Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • [Question] Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

    We're only a few years away from the opening of Pandora: The World of Avatar in Animal Kingdom. I believe that this is a colossal waste of time, resources, and Imagineering brainpower, and it will not even end up being all that popular. While I recognize the need for a major expansion of some kind (considering what WDW's neighbors up the street have been pulling off for the last few years), I think that obtaining the rights to Avatar was a poor choice. Harry Potter's fan-base is immense, and the Wizarding World appeals to SO MANY that it is guaranteed success. Avatar, while the world's highest grossing movie, did NOT create such a fan-base, and thus, will not be as popular in its theme park form. When you hold a property like Star Wars (which has a fan-base even larger than Harry Potter, I would argue), why waste your time building theme park attractions dedicated to a franchise that is nowhere near as popular?

  • #2
    Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

    its a good idea to be adding more attractions to animal kingdom as not everyone is happy with exploring the wonderful walking trails and details of the park like myself and want something to do.

    its a bad idea to add Avatar from a franchise perspective, and a thematic perspective.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

      Disney's answer to the thematic challenge was that the park shared conservation themes with the movie. I haven't seen the movie, but it just seems weird to devote a whole section of a park without any movie tie-ins to a movie. I'm especially bitter because this means no Beastly Kingdom expansion, which would be the obvious response to Harry Potter.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

        Originally posted by imagineer97 View Post
        Disney's answer to the thematic challenge was that the park shared conservation themes with the movie. I haven't seen the movie, but it just seems weird to devote a whole section of a park without any movie tie-ins to a movie. I'm especially bitter because this means no Beastly Kingdom expansion, which would be the obvious response to Harry Potter.
        right... because africa, and asia, were both incredibly popular film franchises... and their answer to the thematic challenge is a reach on a good day, complete and utter ridiculousness on any other. personally when regarding beastly kingdom i prefer mixing the mythology in with the reality like they did with the yeti and expedition everest. thats the best way to utilize that theme i this park. BTW if you want to visit beastly kingdom it is still alive and well at least in part at universal orlando.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

          I have little doubt that Avatarland will be supremely themed compared to WWoHP. Universal is far from perfect and Disney is close to perfect when it comes to building theme parks.

          Avatar is a growing franchise, where as Harry Potter is at its end.
          Be Cool Stay in School!
          Next year I'm trying for a summer internship at Stark Industries.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

            It's a fantastic idea.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

              Can't be any worse of an idea than building an area based on King Flop....sorry I mean Kong

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                Originally posted by imagineer97 View Post
                Disney's answer to the thematic challenge was that the park shared conservation themes with the movie. I haven't seen the movie, but it just seems weird to devote a whole section of a park without any movie tie-ins to a movie. I'm especially bitter because this means no Beastly Kingdom expansion, which would be the obvious response to Harry Potter.
                You haven't seen the movie, but your against it being in the park? What are you basing your opinion on? Something you read in another site? Opinions based on second hand information seems to be the norm on here, lately...........................

                YES, I THINK ITS GOING TO BE GREAT, as ive stated on all the other dozens of topics asking the same thing.....................

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                  It's a brilliant idea. It's not like they're just going to set up a giant theater and play the movie AVATAR on a loop.
                  This will truly be like visiting another planet. Like going on safari in a bioluminescent jungle in the most exotic of exotic locales. That sounds incredibly cool.
                  It will be jaw-dropping.
                  Last edited by Disney Adventure; 03-24-2014, 06:13 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                    It's the worst thing Disney has ever done in their parks.

                    ^Art by me!
                    Check out my
                    Flickr page for a selection of my Disneyland Resort photography (and more)! {new photos 8.19.15}
                    You can purchase a selection of my photos as well as clothing and stickers designed by me at my RedBubble page.
                    Visit my
                    Tumblr blog for another way to view and share my photos.
                    Radiator Springs Racers ride count: 22

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                      I think it will be sweet. I can't wait to see it.
                      These are some of my favorite TRs I have posted

                      DL 55th BDAY trip report
                      My company had a special night at the park
                      WdW trip report with WWoHP
                      NYE 2011 trip report
                      Mice Chat 7th anniversary
                      Leap year 24 hour report
                      New DCA trip report
                      NYE 2012
                      HKDL trip report

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                        Of course it's a bad idea, but this one will all come down to it's execution.
                        :blink: Bullets for Breakfast :blink:
                        Join the party. Face the music.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                          No one knows.how good or bad this will be.

                          Everyone probably imagined that Mission Space would be even cooler than it turned out, while I bet Soarin', Peter Pan, Dumbo, Pirates of the Caribbean, and The Haunted Mansion all turned out to be more fun than almost anyone imagined. I doubt that Avatar will be boring or look like any other place I've ever walked or ridden through.

                          I enjoyed "How to Train Your Dragon" even more than "Avatar," and if the simulator can recreate the experience I felt in those flying scenes or those in Soarin' (but maybe faster and in 3D), it might be incredible. For the boat ride they need to study why Ariel's "Under the Sea" room is depressing to some of us. These lands and attractions are artistic team efforts. Good luck, imagineers! Please don't cheap out on us, RISC. (Rasulo, Iger, Staggs & Crofton.) I hope James Cameron hasn't mellowed and become deferential.
                          Last edited by jcruise86; 03-24-2014, 09:39 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                            Originally posted by swampymarsh View Post
                            I have little doubt that Avatarland will be supremely themed compared to WWoHP. Universal is far from perfect and Disney is close to perfect when it comes to building theme parks.

                            Avatar is a growing franchise, where as Harry Potter is at its end.
                            Did you ever check out EPCOT's "Kitchen Cabaret" while is showed The Lands?
                            Have you been on "Transformers" or "Spiderman"?

                            The Harry Potter books will not be over till kids stop reading them. And they will be filmed again in two, three or (at most) four decades.

                            Though it's hard to argue with the MK's world record 17 million a year, but WDW's attendance has been flat and Universal Orlando's has been growing. My daughter and I just finished reading all seven Harry Potter books (well over 2,000 pages) and she's thrilled about going to Universal Orlando and (I'm sincerely disappointed to write) has almost zero interest in going to WDW. I hope she and my wife love both resorts.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                              Originally posted by imagineer97 View Post
                              We're only a few years away from the opening of Pandora: The World of Avatar in Animal Kingdom. I believe that this is a colossal waste of time, resources, and Imagineering brainpower, and it will not even end up being all that popular. While I recognize the need for a major expansion of some kind (considering what WDW's neighbors up the street have been pulling off for the last few years), I think that obtaining the rights to Avatar was a poor choice. Harry Potter's fan-base is immense, and the Wizarding World appeals to SO MANY that it is guaranteed success. Avatar, while the world's highest grossing movie, did NOT create such a fan-base, and thus, will not be as popular in its theme park form. When you hold a property like Star Wars (which has a fan-base even larger than Harry Potter, I would argue), why waste your time building theme park attractions dedicated to a franchise that is nowhere near as popular?

                              Avatar's alien kingdom has no place in Animal Kingdom. It's as big of a problem as TL'98 was to DL Anaheim and DCA 1.0 was to the Disneyland Resport Anaheim. It's Iger's East Coast failure.
                              Critter Country's a mess ev'r since the Country Bears were kicked out. Ya can't cover pooh with honey and 'spect people ta like it.
                              An Adventurers It's Time to Put the Spotlight Back on Bring Back the REAL Disney Gallery
                              Life for Me! ~ ~ ~ Melvin, Buff, and Max!!! ~~~~ Dump the Dream Suite!
                              Meese-ka Moose-ka Mice-Chatter!

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                                Originally posted by jcruise86 View Post
                                Did you ever check out EPCOT's "Kitchen Cabaret" while is showed The Lands?
                                Have you been on "Transformers" or "Spiderman"?

                                The Harry Potter books will not be over till kids stop reading them. And they will be filmed again in two, three or (at most) four decades.
                                I do remember Kitchen Cabaret.

                                Instead of ripping IOA and those attractions to shreds I leave it at this. Transformers is Spiderman version 1.1.


                                And Avatar will grow with new movies and reruns. The best thing WWoHP did for Universal was regain the attendance they had lost over the years. It wasn't all gain. Meanwhile Disney cruised along with solid attendance.
                                Be Cool Stay in School!
                                Next year I'm trying for a summer internship at Stark Industries.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                                  Even if they must add an Avatar-themed section, why add it to Animal Kingdom when they have a theme park devoted to movies? Don't get me wrong, I KNOW AK needs expansion, but for pete's sake, don't use a movie! In my opinion, here is what sets Disney apart from Universal: Disney uses a majority of its own properties in most of its parks (DHS is the exception, but showcasing properties is the point of that park). Furthermore, most of the attractions in the remaining three parks do not have any tie-in to any animated feature or movie. Universal Orlando, on the other hand, is 100% stuff that they bought, licensed, or comes from their movie department (my brother affectionately calls IOA "Islands of Stuff We Bought," especially now that they've taken the one part of the park that could stand alone and made Harry Potter). I get it, Universal is a movie-based complex, which is OK! WDW is not---or at the very least, it shouldn't be. That is why I am opposed to Avatar being in Animal Kingdom–one of the reasons why. I enjoy the parts of WDW that can stand alone (Space Mountain, The American Adventure, Jungle Cruise). Again, I am not bashing parks or rides based on movies–––I just think that they should be consistent, placing the movie rides in the movie park and stand-alone rides in the other parks.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                                    Originally posted by imagineer97 View Post
                                    Even if they must add an Avatar-themed section, why add it to Animal Kingdom when they have a theme park devoted to movies? Don't get me wrong, I KNOW AK needs expansion, but for pete's sake, don't use a movie! In my opinion, here is what sets Disney apart from Universal: Disney uses a majority of its own properties in most of its parks (DHS is the exception, but showcasing properties is the point of that park). Furthermore, most of the attractions in the remaining three parks do not have any tie-in to any animated feature or movie. Universal Orlando, on the other hand, is 100% stuff that they bought, licensed, or comes from their movie department (my brother affectionately calls IOA "Islands of Stuff We Bought," especially now that they've taken the one part of the park that could stand alone and made Harry Potter). I get it, Universal is a movie-based complex, which is OK! WDW is not---or at the very least, it shouldn't be. That is why I am opposed to Avatar being in Animal Kingdom–one of the reasons why. I enjoy the parts of WDW that can stand alone (Space Mountain, The American Adventure, Jungle Cruise). Again, I am not bashing parks or rides based on movies–––I just think that they should be consistent, placing the movie rides in the movie park and stand-alone rides in the other parks.
                                    I think Avatar is a good fit for AK for a number of reasons...

                                    1. The movie has very strong themes of conservation and living in harmony with nature which fits perfectly with AK.

                                    2. There is a very strong nighttime visual element to the world of Pandora. AK needs something to justify staying open later, so if done properly Avatar, along with the other nighttime things that are planned, could give people a reason to stay late.

                                    3. All indications are that the land will focus much less on the movie and more on the environment of Pandora which I think will make it feel less like a movie based land.

                                    Finally, like it or not, tying everything into a movie/tv show seems to be the way Disney is going. I doubt you will see a new attraction in the US parks not tied to a movie for a long time to come. So if AK didn't get Avatar I bet it would have gotten another movie based attraction.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                                      i'm not totally against it, but not totally for it. obviously, when i'm there (if it's finished by then) i'll check it out. i do have faith however, in Disney's execution (as another poster mentioned as well). i think it will be done beautifully.
                                      i'm not a huge fan of star wars (blasphemy, i know, lol) but i appreciate the rides and following behind it.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                                        Originally posted by danlb_2000 View Post
                                        I think Avatar is a good fit for AK for a number of reasons...
                                        Ok I'll bite...

                                        1. The movie has very strong themes of conservation and living in harmony with nature which fits perfectly with AK
                                        While true themes of conservation are present in Avatar and are also present in Animal Kingdom. this connection however is extremely loose and does not justify an entire land's creation nor even an extended presence of an alien world being placed within a park dedicated to celebrating the planet earth. the argument of conservation is a slippery slope that people use to justify slamming a square peg through a circular hole. Wall-e explores the theme of conservation in a very similar, if not more in depth way, does that mean that this franchise too deserves a place within the park?

                                        2. There is a very strong nighttime visual element to the world of Pandora. AK needs something to justify staying open later, so if done properly Avatar, along with the other nighttime things that are planned, could give people a reason to stay late.
                                        agreed, something that extends park hours would be very beneficial. Avatar singularly does not have to be that thing however, as just like you emphasized in your previous point, other nighttime things are planned, meaning that this theme does not need to be relied upon. Anything from a night world based upon nocturnal creatures, to a land based upon mythological or fantastical earthborn creatures, or even another continent with attractions that could separate themselves from the animals to keep them open passed dusk would be a far better alternative with themes that actually fit within the true constructs of the park.

                                        3. All indications are that the land will focus much less on the movie and more on the environment of Pandora which I think will make it feel less like a movie based land.
                                        This isn't really an argument for why it will be a good fit. If anything it identifies the deeper problem that the movie itself and most likely its sequels were and are not that good, and its purely the imagery and new age technological advancements that produced its large box office numbers. producing something with no substance and connection makes little sense, at the very least equal to or less then creating something that can produce similar visuals and fit within the park without question.

                                        Finally, like it or not, tying everything into a movie/tv show seems to be the way Disney is going. I doubt you will see a new attraction in the US parks not tied to a movie for a long time to come. So if AK didn't get Avatar I bet it would have gotten another movie based attraction.
                                        What about the creation of animal kingdom itself? the entire park outside of one attraction was created without any film relations and it turned out beautifully with no issue of draw whatsoever. if disney creates something new and backs it well in the media it will produce a quality draw. shoehorning a film into a land is not only lazy but illustrates that the leadership has lost faith in the true imaginative qualities of their now limitted imagineering staff.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X