Announcement

Collapse
See more
See less

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

Collapse

Get Away Today

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

  • #21
    Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

    @KEBSD

    You wrote:
    "It's the worst thing Disney has ever done in their parks."


    That's disappointing to hear, I had extremely high hopes for Avatar Land. Before you take the DeLorean back to the future can you also tell us how the AVATAR sequels did at the box office?

    Comment


    • #22
      Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

      As I've said often, there have been many ideas offered to fill out the Animal Kingdom to make it a full day park. Of these ideas, Avatar is easily the worst. Either Beastly Kingdom or a new region themed land would obviously be a better fit thematically. Avatar would work better in Holywood Studios.

      I don't get why people suddenly act like Universal is the greatest thing ever. Sure they are doing something, which is better than Disney doing nothing, but I don't think making five variations of the same ride deserves heaps of praise. How many times can you make a 3D motion simulator and keep it interesting? Spiderman, Transformers, Harry Potter, The other Harry Potter, Simpsons, Dispicable Me; they're all some variant of a simulator. This is what's supposed to have Disney running scared?
      It bothers me when people selectively edit quotes to support whatever point they are trying to prove.
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #23
        Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

        Originally posted by Dapper Dan View Post
        As I've said often, there have been many ideas offered to fill out the Animal Kingdom to make it a full day park. Of these ideas, Avatar is easily the worst. Either Beastly Kingdom or a new region themed land would obviously be a better fit thematically. Avatar would work better in Holywood Studios.

        I don't get why people suddenly act like Universal is the greatest thing ever. Sure they are doing something, which is better than Disney doing nothing, but I don't think making five variations of the same ride deserves heaps of praise. How many times can you make a 3D motion simulator and keep it interesting? Spiderman, Transformers, Harry Potter, The other Harry Potter, Simpsons, Dispicable Me; they're all some variant of a simulator. This is what's supposed to have Disney running scared?

        I went on Spiderman years ago and thought it was awesome. Went on Transformers this year and really did not like the concept. Felt like we were being jerked around and just watching different movies. Big let down. But there are plenty of people who like it. I havent been on Potter yet but can say, I was disappointed to learn it was that same type of ride and have low expectations. Would love to see the details of the land though. Will try to make a day for Universal on my next trip to WDW...
        Back on topic, I am not at all excited about Avatarland, I think Disney could have done just about anything different and made it better. That being said, I think they will do a good job and people will enjoy it. I wouldnt plan a trip around it though, I will go back to WDW regardless of if this ever gets done

        Comment


        • #24
          Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

          @Dapper Dan

          I really can't understand the negativity. You dislike Avatar being added to Animal Kingdom but your alternatives are the Beastly Kingdom or yet another region. The Beastly Kingdom would have had unicorns, sea monsters, dragons, and a castle. Things that we've already seen before in plenty of other parks.

          Avatar Land will have glowing plants and trees, floating mountains, and creatures we haven't seen in any park. Being there in the day or especially at night will be a totally unique experience that you can't get anywhere in the world except Disney's Animal Kingdom.

          Comment


          • #25
            Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

            Originally posted by Disney Adventure View Post
            @Dapper Dan

            I really can't understand the negativity. You dislike Avatar being added to Animal Kingdom but your alternatives are the Beastly Kingdom or yet another region. The Beastly Kingdom would have had unicorns, sea monsters, dragons, and a castle. Things that we've already seen before in plenty of other parks.

            Avatar Land will have glowing plants and trees, floating mountains, and creatures we haven't seen in any park. Being there in the day or especially at night will be a totally unique experience that you can't get anywhere in the world except Disney's Animal Kingdom.
            just because something is unique does not mean it should be done...

            Comment


            • #26
              Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

              Originally posted by goofy donald View Post
              just because something is unique does not mean it should be done...
              By that logic Disneyland and Walt Disney World wouldn't exist.

              Comment


              • #27
                Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                Originally posted by Dragonfire View Post
                By that logic Disneyland and Walt Disney World wouldn't exist.
                True, but I think he means that the logical reasons for NOT doing Avatar in AK outweigh the reasons FOR doing it.

                It seems that most people agree that Avatarland, whether we support it or not, will be executed well. I would much rather the Imagineers spend there time developing something original.

                The Beastly Kingdom would have unicorns, sea monsters, dragons, and a castle. Things that we've already seen before in plenty of parks.
                I know that Beastly Kingdom would have dragons, unicorns, and castles, all of which could be found in other parks. However, Disney itself has not made an attraction/land that includes all of these concurrently. Think of the possibilities! I have seen Harry Potter's Dragon robot. It didn't impress me, nor did the Dementors for that matter. But the Disney Audio-Animatronics consistently impress me, and they're getting better.

                If Disney were to make a mythical land of dragons, unicorns, and castles, I have no doubt it would impress. After all, Disney has made many mountains, too, haven't they? No one argued against building Expedition Everest because it was similar to the Matterhorn! No one argued against building Mission: Space because there was already a ride that took you to space (Space Mountain)! No one argued against building Maharajah Jungle Trek because there was already a Pangani Forest trail. Yet each of these rides/attractions is unique. Disney has been using similar themes in their attractions for years, but no one claims redundancy.

                One cannot say that Beastly Kingdom would not be a unique experience because it has dragons that can be found in other parks. Because I could probably guarantee that the dragons found in Beastly Kingdom would be unlike anything we've ever seen in a theme park. (Hopefully the Audio-Animatronics would not be as problematic as the Yeti in Expedition Everest, but that's another can of worms...)

                Comment


                • #28
                  Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                  @imagineer97

                  I certainly agree with you 100% that Disney would have done an excellent Beastly Kingdom. And if they ever break ground on it someday I will be excited to experience it. But Avatar is something totally unique, and being done by the Disney Imagineers as well. The best doing something really and truly new sounds awesome.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                    Didn't we already have many threads on this exact topic? why are we just regurgitating the same thing on this...

                    Its going to be built.. it will be awesome.. lets move on.
                    Co-Host of the Disney Nerds Podcast (found on i-tunes, Stitcher, and Podbean)
                    Co-Creator of the Mouseketeer Club group on Facebook.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                      Originally posted by Dragonfire View Post
                      By that logic Disneyland and Walt Disney World wouldn't exist.
                      lol thats a stretch.... the only logic that this dictates is that uniqueness and quality of an idea are not mutually exclusive.

                      Comment


                      • #31
                        Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                        @goofy donald


                        You're right that uniqueness doesn't necessarily mean a quality idea. But a quality idea that IS unique? That's when we get the truly groundbreaking attractions. WDW is trying for something different, and I'm confident they'll deliver on the quality.

                        Comment


                        • #32
                          Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                          @DisneyNerdTom

                          Well, of Disney's six theme parks in the U.S. only one of them has broken ground for something new and that's Avatar Land at DAK. Nothing new has even been announced for any of the other parks, so we can probably expect a whole lot of Avatar discussion here in the next few years.

                          Comment


                          • #33
                            Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                            I Think that Avatar is a great idea! I love it!
                            JEANY SANCHEZ





                            Comment


                            • #34
                              Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                              I am not disputing talking about Avatar land.. its just that everything said has already been said many times.

                              I personally cannot wait for this. I think AK is a perfect fit for it.. I think HS would not be right for it.. If people think its a bad idea.. don't go see it.. its really that simple.
                              Co-Host of the Disney Nerds Podcast (found on i-tunes, Stitcher, and Podbean)
                              Co-Creator of the Mouseketeer Club group on Facebook.

                              Comment


                              • #35
                                Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                                Why wouldn't it fit in Hollywood Studios? It's a movie, that park is about movies. It's certainly a much more concise reason than the conservation rationale created to justify its placement in the Animal Kingdom.
                                It bothers me when people selectively edit quotes to support whatever point they are trying to prove.
                                sigpic

                                Comment


                                • #36
                                  Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                                  Originally posted by Dapper Dan View Post
                                  Why wouldn't it fit in Hollywood Studios? It's a movie, that park is about movies. It's certainly a much more concise reason than the conservation rationale created to justify its placement in the Animal Kingdom.
                                  So is a Bugs life and Nemo... should they move those things as well since they are in lines with a movie?? Disney is a Movie company if you remember... 80% of their things are centered around a movie.. You must want HS to be gigantic!!!

                                  Avatar is centered around nature and how a tribe depends on it for survival. They basically worship their trees and plants as a center of their survival. Basically conservation..

                                  AK is all about conservation and how living with land is essential. Just because it comes from a movie to say it needs to be in HS is extremely narrow minded.
                                  Co-Host of the Disney Nerds Podcast (found on i-tunes, Stitcher, and Podbean)
                                  Co-Creator of the Mouseketeer Club group on Facebook.

                                  Comment


                                  • #37
                                    Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                                    I don't want Avatar in HS or AK! I think that HS needs Star Wars pronto, and AK needs something else––I will always argue for Beastly Kingdom, but frankly anything related to the planet Earth would suffice for me. Pandora is supposed to be ANOTHER planet, therefore, to me, whether it relates to conservation or not, it has no place in AK. Animal Kingdom was originally founded with three aspects in mind: the real-life animals of Earth, the prehistoric animals of Earth, and the legendary animals of Earth (hence the dragons in the logo, on the ticket booths, the dragon-shaped fountain on Discovery River, etc.).



                                    Above is the aforementioned Dragon Rock. Below is the Dragon Cave which used to breathe fire; it is now probably covered in foliage. There is NO DENYING how awesome Beastly Kingdom would have been!!!



                                    The point is AK is about living with the land...ON EARTH! Adding Avatar to AK is almost like if they added an Ewok village from Star Wars. Sure, the Ewoks emphasize living in harmony with the forest, but does that justify their inclusion in a park centered around the planet Earth? Not for me! Yes, I like Star Wars, but I would never recommend adding something Star Wars to Animal Kingdom!

                                    Photos courtesy of: http://firehousefamilyvacations.blog...l-kingdom.html
                                    Last edited by imagineer97; 03-26-2014, 04:04 PM.

                                    Comment


                                    • #38
                                      Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                                      Everything I can find about what Disney's Animal Kingdom's is supposed to be is:

                                      Animals that exist today.
                                      Animals that are extinct.
                                      Animals that exist in fantasy.

                                      Avatar's wildlife is 100% in that third classification.

                                      Comment


                                      • #39
                                        Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                                        Originally posted by imagineer97 View Post
                                        I don't want Avatar in HS or AK! I think that HS needs Star Wars pronto, and AK needs something else––I will always argue for Beastly Kingdom, but frankly anything related to the planet Earth would suffice for me. Pandora is supposed to be ANOTHER planet, therefore, to me, whether it relates to conservation or not, it has no place in AK. Animal Kingdom was originally founded with three aspects in mind: the real-life animals of Earth, the prehistoric animals of Earth, and the legendary animals of Earth (hence the dragons in the logo, on the ticket booths, the dragon-shaped fountain on Discovery River, etc.). Above is the aforementioned Dragon Rock. Below is the Dragon Cave which used to breathe fire; it is now probably covered in foliage. There is NO DENYING how awesome Beastly Kingdom would have been!!!The point is AK is about living with the land...ON EARTH! Adding Avatar to AK is almost like if they added an Ewok village from Star Wars. Sure, the Ewoks emphasize living in harmony with the forest, but does that justify their inclusion in a park centered around the planet Earth? Not for me! Yes, I like Star Wars, but I would never recommend adding something Star Wars to Animal Kingdom!Photos courtesy of: The Firehouse Travel Blog: It's Gone? The Animal Kingdom
                                        Disney's Animal Kingdom's Dedication reads as follows....Welcome to a kingdom of animals... real, ancient and imagined: a kingdom ruled by lions, dinosaurs and dragons; a kingdom of balance, harmony and survival; a kingdom we enter to share in the wonder, gaze at the beauty, thrill at the drama, and learn.

                                        Reality is "of Earth", is not in the dedication of the park. It may be argue that it was perhaps implied, or even assumed, but in the history of the Disney's media events about Disney's Animal Kingdom, they never once specified "of earth".

                                        From Bob Iger to Joe Rhode, they seem genuinely excited for this project, and if Joe Rhode is at the helm, which he IS at the helm of this project as it is still HIS park, then you know what.... all of this is a moot point. Why? This is not the first time Disney has stretched a theme or brought in a movie franchise that was not original to them. A few big examples:

                                        1) They put Star Tours, which specifically takes place "A Long Long time ago" in Tomorrowland. And here they clearly brought in a movie franchise from outside of Disney's creative worlds, and made it a Disney Theme Park main stay.
                                        2) They put Fantasmic in Frontierland and New Orleans Square. Should this not be in Fantasyland? This is a HUGE stretch in theme but I think the Jury clearly has forgiven that and embraced this as Disney classic show now enjoying 20+ years of being a Disneyland Staple.
                                        3) They put the Indiana Jones Adventure in Adventureland, clearly another case of using a movie franchise that Disney previously had little to nothing to do with creating. They even based the year long 40th anniversary celebration around this movie. No mention of Walt during the 40th, just Indiana Jones and 40 years of Adventures with Disneyland.
                                        4) More recently, they put Radiator Springs, AKA Carsland, in California Adventure and guess what, Radiator Springs is not in California.

                                        I do understand that Avatar is not Disney, but that fact doesn't bother me, there is a long history of Disney using intellectual property that is not of their own doing. Some of their previous try's have become legendary in their own right. For all the boo's and pans about Star Wars Episodes 1,2, and 3, Star Tours is doing just fine. Many guests don't like Star Wars but find Star Tours enjoyable.

                                        Perhaps the same can happen with Pandora, the World of Avator? Many didn't like the film, and do wonder myself if it was a flash in the pan. It is certainly not a Star Wars, Indiana Jones, or dare I say it, Potter strength Franchise. Agreed! Done. Still the powers that be have decide to tie Avatar's conservation message with that of Disney's Animal Kingdom, as well as apply Pandora's Imagined animals to that of Disney's Animal Kingdom's "Imagined" Animals. It is their park, and I suppose it's ok to disagree with that decision, but in doing so I encourage all to realize they didn't say "of earth" or "of this planet".

                                        I'm done with wishing for Beastly Kingdom, it died when Island's of Adventure broke down. I am for hoping that what they create will be as immersive and story driving as the rest of Disney's Animal Kingdom, and with Joe Rhode have nothing but the highest expectations he will deliver a product that will impress. No pressure Joe! lol
                                        Last edited by Kidgenie; 03-26-2014, 07:01 PM.

                                        Comment


                                        • #40
                                          Re: Avatar-Land---Good idea or Bad idea??

                                          Originally posted by Disney Adventure View Post
                                          Everything I can find about what Disney's Animal Kingdom's is supposed to be is:

                                          Animals that exist today.
                                          Animals that are extinct.
                                          Animals that exist in fantasy.

                                          Avatar's wildlife is 100% in that third classification.
                                          aliens do not qualify as animals that exist in fantasy, they qualify as fantastical aliens

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X