Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 80
  1. #31

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    418

    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.

  2. #32

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    418

    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.

  3. #33

    • New Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    MIAMI, FLORIDA
    Posts
    23

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

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






  4. #34

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    193

    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.

  5. #35

    • Metro-Retro Historian
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Brava Centauri
    Posts
    1,042

    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.

  6. #36

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    193

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

    Quote 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.

  7. #37

    • Disney Enthusiast
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Dreamport
    Posts
    10

    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 at 04:04 PM.

  8. #38

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    418

    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.

  9. #39

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    740

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

    Quote 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 at 07:01 PM.

  10. #40

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    toronto
    Posts
    1,869

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

    Quote 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

  11. #41

    •   
    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area, California, United States
    Posts
    2,683

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

    The dedication

    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.


    I still think Pandora inhabitants fit within that wording.

  12. #42

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    82

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

    I hate when they make entier lands based on one movie. It's to specific, and the only attractions that fit there have to be themed to that movie. What happened to lands based on a time or place?

  13. #43

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    109

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

    Quote Originally Posted by goofy donald View Post
    Ok I'll bite...


    While true themes of conservation are present in Avatar and are also present in Animal Kingdom. this connection however is extremely loose and does not justify an entire land's creation nor even an extended presence of an alien world being placed within a park dedicated to celebrating the planet earth. the argument of conservation is a slippery slope that people use to justify slamming a square peg through a circular hole. Wall-e explores the theme of conservation in a very similar, if not more in depth way, does that mean that this franchise too deserves a place within the park?



    agreed, something that extends park hours would be very beneficial. Avatar singularly does not have to be that thing however, as just like you emphasized in your previous point, other nighttime things are planned, meaning that this theme does not need to be relied upon. Anything from a night world based upon nocturnal creatures, to a land based upon mythological or fantastical earthborn creatures, or even another continent with attractions that could separate themselves from the animals to keep them open passed dusk would be a far better alternative with themes that actually fit within the true constructs of the park.



    This isn't really an argument for why it will be a good fit. If anything it identifies the deeper problem that the movie itself and most likely its sequels were and are not that good, and its purely the imagery and new age technological advancements that produced its large box office numbers. producing something with no substance and connection makes little sense, at the very least equal to or less then creating something that can produce similar visuals and fit within the park without question.



    What about the creation of animal kingdom itself? the entire park outside of one attraction was created without any film relations and it turned out beautifully with no issue of draw whatsoever. if disney creates something new and backs it well in the media it will produce a quality draw. shoehorning a film into a land is not only lazy but illustrates that the leadership has lost faith in the true imaginative qualities of their now limitted imagineering staff.
    I agree that each of the first three points on their own doesn't make Avatar a good idea, but taken together I feel that they justify Avatar's presence in the park. Do I think Avatar is the only thing that would have been a good addition to AK, no, but I do think it is a good choice.

    As for my last point, I am NOT trying to say that non-film related attractions are a bad idea, I have no problem at all with them. I was just trying to say that I think Disney has now chosen to go in the direction of having everything tied into an existing property. Personally I am ok with either approach, as long as the attractions are well executed.

  14. #44

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    109

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

    Quote 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?
    The latest ride at WDW (until the mine ride opens) is Little Mermaid, yet another Omnimover type attractions. Yes, each of the Uni attractions you mention has a motion and video element, but most of them are very different types of rides systems.

    Spiderman and Transformers: Moving vehicle, with some articulation, 3D video screens and some physical sets.

    Simpson: Fixed motion vehicle surrounded by a video screen.

    Dispicable Me: "4D" theatre show

    Forbidden Journey: Moving vehicles with a large range of articulation combined with an even mix of 2D video segments and physicals sets and effects.

    Gringotts Ride: Based on the info that has leaked on this it appears it will be a coaster style moving vehicle with a combination of video segments and physicals sets and effects.

    Yes, I will give you that Uni seems to be relaying more on video then Disney at the moment, but if rumors are true the main ride for Avatar is going to be video based also. WDW has gotten 6 totally new rides since 2003, Mission Space, Soarin, Everest, Toy Story, Little Mermaid and the Mine Ride, half of which are video based, so video based attractions are not unique to Uni.

  15. #45

    • New Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    MIAMI, FLORIDA
    Posts
    23

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

    Avatar land in Animal Kingdom is perfect and I love that idea! Oh can we see the concept art of Avatar land including the boat ride in Avatar land.
    JEANY SANCHEZ






Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [Idea] Good Idea or Bad Idea? Live Mermaids part of The Little Mermaid Ride Que
    By Micoofy Duck in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 07-09-2008, 11:45 AM
  2. TS Island's Pirate Re-Theme: Good Idea? Bad Idea? (merged threads)
    By Gemini Cricket in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 352
    Last Post: 10-12-2006, 10:12 PM
  3. Replies: 138
    Last Post: 06-25-2006, 12:31 PM
  4. Pirates revamp? Good idea or bad
    By misterp102778 in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 04-01-2006, 04:08 PM
  5. good idea? bad idea?
    By migitmouse88 in forum Walt Disney World Resort
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-04-2005, 04:26 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •