all my humble opinion. Please respect mine, as I respect yours. We can have a diffrence of opinion with out attacking each other.

Well said. Thank you.

 

[DaniH]

So you never get to experience Cars Land unless you go to Cali, would you somehow feel cheated or upset if they instead built a fantastic Monsters, Inc. land at MGM that no one else has?

The key is imagination and quality and sequels, duplication and such just isn't good enough, IMO. They're making the big bucks, we the public should DEMAND they earn it.

For my family, yes, it would be a little disappointing. Cool, sure but not the same as Radiator Springs. My feeling is that WDW is the Flagship Park. Why not bring the attractions that are big hits in the other parks there? Even with that there are still plenty of unique attractions in the other parks.

 

[DRDISNEYMD]

Well said you ve just said every point that needs to be made

~Awww, thanks for the compliment!

Since you asked...

Expedition Everest's story is about respecting nature. When people start taking the trains up the Forbidden Mountain, the sacred guardian becomes protective. The conservation theme is to respect nature from a safe distance.

Dinosaurs fit in with two conservation themes: first, they encourage us to learn more about earth's natural history, and second, the fact that they are extinct makes us look to our own responsiblity in preserving today's animals. While the dinosaurs faced an unstoppable apocalypse, we have the power to help the animals of today. One of the messages I used most often at the Dinoland Kid's Discovery Club station was to ask children "what can we do to help make sure animals don't become extinct?"

As for dragons, we all know the Beastly Kingdom was scrapped. However, if it was built, the conservation theme could easily be applied because mythical creatures were inspired by mankind's awe of animals. I could see myself asking kids "what animals do you think are most like dragons? Reptiles? Dinosaurs? Did you know you can see REAL dragons on the Maharajah Jungle Trek (Komodo dragons)?" Then the child goes and explores another land (Asia) where she learns about the Komodo dragon and perhaps is inspired to learn about the other fascinating creatures of the continent. Mythical beasts show just how important animals are to our diverse cultural heritage across the world, and are a great way to connect guests to the creatures of the world.

You may think that I'm really stretching to apply conservation themes to these attractions, but having worked in the conservation education department, I know that the Imagineers purposely added a whole bunch of conservation theming into the queues, rides, and scenery. For instance, there is a multi-part stone tableau near the end of Maharajah Jungle Trek that depicts people living in harmony with nature, but then they start to abuse nature with deforestation and poaching. This causes mother nature to intervene with natural disasters, prompting the people to once again live in harmony with nature.

Did you know that the multi-colored, animal-themed benches all around Discovery Island are all made out of 100% recycled plastic grocery bags? Or that the reason they don't give you a lid when you purchase a drink is so what they won't find their way into animal enclosures?

You are right that Animal Kingdom is a fun theme park. It is not a historical museum. But to say that it's not also a place to learn and be inspired to take action is wrong. Guests can play educational games at the KDCs, interact with cool conservation props and keepers in the Oasis, spend time at Conservation Station, donate to the Disney Worldwide Conservation Fund and receive a cool pin, observe the enrichment sessions at the tigers and siamangs, observe veterinary surgeries, talk to the cultural interns in Africa or Asia, watch Harambe School, listen to the conservation messages during Flights of Wonder, view the many themed field researcher journals or listen to the conservation education staff along the nature trails (fruit bat presentation, gorillla talks, etc.)

True, they probably have many similar educational features at your local zoo. But I guarantee you they don't do it like Animal Kingdom does. DAK has some of the best veterinary, keeper, conservation, and animal management staff in the world. Even the KDCs are intricately themed by Imagineering, and include immersive games also developed by WDI.

I'm sorry that when you visit Animal Kingdom you ignore all of the seamless effort that Disney puts into the conservation theme.

You're right; you probably have zoos back home, but none of them match the quality of Disney in terms of fun, theming, and dedication to conservation. In my opinion, not even the San Diego Zoo does it so well. With DAK, Disney has made conservation education fun. Next time you visit, I urge you to take the time to learn something about the amazing wildlife and the things you can do to help. You might be surprised by how fun and fulfilling Disney makes it!

~Humans are by their very nature a paradox, so compartmentalizing this issue into a moral lesson in spirituality is rather naive. It's metaphors such as yours that turn some of the the worst of aspects of mankind into legends, lore and infamy that feeds into a twisted cult of personality. The Yeti is a myth, it is unacceptable by Western standards to promote this as some sacred homage to nature, its not.

~Expedition Everest is a roller coaster, not a conservation effort. Expedition Everest's theme is inspired by the folklore of the Yeti. The Yeti is an unfounded myth with no scientific basis. It's a story no different than Bigfoot. To consider this a conservation effort equates to Bigfoot as the sacred guardian of Fort Wilderness, where we must all respect the forest from a distance. It's one theory within a culture brought on by fear and lack of information. What was once thought to be the skull of a Yeti, was later determined to belong to a Yak! People believe in Santa Claus too, that doesn't make it a conservation effort.

~Disney partnered with Conservation International with intent to research the culture surrounding the Yeti. Conservation International has a horrible reputation, for accepting huge donations from greedy unscrupulous corporations that engage in the exploitation of natural resources for profit -- and that knowingly engage in wide practiced abuses that violates the rights and risks the safety of humans, animals, and the planet -- such as BP & Cargill, just to name a few. Robson Walton, Wal-Marts chairman, is also the Executive Committee Chairman for Conservation International. CI constantly remains under scrutiny for continual misuse of corporate donations.

~Throughout your post, you continue to define specific aspects of broader themes in an attempt to manipulate them to one of your approval, not necessarily to that of Disney's Animal Kingdom park. Its sort of like how a rogue employee abandons the corporate ideals and cultural identity of a corporation, solely to promote their own ideals and agendas to benefit their personal causes and beliefs.

~Disneys current physical efforts are focused on the conversation of animals and the environment. While the history of dinosaurs can be used as a metaphor in helping to prevent the extinction of todays endangered species -- it's not the best example -- it's not the only example -- but simply, one way of looking at a particular crisis. Dinosaurs existence in the parks are primarily for entertainment purposes, it's not the core theme of Animal Kingdom. The theme of Animal Kingdom has already been defined by Disney, you seem to have your own ideas of what you think it should be.

~Avatar's story contains mythical beasts, just like the Yeti & dragons, it will fit in perfectly at Animal Kingdom. The Avatar Navi are humanoid, like the Yeti.

~I already know about the plastic lids and paper straws, our local zoo had long adopted this practice, so I was very pleased to see Disney that adopted the same practice that all the other zoos had been exercising for quite some time . I didn't know the neat story behind the benches, that's super cool. Thanks for sharing. I am aware that Disney is engaged in some sort of green initiative in relation to using specific paper products from corporations who use recycled materials, in efforts to preserve forestland, but that's the extent of it. I certainly applaud Disney's efforts to reduce their carbon footprint.

~You seem to be under the impression that I am not aware of the various programs within Animal Kingdom aimed toward educating the public, I already know they exist. I'm not trying to be mean, but I would be bored out of my mind. This doesn't interest me at all, especially when my local zoos and universities do it better.

~This is why Avatar-land is very important to me. This is my vacation, we love watching the animals interact at AK. but that is where it ends for me. I want more rides, more attractions, and an awesome nighttime show at AK.

~I appreciate all of the valuable insight and perspective in your post. However, I don't think it's an appropriate argument that validates why Avatar is not a good fit for Animal Kingdom. If people want to engage in learning, the information is there, as it should be. I believe one can actively engage in both, as fun and learning are not mutually exclusive of each other. I think you have done an excellent job in explaining why certain aspects of the park are there, but what is missing is why the addition of Avatar doesn't fit.

~I don't find Avatar's theme to be anti-corporate. Avatar reflects our way of life, which is heavily centered on globalization and the exploitation of our earth's natural resources -- in addition to -- pollution, dumping, drilling, mining, etc. I don't think all of these practices are "evil," but many corporate practices are.

~In contrast, the Navi have a strong sense of nature and live in harmony with their planet. Collectively, they are vehemently against destructive practices such as drilling, mining, and the deforestation of their planet.

~If anything, we can be inspired by the Navi to take better care of our planet by adopting greener measures that will continue to reduce our carbon footprint and further enhance our preservation and conservation efforts.

~I totally agree that Disney's team members are some of the best in the world. I love Animal Kingdom, it's my second favorite park. But compared to an average zoo, the number of animal and species cared for is relatively small.

~My local zoo has twice the number of animals AK has, and by zoo standards that's considered small. AK only has 1700+ animals and 250 species, which is why I would never compare it to a zoo. The world's largest zoo has over 17,000 animals and represents close to 1000 different species.

~With that said, I love AK's theming and the overall feel of the park, which I find to be breathtakingly gorgeous. I love to see the animals, especially the Silverback.

~I'm sorry that you struggle to convey your message in a seamless cohesive fashion, without making rude assumptions. You undermine your argument when you become dogmatic in your approach to "enlighten," it comes across as immature & disingenuous -- like you will say anything for the sake of being "right."

~You seem to insinuate that because I don't experience the park or because I don't embody the park in the only sentiment that you identify with, somehow my park experience is diminished. It's a very "flawed logic," and quite frankly it's embarrassing.

~By your accounts, there is only one perspective that's valid. And if we don't value, only what you deem as acceptable, we're "ignoring" things. Different things - have different meanings - to different people and we all experience things differently.

~And, because I experience AK one way, does not mean that my park experience is any less than yours or vice versa. It takes an extremely narrow and short sighted perspective to suggest that we all must experience the parks and embrace the parks by your (single) perspective, otherwise "we're not learning" or "we don't care" about conservation. It is impossible for you to draw the conclusion, that just because I don't obsess over every painstaking detail and aspect that you do, that I don't care about conservation.

~Animal Kingdom is a theme park, not a sacred homage to conservation. I pay the entrance fee and I am free to enjoy the park to the fullest, as I see fit.

~In regards to zoos, that's right, it's just your opinion. There many institutes and organizations that do this far better, that are not for profit, with people who dedicate their life to researching, protecting and rescuing animals and the environment, causes that I support.

~Disney also acknowledges the efforts of these fine organizations and pledges huge amount financial support to several conservation and animal rescue efforts -- they are truly exceptional in what they do.

~I urge you to not look at this as some kind of competition. You seem to be consumed with what is "the best," I can tell you its not entirely Disney, lol. Disney is fairly new to this, animals and the environment have been around longer than fifteen years. There are several well established institutions, organizations, and universities that do this much better, have been at it much longer and some rely solely upon donations to continue their conservation efforts. Busch Gardens was the first to exercise the concept of creating an animal theme parks, long before the Magic Kingdom had a thought to set up in Florida. I appreciate Disney's efforts, but I don't worship them or corporations.

~In relation to AK -- dragons, yetis, and dinosaurs don't reflect any of the real conservation efforts currently exercised by Disney. They are there, in part, for entertainment purposes, to suggest otherwise is deceptive. It's like saying the T-REX cafe or the Jurassic Park Ride at Universal are conservation efforts that just happen to serve food or entertain. All you've done in this post is mold your argument in a form where your perspective can resonate as some kind of fact, it doesn't. The conservation efforts put forth by Disney are very clear. The educational value Disney presents in dinosaurs, yetis and dragons are purely for entertainment purposes, to think of this in any other way, suggests a refusal to acknowledge the sole purpose of a theme park.

~Avatar is one of the most successful films of all time. With the addition of Avatar, Disney is simply levering established paradigms against a more modernistic synergism, thus enabling a forward thinking lattice structured organization. The addition of Avatar-land should be a welcome one, that patterns into a more vertically integrated, organic & transparent entity, especially when embraced with fresh eyes.

~Simply put, Avatar-land will be fabulous.

Semantics. So michael jordan sucks im not wrong my opinion = flawed logic. Your point of view all art is subjective monet mozart etc.... Anyway

~Very well said, I totally agree! I think you have impeccable grammar, and are remarkably savvy in expressing the finer aspects of brevity. Clearly, for some this is quite the challenge -- less is more.

 

[mixitup1979]

Can't wait to see this .. California so far away from NJ

 

[Red24Red30]

~Throughout your post, you continue to define specific aspects of broader themes in an attempt to manipulate them to one of your approval, not necessarily to that of Disney's Animal Kingdom park. Its sort of like how a rogue employee abandons the corporate ideals and cultural identity of a corporation, solely to promote their own ideals and agendas to benefit their personal causes and beliefs.

~Disneys current physical efforts are focused on the conversation of animals and the environment. While the history of dinosaurs can be used as a metaphor in helping to prevent the extinction of todays endangered species -- it's not the best example -- it's not the only example -- but simply, one way of looking at a particular crisis. Dinosaurs existence in the parks are primarily for entertainment purposes, it's not the core theme of Animal Kingdom. The theme of Animal Kingdom has already been defined by Disney, you seem to have your own ideas of what you think it should be.

There is an exhausting amount of assumptions and implications that you place upon me in your post, of which I do not appreciate.

And wow, saying I'm "sort of like a rogue employee who abandons the corporate ideals and cultural identity of a corporation, solely to promote their own ideals and agendas to benefit their personal causes and beliefs"?

Excuse me, that is a bit beyond the line, don't you think? I don't remember specifically attacking you. If I did, I apologize.

You label me as a rogue, yet I truly wrote only what we were taught and encouraged to impart to guests at Disney (and I do happen to agree with it myself). DAK was made for fun and education, and to inspire others to take conservation action. As educators, we were trained to play, interact, and listen to our guests and be able to craft personalized education messages to each and every guest. We didn't even "click" it as an interaction unless we imparted a real, personalized conservation message.

And those conservation messages that you claim I simply inferred on rides like Expedition Everest? Those are indeed real, and were intended by WDI all along. Besides Everest, take Kali River Rapids for example. If you sit in the eating area surrounding Yak and Yeti Restaurant, you may see see themed advertisements for a local radio broadcast about what to do regarding the logging company that's taken up business in Anandapur. Additiona theming in the cue reinforces the proprietor's wish to show guests the natural beauty of the area, while also warning guests of the dire consequences of this environmental destruction. When you go on the ride, you start going through a beautiful jungle, but then emerge into a desolate clearing with fallen timber, old trucks, burning wood, and the sound of chainsaws all around. Some people just think it's a river raft ride. But it was intended to be more than that; to show how man has reached into even the most remote, pristine places of the world and taken it for his own.

How do I know this story? Because it's officially approved theming material that we received during a cast member tour, related to us by a member of the Animal Programs and Environmental Initiatives senior conservation education management team. It's not just my wild imagination placing conservation messages on everything.

For my part, I had amazing talks with guests and saw them get real excited time and again when they put together dinosaur bones, hung out and did some animal observations with me, became my audience at Harambe School, tracked a rhinoceros through Pangani exploration trail, went on an animal scavenger hunt at Conservation Station, and more. I had a blast educating interested guests on how to set up a bat box, showing kids how to make a bird feeder out of a pine cone, honey, and seeds, explaining how urdicating hairs work on a tarantula, letting guests feel how soft bamboo bedsheets are and urging them to purchase them because of their excellence as a renewable resource, letting guests peer inside the skull of a Giant Anteater and explaining the animal's differences with the Aardvark, and more.

I've been working with animals for ten years, first as an educator, then as a mammal keeper at many AZA-accredited facilities coast-to-coast. When I first visited DAK, I thought it would be terrible. "Disney and animals? Give me a break." And then I visited and was blown away. It's not about how many animals. It's about the animal care. You just look at the enclosures and they don't even look like enclosures! They look like natural habitats full of room and interesting, enriching environments to interact with. The jungle temple where the tigers roam? Beautiful. The siamang enclosure that looks like it's right out of Angkor Wat? Exquisite. And let's not forget Kilimanjaro Safaris. I still have to explain to my mother-in-law how it appears that there aren't any cages! And trust me, if you'd worked with the keepers, saw the backstage animal areas through and through, and got to assist the vet staff with a surgery, you'd be hard pressed not to be amazed. I've been to world-class zoos like the San Diego Zoo several times. They don't even come close to Disney, even though they have tons more species. Disney has chosen quality over quantity. To think that more species = a better facility is baffling to me. However, I respect your opinion. I have mine, and you have yours.

I'm proud of what my fellow DAK interns and I accomplished during our time at DAK. It's funny because everything I said isn't just my "rogue" opinion; it's pretty much verbatim what the conservation education staff is all about. Straight out of Traditions and the several-week training we did to prepare for the job. Regarding Avatar? That is entirely my opinion. I never claimed it was Disney's or my fellow cast members'.

Anybody else who may have been reading this back-and-forth, I hope you aren't disillusioned in the slightest about DAK being an amazing, beautiful, inspiring place; just like the rest of WDW. In fact, I hope you're laughing at all this nonsense right now!

Enjoy the park. Watch the animals, go on the thrilling rides, and maybe consider taking the time to observe the amazing work that goes on everyday to care for and help conserve these amazing creatures. Notice the many details that the Imagineers deliberately placed into the architecture, scenery, queues, and even rides themselves.

And when Avatar Land comes out, enjoy that too. Despite my reservations, I always intended to give it a fair try. Who knows, it might just surprise us!

Happy Holidays, fellow Disney fans!

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

For my family, yes, it would be a little disappointing. Cool, sure but not the same as Radiator Springs. My feeling is that WDW is the Flagship Park. Why not bring the attractions that are big hits in the other parks there? Even with that there are still plenty of unique attractions in the other parks.

I am saying what if they equal or maybe totally outdo Radiator Springs with another Land (any Land, pick one from any PIXAR movie)? You would still rather have the redo?

Regarding redo's, they don't generally fare too well anyway. DL got Indiana Jones we got Dinosaur (Countdown to Extinction). We got ToT (the real one), DCA got ToT (the other one). Although to be fair it appears that DCA did better in the Test Track / Radiator Springs trade. But there is certainly no guarantee WDWs version of Cars Land will equal what DCA has but a fairly good chance it will be lesser.

Lastly, I don't know where you get that WDW is the "flagship Park" but believe me the ORIGINAL is not only better but gets better treatment from Disney and always will (and always should) and this from a guy whose been going to WDW since the year they opened.

I'm not big on the ole "magic" hype and hyperbole PR that surrounds all things Disney but IMO not one single thing at WDW creates the feeling of awe that virtually all of DL does, of course this probably resonates with fans of Walt Disney more than the modern day fan of the disney Corporation, so I guess the discussion would have to start at that point...

 

[thepoohguy]

When I saw the videos and pictures of CARSLand, I thought one thing, time to make a trip to DL.

My wife and I have only been once before. We attempted to do both parks in one day as so much of it is the same as WDW. I know there is huge debate over WDW vs DL. My guess is it depends upon which one you go to first as to which one you like better. To me, WDW is better because it's more opened. DL is very cramped, and I hate how you have to return to the hub to move from land to land, but I digress.

The point is, certain attractions need to be at the one it opened for a while before opening it at the other. I mean all in all, I'd rather have the Indiana Jones ride in Florida before CARSLand. Stunt show is old and boring.

Besides, the more that is different, the more people will want to go to both. I really liked the pictures I saw of World of Color, but that one attraction wasn't enough to make the trip to CA from Michigan. However, with CARSLand, we are going next October!

As for Avatarland, I never really liked the idea that much, and to give full disclosure, I've never seen the movie. In the end, I don't like James Cameron. Yes his movies make billions of dollars, but he doesn't strike me as the Disney type. Based on what I know about Avatar, I thought it was a remake of Ferngully. I'm just not a tree hugging, carbon footprint worrying, save the planet type of person. I'm not saying I shouldn't be responsible in ways that I can, just not going to spend an extra $10k on a hybrid to save $5k in gas. That's still a loss of $5k to me.

Back to topic, I just don't think James Cameron is the Disney type. He's not Lucas, and he doesn't make movies like Lucas. Personally, again based on what I heard, as I did not see the movie, it was more Hollywood propaganda about "save the earth". As if I didn't get enough of that from Happy Feet, or to a lesser extent, WALL-E.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

When I saw the videos and pictures of CARSLand, I thought one thing, time to make a trip to DL.

My wife and I have only been once before. We attempted to do both parks in one day as so much of it is the same as WDW. I know there is huge debate over WDW vs DL. My guess is it depends upon which one you go to first as to which one you like better. To me, WDW is better because it's more opened. DL is very cramped, and I hate how you have to return to the hub to move from land to land, but I digress.

The point is, certain attractions need to be at the one it opened for a while before opening it at the other. I mean all in all, I'd rather have the Indiana Jones ride in Florida before CARSLand. Stunt show is old and boring.

Besides, the more that is different, the more people will want to go to both. I really liked the pictures I saw of World of Color, but that one attraction wasn't enough to make the trip to CA from Michigan. However, with CARSLand, we are going next October!

As for Avatarland, I never really liked the idea that much, and to give full disclosure, I've never seen the movie. In the end, I don't like James Cameron. Yes his movies make billions of dollars, but he doesn't strike me as the Disney type. Based on what I know about Avatar, I thought it was a remake of Ferngully. I'm just not a tree hugging, carbon footprint worrying, save the planet type of person. I'm not saying I shouldn't be responsible in ways that I can, just not going to spend an extra $10k on a hybrid to save $5k in gas. That's still a loss of $5k to me.

Back to topic, I just don't think James Cameron is the Disney type. He's not Lucas, and he doesn't make movies like Lucas. Personally, again based on what I heard, as I did not see the movie, it was more Hollywood propaganda about "save the earth". As if I didn't get enough of that from Happy Feet, or to a lesser extent, WALL-E.

Not sure where to start...I've visited WDW all of my life, since the first year.
I've been to DL three times. WDW was a great escape for my family as it was/is for millions of people but to anyone who is a fan of Walt Disney and the 'Disney way' there is absolutely no comparison between to two. I understand we can all agree to disagree but I suspect that WDW lovers are more casual with "what is Disney" than someone who has studied Walt and his life, for example.

I think there should be very little duplication in the parks for the exact same reason I think the stores at WDW should NOT all carry generic crap. The ability to be unique is so special whereas building a Walmart world is just so easy, boring and frankly one dimensional even if it does make oodles of money.

You think Cameron isn't a Disney guy yet the leader of the great company (Iger) is about as much a Disney guy as Hugh Hefner. So I really don't see your objection other than you don't like Avatar and the message. BTW, a Prius costs 25,000 for 50mpg, I don't think your losing money by buying one (unless you're comparing a Prius to a 15,000 car, LOL) but based on your anti environment comments I don't think a 'world view' is ever in your future.

Off all the discussion though, I cannot imagine that anyone would prefer a redo to a real, honest to God breaking of new and wonderful ground.

 

[DaniH]

I am saying what if they equal or maybe totally outdo Radiator Springs with another Land (any Land, pick one from any PIXAR movie)? You would still rather have the redo?

I guess where I am coming from may be different than your situation. I cannot afford to take my kids to California so our only chance of seeing Carsland is if they make it at Disney World. I would guess that I'm not the only one in this situation. If there was a really awesome ride or world developed at WDW I certainly would not begrudge people who can only afford to go to DL or one of the other parks a chance to experience it.

I'm not big on the ole "magic" hype and hyperbole PR that surrounds all things Disney but IMO not one single thing at WDW creates the feeling of awe that virtually all of DL does, of course this probably resonates with fans of Walt Disney more than the modern day fan of the disney Corporation, so I guess the discussion would have to start at that point...

Wow, you are a little presumptuous to assume that I am not a fan of Walt Disney. Just because I also appreciate Pixar doesn't mean I don't love Walt and his vision. Next time you don't know someone you might want to keep an opinion like that to yourself.

 

[Red24Red30]

Just a few more things. You claim that you don't think DAK's education programs are up to par with many other zoos, but how would you know? You said yourself that you don't go to DAK for the educational experience; you go for the rides. And there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, except when you try to comment on the conservation programs that you yourself claim you have not paid much attention to. Indeed, judging by your lack of awareness regarding DAK's conservation education programs as well as the work that went into tying the architecture and attractions into the encompassing conservation theme, I'd say you have too little experience to be so harshly judging the facility's merits. Simply watching the animals interact at DAK, as you say, does not grant you a great amount of perception about the unique conservation efforts going on all around the park, both onstage and offstage. You agreed with me that the people who work at DAK are some of the best in the animal business; at the end of the day, isn't that what's most important? I recall a certain quote from a certain man who would agree. Combined with huge, expansive enclosures and facilities, world-class animal care and veterinary services, a robust conservation research institute, and a diverse, highly passionate education team, DAK is pretty high up there (my opinion, of course!) I just find it ironic how you seem to think you can judge DAK's programs when you say you haven't even paid attention to them, nor have you worked in Disney's Animal Programs and seen what I've seen in terms of the daily operations backstage (the ARK Institute backstage, for instance, is an amazing conservation facility for some of the most endangered birds in the world, located backstage to be away from the stress of crowds. I was lucky enough to visit, and it's simply incredible!) Also, the fact that you desire a nighttime show at DAK also might say something about your lack of knowledge regarding animal care. The whole reason they haven't put in a nighttime show is because the light and noise would startle and stress the animals. Plus, Disney purposely closes the park earlier than the others (and doesn't have much in the way of nighttime lighting) because they want to give the animals more chance to rest, as well as more time for the keepers to clean, work, and perform training and veterinary sessions. You don't see that sort of consideration and care at Sea World, San Diego Zoo, or Busch Gardens: all of which have fireworks shows either in the summer or year-round and feature loud late-night entertainment. (And don't try to bring the whole nocturnal argument into this, as there are many, many species at all of these facilities that are diurnal and/or require up to 20 hours of sleep per day). DAK truly places the animals before the guests in this regard, and I think it's great that they do so. Unless your idea of a show is considerably low-key, low-light or perhaps indoors or ridiculously far outside of the park berm, you really have no consideration for the care of the animals. And there's no way I'd know if you were considering those show options, now that I've already mentioned them.

Forgive me if this sounds a bit implicative and presumptuous from my part, but in all honesty, that's the impression I got from your posts. Especially since you said yourself that you don't spend any time exploring the conservation and education offerings at the park. You might say that they simply didn't jump out at you or grab your attention, and I think that would be a somewhat fair assessment. Disney does a fair amount to try to put the message out there, such as putting conservation messages throughout Kilimanjaro Safaris (the queue video as well as the ride). And the education program I was a part of actively tries to engage guests by approaching with cool biofacts and conservation props, as well as conversation hooks to try and draw more people in, but we could always do better. Believe me though, it takes skill to attract attention away from Everest at park opening at the Asia KDC, but we did it. In fact, we often got a surprising amount of families who would rush to us first thing in the morning to complete their Conservation Hero activity books. We even caught the attention of plenty of rope-drop folk who were originally rushing to the foreboding mountain, only to have their eye caught by our activity centers; they always left genuinely surprised and appreciative of our activities and knowledge! And for the rest who continued on to the mountain first, many I would recognize running back over to us right after they finished their ride!

In the Conservation Education internship, we were expected to be able to relate everything to a conservation message, even it seemed completely unrelated. Because honestly, you can always find a way to connect everyday life with conservation. In fact, our creativity in finding conservation messages for guests was a main criteria for our evaluation. We were encouraged to use our own experiences and ideas and apply them out in the park. We had weekly meetings where we would share our messages with fellow interns to increase our knowledge. In fact, we were always praised by our managers when we managed to smoothly connect a conservation message to a seemingly unrelated topic, because it takes a certain amount of skill and thought to do so. Any and everyway we could transition to a conservation message, we were expected to take advantage of it (being friendly and respectful about it, of course. If a guest-in-a-hurry came up to me asking for directions so as not to miss his dinner reservation, I wasn't going to give him a conservation earful first!)

I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of freedom afforded to us to really make a personal connection with guests and to use our own material, so long as it fell under the conservation guidelines. Sure, we were given a packet with many suggestions on how to connect conservation messages. But we were evaluated on how we expanded upon and created our own messages, as well as how smoothly we tailored said messages to the audience.

And most guests really appreciated the time we took to suggest new ways to conserve. We weren't selling anything. We weren't holding them to anything. We weren't manipulating them. And we weren't being dogmatic or claiming that our beliefs were "sacred". We were just offering suggestions for people to take part in practical, fun, family-friendly conservation that everybody can do at home.

Got a nice big backyard? Try building a backyard habitat, such as a pond to attract frogs and birds.

Don't have the time or space? Try getting a flower pot, turning it on it's side, and now you have a nice, cozy toad abode!

Discovered a new favorite animal today? Learn all you can about it at today and check out some books about it at your local library when you return home. Then you can become an animal ambassador by educating your friends and family about it.

Here's an example of how I could take a seemingly non-conservation themed attraction such as Mickey's Jammin' Jungle Parade and easily make a conservation method out of it, even for a guest who isn't an animal-lover.

"Seeing the colorful, beautiful, larger-than-life animal floats inspires and excites us. Many cultures across the world incorporate animals into their celebrations, folklore, and art, such as the intricate animal figures handcrafted by the people of Oaxaca, Mexico. Did you know that you can see real Oaxacan animal art in the Mexico Pavilion at Epcot? Be sure to check it out!"

It's been three years since I've visited WDW, so I'm not actually sure if the Oaxacan art is still there in the Mexico Pavilion. Regardless, it's just an example of how flexible and effective conservation messages can be. I didn't urge the guest to take any direct action like recycling or donating to a wildlife conservation fund; instead, I combined culture and art with animals to create a subtle connection to wildlife appreciation for the guest. It's not just about what you practice, it's about what you feel. By taking me up on my suggestion, the guest just might develop an appreciation for animals that wasn't there before. The first step to conservation action is sparking that initial emotional attachment; a person is not going to want to help wildlife if they don't first have that connection! I may have just initiated that, and in the process, I also promoted the synergy between two parks, perhaps providing the guest with an interesting new quest to embark on when they next visit Epcot and enhancing their vacation! Could the guest do that at your local zoo? Doubtful, unless there's a museum nearby with authentic Oaxacan art or he visits Oaxaca in person. Even if that were the case, there are few places in the world where he could see the parade, hop on a short bus ride, and be able to experience such authentic cultural artwork like that. See, it's not just about DAK, it's also the awesome ability to synergize between the parks that further enhances the overall conservation experience that you can't get anywhere else (and Epcot is very sustainability and conservation-friendly too, especially at the Seas and Land Pavilions!) And note that the guest doesn't even have to be an animal lover to appreciate this message! What's more is that my Disney education managers would appreciate a message like that, because I managed to take an attraction that is seemingly unrelated to conservation and turn it into a creative message that's more personal and interesting than simply practicing the "4 R's" (the 4th "R" being "Replenish"; before Disney, I only knew the "3 R's"!) That's a far cry from "going rogue" and "abandoning corporate ideals", as you say.

Heck, at the end of the internship, we were urged to take what we learned and apply it back home and wherever our profession takes us. That's actually a common thing in the conservation field, as well as broader field of science education: the sharing of knowledge and techniques. It's why DAK hosts many conservation education seminars and its scientists like Dr. Anne Savage contribute to groundbreaking published science around the world. We'll never stop being advocates for "wildlife and wild places."

So that whole bit about "abandoning corporate ideals to promote my own agenda?" Think again. Because if I'm "going rogue", then I'm glad Disney taught me right.

Again folks, Happy Holidays and if you're heading to the World this month, I urge you to make some time to visit DAK. They may not have quite as many decorations and holiday theming as the other parks, but they have some nice, unique holiday touches with a distinctive Animal Kingdom flair. For instance, Mickey's Jingle Jungle Parade is a blast!

 

[DRDISNEYMD]

And when Avatar Land comes out, enjoy that too. Despite my reservations, I always intended to give it a fair try. Who knows, it might just surprise us!

~Please take a deep breath & try to relax, you are not under attack, lol. What I quoted above is only thing relevant to this discussion, please try to get back on topic. Your wild textbook/employee manual tangent is inappropriate for this discussion. It's just not fair to those of us who want to discuss the pros and cons of *Avatarland* & *Carsland*. You are more than free to start a thread on conservation at Animal Kingdom.

~Honestly, all you needed to write was that one sentence, it's perfect. It's so awesome to see that you have an open mind and are willing to give Avatar-land a fair chance. That's the only thing I want to hear.

~With that said, I truly appreciate the valuable information you shared about conservation. I find your experiences at Animal Kingdom to be fascinating! You certainly have a wealth of knowledge in conservation and are very passionate about the welfare of animals and our planet, that's pretty awesome! Thanks so much, for sharing your amazing experiences.

 

[hanrendar]

..

 

[smiths02]

This has been argued a lot more eloquently than I could argue, but I don't think it fits with DAK. I think these are solid points:

1) This is a movie about aliens--not animals
2) The movie was a success. There are sequels in the works. I get it. I just don't see this movie becoming the next Star Wars or Harry Potter or even Lord of the Rings.
2) The movie was PG-13. How many places in WDW are based on movies that are not recommended for children to see? My children won't be allowed to see this movie for years, and by the time they are old enough to see it, I don't think they will care too (the time will have passed). [And yes, I get that you don't have to know the movie to enjoy an attraction, but I think you do have to have seen the movie for the attraction to draw you to that park. Case in point: I am not a Harry Potter person-I might like the attractions that are offered about Harry Potter-but I am not planning a trip to Universal anytime soon.]

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

I guess where I am coming from may be different than your situation. I cannot afford to take my kids to California so our only chance of seeing Carsland is if they make it at Disney World. I would guess that I'm not the only one in this situation. If there was a really awesome ride or world developed at WDW I certainly would not begrudge people who can only afford to go to DL or one of the other parks a chance to experience it.





Wow, you are a little presumptuous to assume that I am not a fan of Walt Disney. Just because I also appreciate Pixar doesn't mean I don't love Walt and his vision. Next time you don't know someone you might want to keep an opinion like that to yourself.

The portion referring to my being presumptuous was not directed at you specifically but rather meant as an explanation of my personal view on these things vs. those who just see through pixie dust and there are boatloads of "them" (again, not you specifically. Sorry for the misunderstanding).

 

[beer dave]

IMO not one single thing at WDW creates the feeling of awe that virtually all of DL does, .

Really?

 

[MJMcBride]

This has been argued a lot more eloquently than I could argue, but I don't think it fits with DAK. I think these are solid points:

1) This is a movie about aliens--not animals
2) The movie was a success. There are sequels in the works. I get it. I just don't see this movie becoming the next Star Wars or Harry Potter or even Lord of the Rings.
2) The movie was PG-13. How many places in WDW are based on movies that are not recommended for children to see? My children won't be allowed to see this movie for years, and by the time they are old enough to see it, I don't think they will care too (the time will have passed). [And yes, I get that you don't have to know the movie to enjoy an attraction, but I think you do have to have seen the movie for the attraction to draw you to that park. Case in point: I am not a Harry Potter person-I might like the attractions that are offered about Harry Potter-but I am not planning a trip to Universal anytime soon.]

Plus y spend synergy on a non Disney property when u can synergize star wars

 

[skier_pete]

Wow - how'd I miss this thread for so long!

I am not going to step into the fray, except to say that it is nice to see some pro-Avatarland support. I think the point is often missed in the argument that a great ride/experience can really come from anything at all. The example I always use is Splash Mountain - a fantastic ride made from a movie most people under 40 have never even seen.

Avatar has interesting (alien) environments and creatures from which to build an exciting ride. If allowed to do it right - and based on recent Carsland and FLE that seems to be the trend - Imagineers can make something great out of it.

Back on the main topic: as far as the Carsland argument goes - in concept I like the idea of DLR and WDW being different, but the fact is that the cross-over between the two is probably fairly limited. (My guess would be < 10 % of guests at WDW have been to DL more than once in the last ten years, and vice versa.)

Our family recently took our first trip to DLR this past summer. We enjoyed it very much, and would recommend it to any Disney fan to try at least once. However, I didn't think it was "better" or "worse" than WDW, just different. In general, I would say we will rarely go back there, though. More even because its so much harder to go to California than Florida, plus more expensive.

As far as Carsland - I am all for the duplication. RSR is an absolutely amazing ride, probably the best new ride to come out in the last 15 years. Something that good should be available to east coast residences (not to mention Europeans that are really unlikely to travel to the west coast for Disney). Having ridden it in California, I would love to see it in Florida.

I find the duplication of a more pedestrian ride like The Little Mermaid to be more disappointing. This ride is nice, but just a plain old dark ride. Why not one coast get Ariel while the other get - I don't know - Rapunzel. You can't be saving a TON of money duplicating this ride, right?

But, in the end, be it Avatarland, Carsland, Star Wars land, what I really care about (and you ALL should) is increased content in the parks. I want to see more/new stuff in Florida, and I'll take whatever they come up with. Even if I don't love it, if it spreads the crowds a little thinner, that's a good thing!

Anyways, that's my 2 cents.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Really?

Yup. Because Walt's presence is felt all over DL.