AVATAR coming to Disney Parks

[big blue and hairy]

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.

Yeah, but what fun are they if you don't argue about them?

[Buttercup]

After 13 pages, and endless quoting and re-quoting, I'd just like to take a quick time out to say

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming!

[Mousemates]

Yeah, but what fun are they if you don't argue about them?

no disagreement here...I personally enjoy the banter...was really just having a little lexical fun.

[Mousemates]

After 13 pages, and endless quoting and re-quoting, I'd just like to take a quick time out to say

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming!

pretty dog gone funny

[seanyred]

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!

But what about Indiana Jones? In Disneyland its a ride that is not part of any "studio", it's in the heart of Adventureland. My point is not so much of who is right or wrong its just trying to show the different perception. As I've said before if this leads to new technological advances for Disney them I'm all for it.

[Stu29573]

But what about Indiana Jones? In Disneyland its a ride that is not part of any "studio", it's in the heart of Adventureland. My point is not so much of who is right or wrong its just trying to show the different perception. As I've said before if this leads to new technological advances for Disney them I'm all for it.

True enough! However, I think it was added to Disneyland after the deal was inked to put it ("it" being the movie, not the attraction) into the Studios. Lucas wanted a West Coast outlet as well. Its ironic that the Disneyland attraction is so much better than the DHS one!

By the way, you could have also added Star Tours in Disneyland Tomorrowland. I really think that had this been done today, they would have been in DCA.

[Buttercup]

Kind-of off topic, but...
You know what I would have loved to have seen, if something non-Disney had to be installed in order to compete with WWHP? Lord of the Rings. Maybe I'm a bit of a geek, but the books have been around forever, there was a huge movie franchise that all 3 movies were successful and subsequent DVD sales... But that's just my personal preference. Although it wouldn't really fit at Animal Kingdom unless you count elves and hobbits as animals!

Hmmm... maybe Disney doesn't want to confuse people with all the different dwarfs on property!

[Mickey'sGirl]

Hmmm... maybe Disney doesn't want to confuse people with all the different dwarfs on property!

I always say that my favourite dwarf is Gimli.

[seanyred]

Kind-of off topic, but...
You know what I would have loved to have seen, if something non-Disney had to be installed in order to compete with WWHP? Lord of the Rings. Maybe I'm a bit of a geek, but the books have been around forever, there was a huge movie franchise that all 3 movies were successful and subsequent DVD sales... But that's just my personal preference. Although it wouldn't really fit at Animal Kingdom unless you count elves and hobbits as animals!

Hmmm... maybe Disney doesn't want to confuse people with all the different dwarfs on property!

I agree Middle Earth is more interesting to me than Pandora. Also The Hobbit will be coming out in December 2012 and 2013 so they could have capitalized on that as well. I'm guessing though with all the legal problems that Peter Jackson had to get The Hobbit off the ground that there would be tons of red tape.

[Stu29573]

I would think Middle Earth would be better

[Butters]

The way I look at it anything is better than nothing

[Stu29573]

I would think Middle Earth would be better

Of course the same issues would exists....but at least it would be more interesting.....to me, anyway!

[Disney Doll]

The way I look at it anything is better than nothing

Amen to that!

[diz_girl]

By the way, you could have also added Star Tours in Disneyland Tomorrowland. I really think that had this been done today, they would have been in DCA.

But you can argue that Star Tours shouldn't go in Tomorrowland, because the events of that film took place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

[Stu29573]

But you can argue that Star Tours shouldn't go in Tomorrowland, because the events of that film took place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Very good point.......

[darthmacho]

Kind-of off topic, but...
You know what I would have loved to have seen, if something non-Disney had to be installed in order to compete with WWHP? Lord of the Rings. Maybe I'm a bit of a geek, but the books have been around forever, there was a huge movie franchise that all 3 movies were successful and subsequent DVD sales... But that's just my personal preference. Although it wouldn't really fit at Animal Kingdom unless you count elves and hobbits as animals!

Hmmm... maybe Disney doesn't want to confuse people with all the different dwarfs on property!

I agree that it would be a better choice as far as franchises are concerned, except that it wouldn't fit in with AK as well, I suppose.

Although, there is something that strikes me rather melancholy about that series as well, which may not be as family friendly.

[Mousemates]

Anyways, I too am stuggling to see a connection between Disney and Avatar. Im coming up with nothing. Its a bit violent for Disney I would think.

Sorry, I meant to post this earlier, but I got caught up in the posts and forget about it....also forgive me if something similar got posted in the interim and I missed it....but the violence in Avatar really isn't all that different from other movies disney has featured. The following numbers are widely available from the numerous body count websites that document each on screen death in a movie. (I did not do personal counts to verify the data )

Avatar - 69 humans, 74 Nav'i, 4 hairless tar dogs, 1 blue deer, 2 avatars, 17 6-legged blue horses, 13 banshees and 1 panther dragon.

Raiders of the Lost Ark - 55 people, a monkey and 63 snakes.

Star Wars (first movie) - 115 humans, plus 9 jawas, 6 X-wings, 8 tie fighters, 3 Y-Wings, the entire planet of Alderaan.

By the way for those thinking the Lord of the Rings would be a good fit....consider that the last episode's (Return of the King) body count is reportedly as follows. 15,107 men, 205,066 orcs, 110 trolls, 7 horses, 1 worm, 1 hobbit, 1 catfish, 20 elephants, 9 Nazgul, 9 Fell Beasts, 1 giant spider, Sauron and Gollum.

So, the violence of Avatar isn't really all that different from several movies already featured at WDW.

[Buttercup]

Hmmm... I was under the impression that there were only 205,065 orcs killed. Guess my counting was off.

[Goofy4TheWorld]

Hmmm... I was under the impression that there were only 205,065 orcs killed. Guess my counting was off.

One of them was pregnant.

[Buttercup]

One of them was pregnant.

Awww, poor orc baby.