Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 80
  1. #46

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    193

    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

    You make me laugh... Show me something that says that AK is only about EARTH??? Prove it... because obviously is does not if Disney themselves are going outside of those boundaries.. I didn't know you personally got to decide the mission statement of AK...

    Here is your solution... DON'T GO!!! It's really that simple.. if you don't want to see Avatar in AK then don't pay money to go to that park.. or avoid that section of the park..

    Stop getting all worked up about it.
    Co-Host of the Disney Nerds Podcast (found on i-tunes, Stitcher, and Podbean)
    Co-Creator of the Mouseketeer Club group on Facebook.

  2. #47

    • I'm Theme Park Happy!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,566

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

    There's no denying people will be against Avatar expansion at AK all the way up until opening day. I hope that once Avatar is open and running that people will have a change of heart at the edition and what Disney has done to enhance the park. Of course everyone has a solid opinion on what would enhance the park but this IS happening. Endless threads of collective negative thoughts on this addition really isn't going to stop the progress. It just isn't.

    The train has left the station and I'm on it ready to experience the end result.
    Micoofy Duck
    Disney Theme Park Fan #4,584,376
    http://www.micoofy.com



  3. #48

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    193

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Micoofy Duck View Post
    There's no denying people will be against Avatar expansion at AK all the way up until opening day. I hope that once Avatar is open and running that people will have a change of heart at the edition and what Disney has done to enhance the park. Of course everyone has a solid opinion on what would enhance the park but this IS happening. Endless threads of collective negative thoughts on this addition really isn't going to stop the progress. It just isn't.

    The train has left the station and I'm on it ready to experience the end result.
    Bravo!
    Co-Host of the Disney Nerds Podcast (found on i-tunes, Stitcher, and Podbean)
    Co-Creator of the Mouseketeer Club group on Facebook.

  4. #49

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    toronto
    Posts
    1,846

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danlb_2000 View Post
    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.
    lol the entire purpose of breaking it down was to illustrate that its not a good idea or at least that those points don't justify its creation. its just an attempt to make something fit as opposed to having something naturally fit there. the mere fact that we have to debate wether or not that this should belong in the park illustrates a deeper problem. if disney is going to add an entire land it just should be able to instantly have everyone on board and excited like potter at universal did, the backlash that this decision has created through the community illustrates that this probably was not the best decision.

  5. #50

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    193

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

    Quote Originally Posted by goofy donald View Post
    lol the entire purpose of breaking it down was to illustrate that its not a good idea or at least that those points don't justify its creation. its just an attempt to make something fit as opposed to having something naturally fit there. the mere fact that we have to debate wether or not that this should belong in the park illustrates a deeper problem. if disney is going to add an entire land it just should be able to instantly have everyone on board and excited like potter at universal did, the backlash that this decision has created through the community illustrates that this probably was not the best decision.
    So ifI start a petition saying that It's a Small World should be taken out with dynamite and I get 5000 people to sign it.. does that mean Disney would be making a mistake that it is staying? (I happen to like IASW. I only used this as an example)

    That does not make sense. Just because you don't think it's a "natural fit" does not mean others don't think the same.. I for one think if they were to make an Avatar themed area AK is the best place for it.. what make either of us right or either of us wrong...

    It's called an OPINION!
    Co-Host of the Disney Nerds Podcast (found on i-tunes, Stitcher, and Podbean)
    Co-Creator of the Mouseketeer Club group on Facebook.

  6. #51

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    366

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

    I'm certain that I'll love the finished product that will be Avatarland. I know people who are working on the project and they've told me that the technology and completeness of the vision will blow everyone away.

    That said, it is a terrible franchise for a Disney Park. The arguments based upon Star Wars or Indy attractions being derived from violent, third-party film franchises only confirms that Disney has fundamentally changed. We don't know for sure that the world of the Na'vi might be peaceful (and human-free) in the Disney implementation. Disney is the same company that now tells us that there must be a grease fire in the settler's cabin, after all.

    CarsLand is a better fit from a classic Disney entertainment standpoint, although many will argue that Pixar material in the parks is a product of merger and acquisition activity and not realized from direct Disney creativity.
    ~ Erik








  7. #52

    • Metro-Retro Historian
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Brava Centauri
    Posts
    1,042

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyNerdTom View Post
    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.
    I would have no objection to Bugs Life or Nemo being in Hollywood Studios. The only problem is those attractions are both shows and the last thing Hollywood Studios needs is more shows. Hollywood Studios is the smallest of Walt Disney World's 4 theme parks. Adding 2 more shows would hardly make it gigantic. What I want is for every park to have a distinct identity. Since the only identity Hollywood Studios has is movies, everything about movies built in another Disney park only dilutes what should be unique about the Studios. I don't think wanting each park to have its own feel is narrow minded at all. The distinction makes each park its own immersive environment and not just a collection of Disney(tm) attractions behind facades with similar architecture. I can't shake the feeling that Disney decided to put Avatar in the Animal Kingdom because that park needed the largest boost and has the most trees.

    Since Disney doesn't seem to want their parks to be unique from each other, Nemo and Bugs Life are in the Animal Kingdom. They get a pass from me because at least those movies star and are about animals, neither of which is true about Avatar. I had no idea Animal Kingdom was all about conservation. I was under the assumption that it was all about animals.

    Quote Originally Posted by danlb_2000 View Post
    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.
    I never said that the reliance on video was unique to Universal. It seems to be a big trend everywhere,which worries me. The thing that bugs me about Universal is that's all they seem to be doing. It also bugs me that people complain that the Seven Dwarfs Mine Train is taking so long and using Universal attractions as the measuring stick. Yes, Disney builds slower than most, but nobody should be surprised that a roller coaster employing new ride technology and all physical show scenes takes longer to design and build than a motion simulator.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kidgenie View Post
    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
    Would scientists classify an extraterrestrial species into the kingdom animalia? We can't say for sure because it's never happened.

    Joe Rhode is excited to be working on this project because it keeps him from being forced into "retirement".

    Ironically, the examples you gave of attractions that don't quite fit their lands in Disneyland are all in (or in the case of Carsland rumored to be going into) Disney Hollywood Studios in Florida. That's the advantage the east coast resort has over California. We have four parks with plenty of expansion room so we can afford the luxury of being more picky when it comes to what belongs where.
    It bothers me when people selectively edit quotes to support whatever point they are trying to prove.

  8. #53

    • Behind the refurb walls..
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    7,961
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Avatar Land makes just about as much sense as Beastly Kingdom if we are going to use the argument of "An Alien world has no place in Animal Kingdom" Then neither do any of the creatures in Beastly Kingdom.

    It's about animals, real and imagined. Conservation, nature... It always has been, and Avatar Land will fit the mold, just as much as Beastly Kingdom will have.

    Now not wanting such a franchise in the parks is another matter.

    And I like to look at the bigger picture... So Yes, I think it is a great idea. Not only will Animal Kingdom get an insanely well themed and incredible land, but it has a night aspect to it... Which results in Animal Kingdom being open in to the evening... which results in Safari getting updated and basically having two different versions of the ride, and a new night time spectacle.. and I'm assuming much much more along the way.






    ~ Here you leave today and enter the world of yesterday tomorrow and fantasy
    ~

  9. #54

    • Disney Enthusiast
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Dreamport
    Posts
    10

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danlb_2000 View Post
    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.
    I agree with Dapper Dan. I think that video-based attractions are a dangerous trend. Part of my favorite parts of Disney Attractions are the three-dimensional sets that are created. If anything, I think that screens need to be integrated with 3D sets (like Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey). I think that the Harry Potter ride does this very well, though I think their "robots" could be a bit better. Toy Story Mania, on the other hand, is composed completely of screens. On the ride itself, there is no physical 3D object (the line, where I spent most of my time, has an amazing Audio Animatronic to look at, but he's the only one). Without the 3D glasses, it looks like the cars are traveling through an empty hallway. After waiting 2.5 hours to go on Toy Story for the first time, I was supremely disappointed to discover that it was nothing more than a smaller scale Buzz Lightyear.

    Hence, I am wary of video-based attractions. That's why it scares me when I hear that the main attraction in Avatar will be video-based. I would much rather they base their attractions on physical sets. Pretty soon, going to WDW is going to be like going to the movies in a moving seat. I know that's an exaggeration, but my point is that theme parks like HS are supposed to create physical ways to enter into movies. I feel like this is not accomplished as effectively if the rides are based around screens.

    I understand that Avatar will be breathtaking, AND I am not so opposed to it that I would refuse to visit. I am not so snobbish as shun a Disney ride! However, the reason I created this thread was to gauge other people's opinions, not merely to vent about something over which I have no control. I know that negative thoughts about the project will not stop it; I merely was curious what other people thought, and I think that the discussion has been very interesting so far.

    Many people have mentioned the need for expansion of Hollywood Studios; I am curious––what would you like to see? I vote Star Wars!

  10. #55

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    193

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

    I think Star Wars makes the most sence. There are a lot of things they can do with this. I heard once that they were considering turning the back lot quick service area into the Star Wars cantina which I think would be really cool..

    I think Avengers would be a great one too but I hear that Disney can't in WDW due to contractual reasons.


    I think an expansion on the Pixar area would be fun as well.. they could incorporate attractions from various Pixar movies instead of 1 Toy Story ride.
    Co-Host of the Disney Nerds Podcast (found on i-tunes, Stitcher, and Podbean)
    Co-Creator of the Mouseketeer Club group on Facebook.

  11. #56

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    toronto
    Posts
    1,846

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyNerdTom View Post
    So ifI start a petition saying that It's a Small World should be taken out with dynamite and I get 5000 people to sign it.. does that mean Disney would be making a mistake that it is staying? (I happen to like IASW. I only used this as an example)

    That does not make sense. Just because you don't think it's a "natural fit" does not mean others don't think the same.. I for one think if they were to make an Avatar themed area AK is the best place for it.. what make either of us right or either of us wrong...

    It's called an OPINION!
    lol what? your argument has literally no relevance to what was said

    furthermore its not an opinion, its a clear and present fact. the theme of avatar is a terrible fit for animal kingdom and many people agree upon that point. you can argue about the semantics of a deeper theme of conservation etc. but at the end of the day you are putting big blue aliens into a park who's core theme is the natural earth and the amazing life that exists within our world. to suggest that avatar is a necessity within the park or even a good thematic addition versus all the currently untouched or only slightly referenced topics based upon our globe, is not only foolish but insulting to the majestic and beautiful world we live in. people should actually go out and experience it a little more, i am of the strong belief that if they actually got out from behind the screens for a few moments and experienced these awe inspiring locals (which are what avatar is based upon) they would not be as infatuated with the idea of visiting this place. I'm sure what they produce will look nice based upon their work in new fantasyland but that still doesn't ignore the fact that it simply doesn't fit in this park. While their at it they might as well throw the new star wars expansion in there too since that is what avatar's addition is akin too..

  12. #57

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    193

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

    Quote Originally Posted by goofy donald View Post
    lol what? your argument has literally no relevance to what was said

    furthermore its not an opinion, its a clear and present fact. the theme of avatar is a terrible fit for animal kingdom and many people agree upon that point. you can argue about the semantics of a deeper theme of conservation etc. but at the end of the day you are putting big blue aliens into a park who's core theme is the natural earth and the amazing life that exists within our world. to suggest that avatar is a necessity within the park or even a good thematic addition versus all the currently untouched or only slightly referenced topics based upon our globe, is not only foolish but insulting to the majestic and beautiful world we live in. people should actually go out and experience it a little more, i am of the strong belief that if they actually got out from behind the screens for a few moments and experienced these awe inspiring locals (which are what avatar is based upon) they would not be as infatuated with the idea of visiting this place. I'm sure what they produce will look nice based upon their work in new fantasyland but that still doesn't ignore the fact that it simply doesn't fit in this park. While their at it they might as well throw the new star wars expansion in there too since that is what avatar's addition is akin too..

    Originally Posted by goofy donald
    lol the entire purpose of breaking it down was to illustrate that its not a good idea or at least that those points don't justify its creation. its just an attempt to make something fit as opposed to having something naturally fit there. the mere fact that we have to debate wether or not that this should belong in the park illustrates a deeper problem. if disney is going to add an entire land it just should be able to instantly have everyone on board and excited like potter at universal did, the backlash that this decision has created through the community illustrates that this probably was not the best decision.





    The bolded part is what I am talking about.. just because many people dont like the idea does not mean it's wrong.

    I have never read a single thing that specifically says AK is about the planet Earth..

    To each their own.
    Co-Host of the Disney Nerds Podcast (found on i-tunes, Stitcher, and Podbean)
    Co-Creator of the Mouseketeer Club group on Facebook.

  13. #58

    • Metro-Retro Historian
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Brava Centauri
    Posts
    1,042

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Disney Analyst View Post
    Avatar Land makes just about as much sense as Beastly Kingdom if we are going to use the argument of "An Alien world has no place in Animal Kingdom" Then neither do any of the creatures in Beastly Kingdom.

    It's about animals, real and imagined. Conservation, nature... It always has been, and Avatar Land will fit the mold, just as much as Beastly Kingdom will have.
    Except Beastly Kingdom animals are already there.
    Name:  tumblr_llesh4txqe1qzi9h8.jpg
Views: 77
Size:  71.4 KB
    We'll start our journey by parking in the unicorn lot.

    Name:  5d7b76f9-88c7-4428-a899-2769cd1c3036.jpg
Views: 77
Size:  134.4 KB
    Next we take a look at the park logo. Hey what's that animal in the DEAD CENTER?

    Name:  d195f8b2-946a-4412-9d90-366f8db8271d.jpg
Views: 76
Size:  103.1 KB
    Here's a closer look at that animal from the actual welcome sign at the park's entrance. I'm pretty sure that's not a banshee.

    Name:  f1028ea5-f71b-4e79-b300-02d7e70e095f.jpg
Views: 80
Size:  148.4 KB
    That same logo with the same mystery animal can be seen here on a bench in the park's entrance plaza.

    Name:  6eddd287-a1c5-4569-bdda-4962bec2b571.jpg
Views: 76
Size:  172.3 KB
    Here is is again in a light fixture at that same plaza.

    Name:  c1105673-34b5-4b59-82a0-c207aa40a7fc.jpg
Views: 79
Size:  214.9 KB
    There are three ticket booths at the park entrance. One has an elephant head, one has a Triceratops head, and the third one has this unknown animal. It's almost like they were trying to create some sort of running theme. If you look closely there are some other animals in the background. I wonder if we'll find anything there?

    Name:  61921c33-2548-4002-8cfe-704e56b50abf.jpg
Views: 80
Size:  204.6 KB
    Here we see a butterfly, some sort of lizard, a stegosaurus (my favorite dinosaur), and some sort of bird that looks like it has a cat's body and tail. How peculiar.

    Name:  eb956596-876a-4ea3-8bc1-3a22a3072cf5.jpg
Views: 79
Size:  191.5 KB
    Here's another with an alligator, elephant, bear, antelope, fly, and...winged horse?

    You can argue that Avatar will be a good land. You can try to claim that it fits the theme, but you can't say that Beastly Kingdom doesn't fit the theme of the Animal Kingdom. It's already there and has been a part of the park since the beginning. It's probably one of the big reasons why fan's won't let that concept go. The foundation is already there.
    It bothers me when people selectively edit quotes to support whatever point they are trying to prove.

  14. #59

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    740

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

    Quote Originally Posted by goofy donald View Post
    lol what? your argument has literally no relevance to what was said

    furthermore its not an opinion, its a clear and present fact. the theme of avatar is a terrible fit for animal kingdom and many people agree upon that point. you can argue about the semantics of a deeper theme of conservation etc. but at the end of the day you are putting big blue aliens into a park who's core theme is the natural earth and the amazing life that exists within our world. to suggest that avatar is a necessity within the park or even a good thematic addition versus all the currently untouched or only slightly referenced topics based upon our globe, is not only foolish but insulting to the majestic and beautiful world we live in. people should actually go out and experience it a little more, i am of the strong belief that if they actually got out from behind the screens for a few moments and experienced these awe inspiring locals (which are what avatar is based upon) they would not be as infatuated with the idea of visiting this place. I'm sure what they produce will look nice based upon their work in new fantasyland but that still doesn't ignore the fact that it simply doesn't fit in this park. While their at it they might as well throw the new star wars expansion in there too since that is what avatar's addition is akin too..

    Most of the time I agree with the logic in yours post, but this time my opinion differs. All of this is all opinions.... yours verus his verus Disney's. It is opinions not fact. And Disney's official opinion, by way of their action taken, is that Animal Kingdom is not limited to animal of this earth, real, imagined or otherwise.

    But but taking this action, Disney's opinion will very much become fact that Animal Kingdom is not just of earth. It is fact that Disney never said "of earth" and now its fact that it will not be just of earth.

    It is still many peoples opinions that Animal Kingdom was originally intended, as by the implied stories and offerings in the first 10+ years of the park, that it was about animals only from Earth. Following that Disney has now broken ground on breaking theme. But just because many agree, that does not make the opinion fact. Facts are not decided by a majority vote. Clearly Disney see all this differently and ultimately, it is fact they get the one and only real vote on the matter.

    I choose to remain optimistic and hopeful about how they will execute your vote and bring it to reality.

  15. #60

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    toronto
    Posts
    1,846

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyNerdTom View Post
    I think Star Wars makes the most sence. There are a lot of things they can do with this. I heard once that they were considering turning the back lot quick service area into the Star Wars cantina which I think would be really cool..

    I think Avengers would be a great one too but I hear that Disney can't in WDW due to contractual reasons.


    I think an expansion on the Pixar area would be fun as well.. they could incorporate attractions from various Pixar movies instead of 1 Toy Story ride.
    pixar and starwars are the rumoured expansions to fill out the remainder of MGM with a possible rehab of the great movie ride occurring after those projects add capacity.

    regarding pixar, the ideal strategy goes a little something like this IMO:
    1) add ratatouille ride (classic dark ride) and or restaurant in the space beside midway mania
    2) rebuild the backstage area and compact its space utilizing the LMA support area to add expansion space for the monsters inc door coaster project.
    3) remove the remnants of the backlot tour to facilitate the addition of an east coast radiator springs racers and cozy cone quick service dining area.
    4) retheme the honey i shrunk the kids playground to Up! including a walkthrough of the house.
    5) move a smaller pizza planet equipped with a small arcade across the street from toy story where the meet and greets are and move them up the street more to a dedicated pixar character meet and greet area

    these additions I feel would be realistic and add 2 awesome e-tickets to the park as well as a sorely needed family friendly dark ride and nice new play area for the kids. also adds a new dining option while maintaining the classics and improving them and getting a better organized centralized meet and greet area together.

    regarding star wars land:
    1) first off it should be lucas land as the indy stunt show or a revived version of it maybe is still a great thing to have in the park. and possibly some sort of walk through experience could be added around it with interactive elements like the old well to tie it together as a mini land.
    2) 50's prime time diner stays the same but adds an american graffiti overlay to tie in with the lucas land theme
    3) a pod racers e-ticket should be a must
    4) a dedicated jedi training academy building for the kids built where the old sounds dangerous stage currently is
    5) the moseisley cantina takes the place of the backlot express for dining
    6) possibly another attraction could be added based on the new films as well.
    the pod racers and possible secondary attraction would be added in the backstage area currently occupied by costuming and cast services.

    while these would both be great additions, i think there is some further work to be done to really complete the transformation and i rank it in priority bellow:

    1) muppet land: give the muppets the credit they deserve with a new 3d show and the rumoured great muppet movie ride as a nice classic dark ride for the family. also retheme pizza planet to rizzo's diner from the movies as the quick service, and retheme mama melrose to fozzie's dinner theater experience where you see muppets perform live while you eat, similar to sonny eclipse at tomorrow land but with muppeteers instead of AA's.
    2) refurb the great movie ride. it needs a bit of work particularily on a few of the AA's and possibly some new films mixed in with the classics
    3) retheme or rework the ABC area. it doesn't fit anymore within the new direction of the park and american idol is a little tired at this point. ABC still could theoretically work but it needs to be done carefully. keep the commissary, add a small test theatre where they show off possible new programming, and change the attraction into some sort of live show where they show the audience how a tv show is made, how the process works, promote their programming with some quick videos from their actors, just a nice light fluff attraction where people can get off their feet for a bit.
    4) Fantasmic: freshen up the show with new effects.
    5) beauty and the beast stage: in the far distant future, tear down this place and open up a huge expansion pad for anything you want on sunset blvd.

    if all this was put into action MGM would be set for a long time to come and be a destination for everybody. it would gain 3-4 e tickets but more importantly it would add more stuff to do for younger families which was a major knock of the park in the past with 6+ young family friendly attractions added or significantly improved upon within the park. also makes the theme as a whole better, improves the night time entertainment, and ives better and broader dining options for guests in a park that was knocked yet again for lack of different food options. this would be the perfect direction to take.

Page 4 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
  •