To be fair, this was clearly written to give the folks at Disney the widest possible berth with regards to the Animals included in the Kingdom. "...real, ancient and imagined?" So, like basically any animal anywhere from any time or any intellectual property is a fit for Animal Kingdom.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
If we're just going by the plaque, Avatar fits pretty well, covering 'imagined' animals, 'dragons' called banshees, and 'balance, harmony and survival' as basically the thesis of the movies themselves.
Honestly, the 'haterz' argument loses credence when one falls down this far into the rabbit hole.
It's one thing to not like Disney using Avatar to pepper up Animal Kingdom. It's quite another to go to this level of pulling strings to make one's point about how sucky Avatar is for DAK.
I mean, don't like it, but it fits into DAK significantly better than "If You Had Wings" fit into purist-past-glory Tomorrowland (unless the theme was "tomorrow, you will take a plane back home.")
Don't like the intellectual property, but don't detract from the 'top box office grosser...ever' status when questioning Disney's business choices.
Don't think the IP has "wings" (heh,) and that Disney is taking too long to build the land, but don't leave out that three sequels are being filmed concurrently and that Disney is timing the opening of Avatarland to the films themselves.
This cynical, cyclical argument frustrates me. It's one thing to complain about Disney sitting on its hands and raking in cash for the past 10+ years without significant investment into their parks. That's fair and accurate.
It's quite another to complain when Disney ACTUALLY makes significant investments in their parks. I mean, they're going to drop primo coin into this project. Who cares that it's an intellectual property that perhaps isn't your cup of tea? They're ACTUALLY doing what we've collectively complained that they weren't doing (investment) for the past decade-plus.
There's certainly an addictive component to this fanbash, where one level isn't enough, and we have to just keep on keepin' on hatin', which is dramatically different that a critique perhaps constructive. And it makes any validity to one's argument lose credence in this context.