AVATAR coming to Disney Parks

[dking2002]

Don't like that idea at all!!!!!

[SpecJoe Magic]

OK, maybe there was some hyperbole in my original post. It was out of frustration, really. I am tired of Disney fans who complain about literally every single thing the company does. The criticism has no value at this point. Sometimes I honestly think that the biggest Disney fans think Disney World should consistent of Horizons and a Dole Whip stand, and that's it.

Such is the nature of the Internet, I think. Everyone seems to be up-in-arms about everything. Okay, maybe that's a bit of an overstatement, but I think there is some truth to it. Years ago, people didn't know about theme park additions until they started showing up in the parks. Now that information is available instantly as soon as Disney or whoever announces it. We, as a society, have gotten really bad about jumping to conclusions. Sometimes even the rumors get out of control. Granted, these Disney fans aren't the only ones who do this, but they are among those that like to complain the most.

By the way, I got a chuckle out of the Horizons and Dole Whip statement

I never saw the movie, so it's difficult for me to say how much I would enjoy it. It seems like a strange choice on the one hand, but I can understand why Disney would go this route considering how well the movie did at the box office. It also seems like a good fit for Animal Kingdom now that I think about it, though it never occurred to me before. At least Animal Kingdom is getting a major expansion, as it does need something more in my opinion. I will reserve judgement for when I actually get to experience it. I like the park already, and this might make it even better.

[TheVBs]

You know, this is so true. Although, to be fair, the entire AK park is "environmentalist preachy" and it's the same thing. Clear out nature to fabricate "nature". But using recycled plastic park benches makes it all okay.

That's actually one aspect of AK that I find unappealing. A big corporation like Disney has no right to be preaching about conservation, environmentality, etc. Just look at how much food gets thrown away on their "dining plan". Talk about waste...

But that's another topic entirely.

That's quite an unfortunate point of view. Not only is it fantastic that they make this a part of their parks, they do it incredibly well. They do it so well in fact that apparently they are consulted by other companies on how to do it. How in the world can that be a bad thing?

Back on topic: I do agree that DHS seems a better fit for Avatar, but again, I'll wait and see how this turns out.

[Aurora]

So, wait...

They are going to clear out a ton of land and chop down hundreds of trees....to build a land about preserving the environment...

Way to go, Disney.

??? Where are you getting your information? Disney has a documented history of saving the landscape it builds in and digging up and replanting, not simply chopping down, trees in the area in which it's developing. It has been and continues to be one of the foremost conservation companies in the world.

It also has planted many, many species of plants in Animal Kingdom chosen for their suitability to the climate and designed to grow taller than the architectural elements in the park. Refer to "The Imagineering Field Guide to Disney's Animal Kingdom" for the philosophy behind this park.

Ok, I posted this earlier, but it seems to have gotten lost in the clutter. Disney is currently in damage control mode on their official blog. Has anyone ever seen them try to calm everybody down so quickly after a major announcement? I think they really were blindsided by the response they got. It also shows me that a lot of people (many of whom don't frequent this board) are raising the same questions being raised here. This makes me think that they are fairly legitimate concerns.

I take a different view of this. The announcement has been so out of the realm of the typical Disney news releases that it's got a lot of people excited, confused, bewildered, and wanting more information, which the company can't possibly give definitively right now. The list of questions answered on the blog looks a lot like the issues people are discussing in this very thread.

[White Rose]

Ok, I posted this earlier, but it seems to have gotten lost in the clutter. Disney is currently in damage control mode on their official blog. Has anyone ever seen them try to calm everybody down so quickly after a major announcement? I think they really were blindsided by the response they got. It also shows me that a lot of people (many of whom don't frequent this board) are raising the same questions being raised here. This makes me think that they are fairly legitimate concerns.

Actually, if you check in the originally Disney Parks Blog announcement about the Avatar/Disney arrangment, it does state:

Got questions about the announcement? If so, Tom Staggs will be answering them in a special Q&A blog post later today. Just submit your name, city where you’re from and your question to [email protected] and then check the Disney Parks Blog later to see some of the answers

Anyway, I am looking forward to seeing what they do with this. I haven't seen the movie enough times to comment too much on it, but it is stunningly beautiful. We all have been wishing/complaining about how we wish Disney would take more care to build more things for the parks other then reburbs and the like. With this announcement and the Fantastyland expansion, I'm curious as to what else they may have their sleeves.

Who knows? Maybe we'll have an announcement regarding Epcot or DHS soon as well.

[Stu29573]

Damage control? I only saw where they held one Q and A yesterday.
legitimate concerns? Concerns is a strong word. Unless you are a stock holder there should be no concern. Whatever happens with this deal, should not negatively impact attendance at AK. I'm not saying it can't, just that it shouldn't. If it flops, then it flops and people will just not visit that land. I can't imagine there would be many people to refuse to go to AK because of this.

Interesting way to spin it, but whenever a company has to go out of its way to answer rather pointed public questions about an announced project that was supposed to be wonderful news, that's "damage control."

"Concerns" is not a strong word at all, but, rather a good description of what many people are having. And I can see why being a stockholder would raise the concern level, but not how not being a stockholder would eliminate it. I can be concerned about a subject that I have no direct financial stake in.

[DizneyFreak2002]

I'm chiming in here... Why the hate??? Everyone moans and groans how Animal Kingdom is lacking, how it is only a half day park... We are now getting one heck of an expansion in AK, and what do Disney fans do??? COMPLAIN... I would say this is typical of the Disney fanboy... Fanboys are never happy with anything Disney does.. Thankfully Disney listens to the MASSES not the few rabid fanboy who tend to think about their own desires and not with an business sense...

I'm usually critical of Disney's business decisions... I waste not one second bashing TDO or any other Disney management for their stupid business moves... However, I cannot get on this about this... This is an excellent decisison by Disney...

Forget that Avatar was PG-13... The violent scenes from the movie will not be making their way into the park... Instead,, focus on the beauty that is the landscapes... And remember about those mythical animals that roam in the jungles... Also, the message and overall theme of the movie fits in Animal Kingdon.. That theme??? CONSERVATION... ohh yes, part of the Animal Kingdom theme is CONSERVATION... And with this addition, I can see Disney relaying the conservation message even more...

Whatever your opinion is about the movie matters not... Some people think the movie was bad, that doesn't make it a fact... The only facts are the movie is the number one grossing movie, 2.8 billion dollars I believe... The movie ran number one in theaters for majority of it's theater run... And I believe the movie is also number one with DVD sales... So, for a movie that was so terrible and hated so much, it sure has done a tremendous about of business with the masses, not the 100 Disney fanboys who are really their own worst enemy...

Another thing about all this hatred that amuses me is we have no idea what is coming just yet, and already people hate it and are complaining... How about taking a deep breath and wait to see some concept art and announcements about the kind of attractions that will be coming.. Joe Rhode is in charge.. The man is a genious... along with James Cameron, they will come up with one awesome land... And if then you all still hate it, then don't go... Less people I'll have to stand behind in line when I go to enjoy the offerings Disney provides...

And before anyone says the animals in Avatar are't real.. Neither is the yeti, and more news for ya, lions and fish do not talk either... Neither do bugs... Vines don't magically walk and last I checked, vines aren't animals... Ohh and alien species are, in fact and by definition animals...

[DizneyFreak2002]

Interesting way to spin it, but whenever a company has to go out of its way to answer rather pointed public questions about an announced project that was supposed to be wonderful news, that's "damage control."

"Concerns" is not a strong word at all, but, rather a good description of what many people are having. And I can see why being a stockholder would raise the concern level, but not how not being a stockholder would eliminate it. I can be concerned about a subject that I have no direct financial stake in.

That wasn't damage control interesting way to spin it... Tom Staggs has the Q&A scueduled PRIOR to the announcement... It would be damage control if after readint these rediculous comments from radib fanboys that he decided to do the Q&A... Tom Staggs gave the small community (and it is small compared tot he millions who visit WDW each year and aren't fanboys) a chance to ask questions about the announcement... That is hardly damage control... But spin this all you want...

[Stu29573]

???

I take a different view of this. The announcement has been so out of the realm of the typical Disney news releases that it's got a lot of people excited, confused, bewildered, and wanting more information, which the company can't possibly give definitively right now. The list of questions answered on the blog looks a lot like the issues people are discussing in this very thread.

Its a very curious way of getting information out. If the buzz was overwhelmingly good, then one might expect Disney to do what they have done before; parce out small amounts of information to keep the public interested and excited. I don't recall them ever setting up a forum where they actually try to explain and validate a project. This tactic seems to immediately put them on the defensive and only raises concerns.

[Stu29573]

That wasn't damage control interesting way to spin it... Tom Staggs has the Q&A scueduled PRIOR to the announcement... It would be damage control if after readint these rediculous comments from radib fanboys that he decided to do the Q&A... Tom Staggs gave the small community (and it is small compared tot he millions who visit WDW each year and aren't fanboys) a chance to ask questions about the announcement... That is hardly damage control... But spin this all you want...

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

[Jared]

So, wait...

They are going to clear out a ton of land and chop down hundreds of trees....to build a land about preserving the environment...

Way to go, Disney.

There are so many problems with the logic of this statement. Disney has a staunch record of conservation, and it's absurd to criticize the company for expanding their zoological park. Like everything about Animal Kingdom, it will be done with environmentalism in mind. Disney plants as many trees as it cuts down.

But several "common knowledge" themes prevail, and I don't understand...Universal still plays a distant second as the "prime destination" in Orlando. UA and IOA had a growth year in 2010...back up to their numbers of 2005...and after a major drop off in 2009. Their total attendance is still less than 25% of Disney total..about where they were in 2005...and each park's attendance is significantly less than even "the WDW parks that nobody goes to"...

This has the attitude that has put Disney in the position it's currently in. You're talking about the past. Universal is growing because of aggressive expansion, forward-thinking leadership and, as much as we hate to admit it, top-line creative personnel. At least based on output of the last decade or so, Disney's Imagineers have been surpassed by Universal's engineers. Maybe we can blame the bean-counters for quashing WDI's brilliant ideas, but the proof is in what exists. Wizarding World exists. So does the Spider-Man ride. Soon, so will the Transformers attraction. WDI hasn't built a groundbreaking attraction since Tower of Terror, and that was in 1994. (Expedition Everest comes close, but it's impossible to put it in that caliber with a broken yeti.)

Disney isn't stupid. The company is well aware that they are losing market share to its biggest competitor. This is an attempt to change that. (By the way, who wants to bet the the second phase of Wizarding World is announced within the next few weeks or months? Universal has made a habit of upstaging Disney of late.)

AK is based on the all the animals that ever existed, or never existed on Earth. Now they are adding a alien planet? I enjoyed Avatar, I just think it would have been a better fit at the Studios.

This is complete revisionist history. Actually, it's simply a misstatement. In his opening-day dedication at the Animal Kingdom, Michael Eisner said, "Welcome to a kingdom of animals -- real, ancient and imagined." At no point did he talk about Earth. The creatures of Pandora are certainly imagined animals. I agree this could fit at the Studios, but it clearly has a place at Animal Kingdom as well. Anyway, wouldn't we rather hold out for the Lucasland expansion?

See, I think if Universal got this, I'd be thinking "Well, that makes sense...it fits at that park."

I am actually starting to wish Universal did get the property. Keep in mind that Universal built the entire Wizarding World for half of the cost of Disney's Radiator Springs Racers. The entire land cost half of one attraction. The Little Mermaid dark ride is costing over $100, according to published reports. Whatever Disney does for $100, Universal does for $75 these days.

[Buttercup]

Here's my thought process...

Avatar: saw the movie, thought "meh, whatever." It wasn't terrible, but it certainly didn't live up to the hype.

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.

My thinking is because it grossed so much money, it should belong over at Hollywood Studios as being a major motion picture - but even that seems kind-of like a lot of hooplah over a movie that most people only thought was so-so at best. It does nothing for me at Animal Kingdom.

Do kids even know what Avatar is?

And... forgive me, but doesn't it feel like they're 'jumping the gun' here, ASSUMING that the next 2 movies are going to be major successes? I know I probably won't see the next 2 films because I have no interest.
I feel like we're back in the 90's when they built the All Star Movies resort, and out of ALL the movies they could have chosen for the buildings, they chose Mighty Ducks thinking that it would be a lasting franchise. Whoops!
I get the impression that this is going to happen again with Avatar land.

[Mousemates]

And before anyone says the animals in Avatar are't real.. Neither is the yeti, and more news for ya, lions and fish do not talk either... Neither do bugs... Vines don't magically walk and last I checked, vines aren't animals... Ohh and alien species are, in fact and by definition animals...

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).

[BrerGnat]

That's quite an unfortunate point of view. Not only is it fantastic that they make this a part of their parks, they do it incredibly well. They do it so well in fact that apparently they are consulted by other companies on how to do it. How in the world can that be a bad thing?

It is unfortunate. It's unfortunate that Disney doesn't 100% stand by their message of environmentality. Look, I am not saying they don't make an effort. I'm fully aware of their efforts, but it's half-baked at best, and the message that they try to put out, specifically at AK, isn't something that is embraced company wide, and that's why I have a problem with it. Don't tell me that all that junk plastic "made in China" merchandise that they hock is biodegradable, and made from renewable resources, in environmentally friendly factories...

Now, onto the topic of this particular land addition, here they go again with the "living in harmony with nature" line:

Copied from the Disney Parks Blog "Q&A session", regarding the THEME:

Disney’s Animal Kingdom is the perfect place for our first AVATAR land because at its core, the park gives guests the opportunity to experience the worlds of animals and nature – real and mythical – in whole new ways. With AVATAR, we’ve found the perfect opportunity to let our guests explore one of the most compelling mythical worlds ever conceived. Animal Kingdom also celebrates adventure, living in harmony with nature and environmental stewardship – themes that are deeply rooted in the story of 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.

[DVCJohn]

Just a thought.
Anyone that does not like the idea on an Avatar land in DAK needs to remember Disney's original Catchphrase for DAK.
NATAZU.....
I have never seen the movie but Avatarland makes as much sense as Beastly Kingdom since both are to be Mythical places.

[NewDVCowner]

My feeling is this. Animal Kingdom has needed an expansion since it opened. To most people it’s a half day park at most. I LOVE Animal Kingdom and still I never stay after lunch. I think most people won’t care what the expansion is as long as it’s done well and more attractions are added. People don’t need to love, or even like, a movie in order to enjoy a ride that’s based on it. For example. I have seen the original Star Wars movies all of one time, and the only reason I saw them was that I had a friend that was shocked when she heard I’d never seen them and dragged me to the first three when they were re-released. I’ve never seen the later three movies and really don’t care about them as a whole one way or another. HOWEVER I love Star Tours, both the old version and the new one. I would ride that over and over again, and it has nothing to do with the movies. I haven’t seen Avatar, but if Disney does it right, which they usually (not always) do, then I can see this being very enjoyable and draws a lot of people in. Not because it’s Avatar, but because it’s a well done expansion that has things that people enjoy doing.

[clausjo]

I think this could be amazing, actually. I've not seen the movie, but I do think it has a big appeal to boys, teens and young adults. There's been quite a lot of complaining on these boards about the Fantasyland expansion and all the princess and fairy stuff and there being nothing for boys. Well, I think this is it. My son was pretty excited about this when I told him, and he's not seen the movie either. He wants to now though.

I'm going to hold my opinion until I can visit and see. My guess is that it will be beautiful.

[wildernesslady]

I am excited for this. I have seen Avatar once and could not stop commenting on the scenery. It was well done. It is ok for Disney to go outside the box. I have 3 grandsons and the princesses are overdone for them. They can't wait to see this.

When can we expect concept art? I'm sure it will look amazing.

[TheVBs]

It is unfortunate. It's unfortunate that Disney doesn't 100% stand by their message of environmentality. Look, I am not saying they don't make an effort. I'm fully aware of their efforts, but it's half-baked at best, and the message that they try to put out, specifically at AK, isn't something that is embraced company wide, and that's why I have a problem with it. Don't tell me that all that junk plastic "made in China" merchandise that they hock is biodegradable, and made from renewable resources, in environmentally friendly factories...

Could they do better? Sure. I would like to see quality merchandise as well and it would be great to see more eco-friendly products available. But, do I think it's fair to knock them for the effort they do make? Does it have to be 100% to count? Definitely, no.

From a theme perspective, I can see what you're saying. Avatar does not fit the definition of mythical. And, our kids aren't at all familiar with the movie. I'm hoping it will be done well enough to enjoy whether we've seen it or not. 'Cause, I'm gonna be honest, I'm not really sure I'll ever get around to watching it. And, if they can also get across more great environmental information that makes a difference while people are enjoying themselves there -

[sportsguy2315]

I just see no comparison between Harry Potter and Avatar.

7 very successful books, 8 blockbuster movies spread out over many years, which entertain a wide fan base versus 1 blockbuster film with an arguably limited fan base and buzz that died down years ago.

This is my point right here Melanie. HP has a long and proven track record which attract people of all ages (aka what kinds of things Walt wanted to build). I can totally see money being pumped into it and being a relatively safe investment.

As for your point of the buzz dying down "years ago", Avatar came out in 2009 with a re-release last year. While no one can argue the financial success the film had, the only thing I heard people praise (Since I have never, nor have plans to see it) was the scenery.

You want to do, say, a Pandora walk though? I'm cool with that. Where my reservations lay is that although it isn't being said, is that this is Disney's answer to HP. This appears to be on a scale similar to HP, but I can't see where all the material will come from, even with Imagineers at the helm.