AVATAR coming to Disney Parks

[GAN]

I can't say I'm thrilled -maybe this means now they'll add a Titanic attraction to the Hyperion Wharf re-design? Or would that be bad luck...

[Mackflava99]

I'm a little tired of the gotcha comparisons to Star Tours, Indiana Jones and Tower of Terror as examples of non-Disney properties in WDW. .

Tower of terror was a very bad Disney movie- with steve Guttenberg

[darthmacho]

Wow! Say what you want about the idea, but the venture seems to have created a LOT of buzz. Near 250 replies to this post!?

Anyway, I don't really like Avatar, but I guess there's no reason not to give it a chance.

[DizneyFreak2002]

I simply said that's what it seems like. Why can't I have opinions that differ from yours?

You can... But you stated Tom Staggs and Disney was in damage control mode right away due to his online Q&A... That Q&A was scheduled BEFORE the fanboys had a nervous breakdown... So, no damage control...

Funny that this point needs to be made at all concerning a place "that all started with a mouse" (and one that talks and walks upright at that).

Yep... rabid Disney fans forget what Disney was started on... A talking mouse... Last I checked, mice don't talk...

So now they're gonna add it to Animal Kingdom. Why? Are the aliens considered animals? Or is it because there's a lot of nature in the movie and somehow nature = Animal Kingdom? I don't get it.
I don't think of them as "imagined" animals like the Yeti -- the Yeti legends have been around for thousands of years, and most people know at least SOME version of that legend. Whereas the aliens in Avatar are James Cameron's imagined creatures... and if you look through this thread, a lot of people haven't seen the movie so they can't really "share" in that imagination like a thousand-year old Yeti legend. The two don't really compare..

Yes, aliens are, by definition animals... Humans, by definition, are animals... Also, animals to live on Pandora... And aliens have been in human folklore forever... There are even caveman drawings depicting aliens visiting earth... So, aliens are just as much a part of human folklore as the yeti...

Lion King and Nemo are based off high grossing movies that deal with creatures that really don't exist (talking fish and lions).. Let's move them to DHS...

And is it jumping the gun or getting a franchise that has exploded on the scene before there is a theme park war from the rights after the next 2 movies come out???

And why are we worried if kids know what Avatar is??? Aren't we always complainign that Disney caters too much to kids??? here they have a franchise kids may not know and what do people question??? If kids know Avatar...

Notice how it's DISNEY calling Pandora a "mythical world." It's NOT mythical. It's imagined, fictional. There is a huge difference. They are trying to make AVATAR fit where it's obvious that it doesn't. It's a stretch and they know it.

Damage control is right. Just spew out the line: "new adventures that will delight and thrill our guests", and hope the naysayers go away, seems to be the M.O. these days.

There is nothing wrong with people/fans being critical. It forces companies to think, and fully question the decisions they make. I'm critical of their choice to put this in AK.

And, I'm sure my kids aren't the only ones who have no clue what AVATAR even is. The mass family wide appeal is just lacking on this one.

Natalie, not trying to nit-pick, but one of the dictionary definitions of mythical IS "imaginary; fictitious." Disney's use of the word is not incorrect. Just saying this because their use of the word seems to bother you, but they're not wrong in this case.

Aurora, you are correct... Mythical and imaginary can be used together... I still find it funny that people woudl accept a mythical/imaginary land based on imaginary animals such as dragons, but mention imaginary animals from Avatar and they go crazy...

Wow...reading through here I keep seeing the scene in "Wayne's World" where Garth hits the robotic hand with a hammer and says "We fear change..."

Disney fanboys don't fear change... Well, most don't... Most fanboys, however, hate when they don't get what THEY want... They hate when Disney appeals to the masses and not the fanboy sense of entitlement...

I'll agree with you on one point; at least Disney is doing something "big".

But I'd have to say I agree with Goofster and the comparisons pointed out by some are faulty. Indiana Jones etc. are attractions, not entire lands.

Why you're bashing people who thought Disney would consider one of their own pictures to base an entire land on is beyond comprehension. Its only natural that Disney fans on a Disney forum would have preferred and even expected the aforementioned.

Which picture??? Star Wars?? not a Disney movie... In fact, Walt Disney added third party IP into Disneyland when he built is.. Tom Sawyer anyone?? No one cries about that now, do we???

This is completely true and if nothing else gets the head-spinners to calm down...this should. Take a breath, have a sip of water...it'll be OK...

Nothing will calm them down because they aren't thinking rationally and with a business sense.. They are acting too much on emotion and hatred for a movie...

My hope is that Avatar will (please, please, please) replace Hester and Chester. Yes, replace them! At this point anything would be a huge improvement. The fact that they are not saying Avatar will or will not replace an area leaves me to hope that it will indeed replace this horrible eyesore in what is an otherwise beautiful park.

A girl can only hope..

Sorry to disappoint, but Avatar won't replace Chester and Hester... The land will either o into the expansion plot north of Asia or replace Camp Minnie-Mickey...

people are talking about AVATAR not fitting in to Animal Kingdom. Explain how The Wizarding World of Harry Potter fits in to Island of ADventure at US. Maybe they are trying to do something to attract bigger crowds in one location.

Beside being based on the movie, Harry Potter fits because you technically go on an adventure... also, each property in IOA is based on a book or some sort of reading material...

Marvel = Comics
Toon Lagoon - comic stips
Jurassic Park = series of books (and movies)
Dr. Suess = books
Harry Potter = 7 book set
Lost Continent = based on fantasy books as well... Sinbad being one...

Jurassic Park and HP sets are visials from the movies cause that is what everyone knows... And makes much more sense visually...

Actually I disagree, yes we might be yelling at Disney for not doing anything big like that, but to me, Avatar fits more with Universal and what they do then it does Disney.

and yet people wanted Harry potter in the Disney parks, screamed when Disney refused to cater to JK Rowling... And look, Universal's attendance skyrocketed... If Avatar went to Universal, and a deeply immersive land was built there, with yet another techonologically advanced ride, and their attendance shot up even more, knocking off DHS and DAK and challenging Epcot, fans would be online screaming that Disney is clueless and has no idea what fans want...

[Disney Doll]

I'm obviously late to the party, but I had no idea the announcement would stir up this kind of fervor.

I can kind of see both sides. I'll admit my gut reaction what a little bit of confusion. What does Avatar have to do with Disney kind of thing. However I'm not opposed to the idea.

1. James Cameron plus Disney Imagineers working to bring a whole new land to one of the parks cannot be a bad thing.

2. Avatar in my opinion is a good movie and I can see how it fits in Animal Kingdom. I saw the movie once so I'm not some kind of Avatar fanatic, but I think there's some good potential there.

3. Sure Disney could do their own thing, but they aren't. Beastly Kingdom has been dead for a long time now. Maybe the finances just aren't there for Disney to go it alone. I'm glad they found some way to make progress.

4. I'm amazed by all the people who are complaining yet admitting that they have never seen the movie. If you haven't seen the movie your opinion is irrelevant.

[Stu29573]

4. I'm amazed by all the people who are complaining yet admitting that they have never seen the movie. If you haven't seen the movie your opinion is irrelevant.

I was with you up until this point. Just because you haven't seen a movie doesn't mean your opinion that Disney should use their own properties irrelevant. I've seen most of the movie...but never could really sit through the whole thing. Boring. Maybe if I had seen it at the theater I would feel differently about calling it boring, but I still wouldn't feel like its a great Disney fit.

[Mickey'sGirl]

I think Disney had to do something BIG, and everything James Cameron does is VERY BIG, and VERY SUCCESSFUL. Honestly, I think the logevity of the Avatar franchise is mostly irrelevant. If the "land" itself is made up of cool state of the art forward thinking technologically advanced and visually stunning fun stuff, then it will carry itself. Personally, I think it's a very appropriate fit considering the environmental tones of the film.

As far as the not family friendly goes ... POTC is very not family friendly (speaking in Disney terms), but they have run with it, and even set up the Pirates League to have our kids dress the part. I don't think Avatar is any less "appropriate" than other franchises marketed through the parks.

This said, I did not enjoy Avatar any of the dozen times I attempted to keep my eyes open whilst watching it, BUT my two sons (aged 7 and 13) and my 16 year old niece LOVED it. I am excited to see what happens at AK, a park that we spend a couple of hours at every few years. Like others have said, maybe this will get us to add it back into our park touring circuit ... then again maybe it will be just one more reason to not visit. Time will tell.

[Ian]

MODERATOR ALERT!

Just a quick reminder to please consider your tone when responding to posts. It's one thing to state your opinion or viewpoint on a topic, but when your posts come off like yours is the only correct viewpoint that can be offensive and off-putting to others.

There have been a few posts recently in this thread that are pushing the envelope and have resulted in a few reported posts. Let's try and be respectful, please!

[diz_girl]

If the "land" itself is made up of cool state of the art forward thinking technologically advanced and visually stunning fun stuff, then it will carry itself.

Agreed. If there are good rides, then you'll want to go on them.

I just hope that they call it Pandora rather than Avatar-land.

[PopPhan]

Agreed. If there are good rides, then you'll want to go on them.

I just hope that they call it Pandora rather than Avatar-land.

I don't see calling the area Pandora would be a good thing -- with two more movies coming out, which will probably NOT occur on Pandora - as that particular story has been told, I would think that the Avatar 'technology' would be the draw --- being able to place yourself, in avatar form, within an 'alien' culture would be the draw in my opinion.

I could see Pandora being a 'section' of the new land, but having other sections to cover the two upcoming movies...

A thought would be to have many possible 'locations' and simulating avatars for different cultures/creatures/etc. That way you could visit many times and never play the same character or race twice.

[seanyred]

3. Sure Disney could do their own thing, but they aren't. Beastly Kingdom has been dead for a long time now. Maybe the finances just aren't there for Disney to go it alone. I'm glad they found some way to make progress.

.

I think this is a often over looked aspect of this business venture that Disney set up. In one of the worst economy's Disney/Cameron are rumored to be budgeting 500million for this project (In comparison Fantasyland expansion was rumored at 100million). With that kind of cost there is no way Disney would do that on their own if they were just building Beastly Kingdom.

I honestly hope this ends up being better than what everyone is expected and that some new technological advances are created for the theme park industry (but mainly Disney). I'd just like to look at this as my glass is half-full not half-empty.

[wjdoc]

I think the most important step is going to be for everyone is to see what the scope of the project actually is. Once drawings and renderings start showing up, i feel that everyone will warm up to the idea (including myself). I originally was envisioning this huge pandora park built onto the side of animal kingdom. But once i stepped back and thought about the size of the existing "lands", i realize that those are not huge. I think pandora will be about the same size as the other lands which seem to have 1 signature ride and then a couple other nice attractions. And if Cameron is involved, the signature ride should be special.

Will one more amazing ride boost visits to AK? It will for me but i was never a AK "hater" (for lack of a better term). State-of-the-art Pandora ride, everest, dinosaur, safari, krr, ittbab... That sounds like a full day to me.

I'm out of the loop on cost. How does the dollar figure for avatar-land compare to the cost of building pottersville?

[Disney Doll]

I was with you up until this point. Just because you haven't seen a movie doesn't mean your opinion that Disney should use their own properties irrelevant. I've seen most of the movie...but never could really sit through the whole thing. Boring. Maybe if I had seen it at the theater I would feel differently about calling it boring, but I still wouldn't feel like its a great Disney fit.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then because I still think it's impossible to know whether or not this movie is a good "fit" when you haven't even bothered to watch it.

[Frog]

I saw the movie back when it first came out. Decided to revisit it again the last couple of nights (it takes me two to three nights to finish a movie nowadays lol).
I am really excited about all the possibilities the immagineers will have the opportunity to explore! I also feel as did someone in a post a ways back that the movie is a remake of the story line in Pocahontas... but cooler! Wishing I could be an immagineer right now!!! I bet those guys are super pumped to have this to work with!

[Stu29573]

We'll just have to agree to disagree then because I still think it's impossible to know whether or not this movie is a good "fit" when you haven't even bothered to watch it.

Ok, I guess we will. My point was that it really doesn't matter what the movie is or how good it is, ( i got kind of side tracked because I think Avatar is boring) I think Disney has enough of their own intellectual property to do something uniquely their own which would be much better. I can see "outside" movies at DHS, but not so much here.

[Disney Doll]

Ok, I guess we will. My point was that it really doesn't matter what the movie is or how good it is, ( i got kind of side tracked because I think Avatar is boring) I think Disney has enough of their own intellectual property to do something uniquely their own which would be much better. I can see "outside" movies at DHS, but not so much here.

I'm not opposed to a different point of view, but to me if you are going to say it isn't a good "fit" then you need to offer some support for that argument and to do that you would probably need to know more about the movie. Saying it isn't a good fit just because it isn't Disney's intellectual property seems short sided. Heck, most classic Disney movies are based on stories that aren't Disney ideas. It's what Disney can do with it that counts.

[Jared]

Ok, I guess we will. My point was that it really doesn't matter what the movie is or how good it is, ( i got kind of side tracked because I think Avatar is boring) I think Disney has enough of their own intellectual property to do something uniquely their own which would be much better. I can see "outside" movies at DHS, but not so much here.

I'm just not sure I follow the logic here. Just about everything in the theme parks came from an outside source at some point, even the properties we now consider "classic" Disney. Walt Disney appropriated stories that purists saw as timeless fables and morality tales and turned them into cute, cuddly, sentimental entertainment. If Disney himself, the man who built the company, can use "Peter Pan," "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" and "Cinderella," why can't the modern Disney corporation use "Avatar?" Who's to say that in 50 or 60 or 70 years, kids don't see "Avatar" as Disney. Many kids already see the Muppets as "Disney" these days. I just don't see how this is any different.

I think Disney had to do something BIG, and everything James Cameron does is VERY BIG, and VERY SUCCESSFUL. Honestly, I think the logevity of the Avatar franchise is mostly irrelevant. If the "land" itself is made up of cool state of the art forward thinking technologically advanced and visually stunning fun stuff, then it will carry itself. Personally, I think it's a very appropriate fit considering the environmental tones of the film.

As far as the not family friendly goes ... POTC is very not family friendly (speaking in Disney terms), but they have run with it, and even set up the Pirates League to have our kids dress the part. I don't think Avatar is any less "appropriate" than other franchises marketed through the parks.

This said, I did not enjoy Avatar any of the dozen times I attempted to keep my eyes open whilst watching it, BUT my two sons (aged 7 and 13) and my 16 year old niece LOVED it. I am excited to see what happens at AK, a park that we spend a couple of hours at every few years. Like others have said, maybe this will get us to add it back into our park touring circuit ... then again maybe it will be just one more reason to not visit. Time will tell.

I agree with basically everything in this post, especially the paragraph regarding the irrelevance of "Avatar's" longevity as a franchise.

[Stu29573]

I'm not opposed to a different point of view, but to me if you are going to say it isn't a good "fit" then you need to offer some support for that argument and to do that you would probably need to know more about the movie. Saying it isn't a good fit just because it isn't Disney's intellectual property seems short sided. Heck, most classic Disney movies are based on stories that aren't Disney ideas. It's what Disney can do with it that counts.

I'm just not sure I follow the logic here. Just about everything in the theme parks came from an outside source at some point, even the properties we now consider "classic" Disney. Walt Disney appropriated stories that purists saw as timeless fables and morality tales and turned them into cute, cuddly, sentimental entertainment. If Disney himself, the man who built the company, can use "Peter Pan," "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" and "Cinderella," why can't the modern Disney corporation use "Avatar?" Who's to say that in 50 or 60 or 70 years, kids don't see "Avatar" as Disney. Many kids already see the Muppets as "Disney" these days. I just don't see how this is any different.

I may as well kill two birds with one stone here.

1. I'm not really arguing anything. I have my opinion and you have yours. One shouldn't have to "argue" and opinion, since it's based on personal beliefs. I'm simply trying to explain the rationale. If you don't get it, that's fine!

2. Ok, I'll give it one more shot here, since apparently I'm not explaining myself well. yes, the "classic" Disney stories and movies were not originally Disney. However, they WERE made into Disney movies. All of the classic characters that are represented were Disney's adaptations. Avatar wasn't. It really didn't have anything to do with Disney other than a licensing agreement. True, the Muppets were not Disney, but they were put into a park celebrating ALL of movies and entertainment, not just Disney. DHS is unique in that way.

Again, its just my take on it. Agree or don't, we're all still friends here!

[Melanie]

2. Ok, I'll give it one more shot here, since apparently I'm not explaining myself well. yes, the "classic" Disney stories and movies were not originally Disney. However, they WERE made into Disney movies. All of the classic characters that are represented were Disney's adaptations. Avatar wasn't. It really didn't have anything to do with Disney other than a licensing agreement. True, the Muppets were not Disney, but they were put into a park celebrating ALL of movies and entertainment, not just Disney. DHS is unique in that way.

And this pretty much sums up my opinion on all of this as well, even though I'm warming to the idea just a bit and trying to stick to my rule of not poo-pooing these announcements until we are shown some concept art and are given some more concrete details.

[Mousemates]

1. I'm not really arguing anything. I have my opinion and you have yours. One shouldn't have to "argue" and opinion, since it's based on personal beliefs. I'm simply trying to explain the rationale. If you don't get it, that's fine!

I agree and so does the Oxford English Dictionary ...opinions are by definition "an assessment based on grounds short of proof." Opinions can be based on things as subjective as perceptions and feelings and thus need not be footnoted to be valid.