Avatar-land coming to DAK-just hit the Orlando Sentinel

[Goofypop]

As I stated before....this is a discussion forum where everyone is entitled to their opinion, provided they follow Dis guidelines.

If hearing opinions different than yours annoys you, this might prove more and more difficult.

The Dis and the Dis Unplugged podcast are based on the sharing those opinions whether they be good, bad or indifferent. If you have ever listened to the podcast, I'm sure you are aware that we often state what we think Disney is doing well and not so well.

My hope is that we can continue to share our opinions on this and other topics.

As you can see.....there is not 100% agreement on this topic and that has made for some lively discussion.

I never said that he should agree with me.

 

[OrangeCat04]

This is wonderful news. I love Avatar and the movie has amazing and stunning visuals. Also, the environmental message behind the movie is awesome. Really fits in with the ideas that Animal Kingdom promotes, living in harmony with our world. Well done Disney!

 

[WaltD4Me]

That's really interesting because when we rode it, I would have sworn it was moving. That's why I wondered what all the fuss was about. I'll have to pay extra close attention the next time we go (not until next summer unfortunately).

If you have seen Yeti when he is fully functional, you can definitely tell the difference between that and the strobe light effect. He does look like he is moving with the strobe lights, but when he really moves you think he going to grab you right out of your seat.

 

[Goofypop]

If you have seen Yeti when he is fully functional, you can definitely tell the difference between that and the strobe light effect. He does look like he is moving with the strobe lights, but when he really moves you think he going to grab you right out of your seat.

We went to EE for the first time in October of 2007 and he was static then as well. Apparently Disney id planning on giving the Yeti some movement but he will never be back to the full "swing" of things. Maybe think of it like a hip replacement. He's still the Yeti but in a diminished capacity. LOL


http://thedisneyblog.com/2010/08/01/expedition-everests-yeti-troubles-explored/

 

[snowy76]

Universal performed a coup in getting Harry Potter. It is a unique property with a fan base akin to Disney's. This is not at all the case with Avatar.

Lord of the Rings or Narnia would have been a better fit for Disney (though not necessarily at AK). Those stories have endured for decades. Disney messed up with Narnia big time, though.

 

[KittyHellstrom]

I just thought this was amusing in light of the fact that your signature picture includes Stitch AND a Star Trek t-shirt.

And now, back to the topic at hand.

I know right? I am actually not a fan of Stitch or Star Trek, but Kitty likes them

 

[jeanigor]

No, actually I like to pretend I am an Imagineer! Actually Animal Kingdom is my 2nd favorite park and I love most of what Disney does. I my favorite thing about the park is the trails but the rides are pretty scarce and it needs to be a full day park.

I dont think Avatar is a good fit. Meh. It's a pretty violent movie and isn't very Magical. That's what makes it a better fit at Universal.

I think those are some awesome ideas!

Lord of the Rings or Narnia would have been a better fit for Disney (though not necessarily at AK). Those stories have endured for decades. Disney messed up with Narnia big time, though.

Narnia was a big blunder to lose/sell.

 

[ADP]

Just saw an interview with James Cameron where he revealed a few details about Avatarland at DAK.

Basically, the goal of the land is to put you in Pandora. The land will occupy 12 acres with multiple attractions and offer a complete experience. He goes on to mention this maybe a 1/2 day experience.

12 acres seems large...The only 2 areas I could see for a 12 acre expansion would be removing Camp Minnine Mickey and taking up the rest of the open space behind it, or the area cleared out behind Asia, however that spot sits close to the Kilamanjaro Safaris attraction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=086tOrvi9UE

 

[jcb]

Aaron is probably right but I can't help but observe (wishful thinking) that Dinoland is roughly 12 acres rolleyes1):

 

[WaltD4Me]

Aaron is probably right but I can't help but observe (wishful thinking) that Dinoland is roughly 12 acres rolleyes1):

Interesting. Looks like the perfect size and shape for Avatarland to me.

I read an interesting blog yesterday about Avatarland, he talked about James Cameron being a bit of a control freak and maybe not being so easy to work with. I had heard that before, I hope Joe Rhode is ready for him.

 

[ADP]

If they remove CMM that's fine, but mess around with my Festival of the Lion King and look out.... I hope they intend on moving it to Africa where it belongs.

 

[jcb]

Interesting. Looks like the perfect size and shape for Avatarland to me.

I read an interesting blog yesterday about Avatarland, he talked about James Cameron being a bit of a control freak and maybe not being so easy to work with. I had heard that before, I hope Joe Rhode is ready for him.

From what I have heard about working with Disney, it sounds like it is a match made in heaven. I would be surprised if Cameron could be any more of a control freak than J.K.

 

[jcemom]

I would think they'd put it where Camp MM is. The only attraction in that entire area is Lion King. That could be relocated to another land (Africa would make sense). If they took out Dinoland, they'd be removing 3 rides, a playground, and a show. What's the point of putting in a new land with new attractions, to keep people in the park longer, if you're going to remove an equal number of attractions? That wouldn't be an expansion of the park, just an update.

 

[WaltD4Me]

From what I have heard about working with Disney, it sounds like it is a match made in heaven. I would be surprised if Cameron could be any more of a control freak than J.K.

True, but rumor was one of the reasons Disney didn't get HP was because they didn't want to let JK have total control. Universal agreed and wound up with tiny shops. I think JK and Cameron are about the same, it's said he held up shooting on Titantic for 3 days obsessing about the pattern on the china plates they used.

 

[THE3jsmom]

i think it is stupid. Never watched the movie, have no desire to watch the movie and have never met anyone that is such a big fan of the movie that this would be exciting.

this!!!!!

 

[jcb]

True, but rumor was one of the reasons Disney didn't get HP was because they didn't want to let JK have total control. Universal agreed and wound up with tiny shops. I think JK and Cameron are about the same, it's said he held up shooting on Titantic for 3 days obsessing about the pattern on the china plates they used.

3 days obsessing about plate patterns. Sounds like a family shopping experience to me.

 

[disneysteve]

Never watched the movie, have no desire to watch the movie and have never met anyone that is such a big fan of the movie

Same here, however, that wouldn't stop me from riding the rides. When we went to Universal last year, we rode rides based on movies I had never seen. Didn't stop me from enjoying the rides.

 

[fromscratchmom]

Just saw an interview with James Cameron where he revealed a few details about Avatarland at DAK.

Basically, the goal of the land is to put you in Pandora. The land will occupy 12 acres with multiple attractions and offer a complete experience. He goes on to mention this maybe a 1/2 day experience.

12 acres seems large...The only 2 areas I could see for a 12 acre expansion would be removing Camp Minnine Mickey and taking up the rest of the open space behind it, or the area cleared out behind Asia, however that spot sits close to the Kilamanjaro Safaris attraction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=086tOrvi9UE

Nice to see the interview. I'm sure hoping it is an expansion --outside of what is now considered to be part of the park-- rather than a replacement for what is there already. so much scope for imagination, as my favorite L.M.Montgomery character might have said.

 

[jrtoastyman]

Lots of back and forth on this, definitely interesting. I did have a thought that I didn't see raised elsewhere, though, on why this is a really odd move, thought I'd share and see if anyone had any feedback.

Avatar was an absolutely eye-popping movie, and it's not too difficult to imagine it being translated into a theme park, but as others have pointed out, it was the visuals, not the story, that drove people to the theaters. Part of the reason, I think, is that Avatar was the first 3D movie that actually offered the sort of immersive 3d experience that you got at -- wait for it -- places like Disneyworld. For eons, "good" 3D was only available at theme parks (with Disney leading the way IMO) and if you went to a 3D movie elsewhere, it meant you were going to see a movie that incorporated some choppy 3D effects from time to time.

With that in mind, there is certainly some irony in Disney welcoming with open arms a franchise that ushered in an era where great, immersive 3D could be found at any major movie theater anywhere in the country. I really wonder how some of Disney's 3D shows will stand up now that you can get quality 3D so easily -- sure, they have other interactive elements, too, but the "wow" factor of the 3D itself is going to slide away as more and more "regular" movies are made in 3D using technology that matches or exceeds what Disney has been using for years. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, I guess?

Now for a less original, but still related, thought: I'm concerned that Disney is basically all-in on this with no guarantee that the 2nd and 3rd movies are going to be good enough to create the sort of franchise that you can build a whole theme park land around. Avatar was visually groundbreaking, but by the time 2 and 3 come around, it will be commonplace to see great visuals like that. If they don't similarly push the envelope from a technological standpoint -- and there's little incentive for Cameron to do so, frankly, because he's going to make a mint either way -- then it has to rely upon story, and that's somewhere that Avatar kinda fell short. Not that the story was bad, it just wasn't particularly original, and it was fairly predictable.

I'm definitely rooting for Disney here, and it looks like they intend to sink enough money into it to do it the right way. Moreover, Avatar does lend itself to some pretty awesome ride experiences and could provide a vehicle for Disney to do something along the lines of what Universal did with HPatFJ, which is the single most impressive thrill ride I've ever been on. With those things in mind, I'm excited about this. It does still seem odd, though.

 

[fromscratchmom]

Lots of back and forth on this, definitely interesting. I did have a thought that I didn't see raised elsewhere, though, on why this is a really odd move, thought I'd share and see if anyone had any feedback.

Avatar was an absolutely eye-popping movie, and it's not too difficult to imagine it being translated into a theme park, but as others have pointed out, it was the visuals, not the story, that drove people to the theaters. Part of the reason, I think, is that Avatar was the first 3D movie that actually offered the sort of immersive 3d experience that you got at -- wait for it -- places like Disneyworld. For eons, "good" 3D was only available at theme parks (with Disney leading the way IMO) and if you went to a 3D movie elsewhere, it meant you were going to see a movie that incorporated some choppy 3D effects from time to time.

With that in mind, there is certainly some irony in Disney welcoming with open arms a franchise that ushered in an era where great, immersive 3D could be found at any major movie theater anywhere in the country. I really wonder how some of Disney's 3D shows will stand up now that you can get quality 3D so easily -- sure, they have other interactive elements, too, but the "wow" factor of the 3D itself is going to slide away as more and more "regular" movies are made in 3D using technology that matches or exceeds what Disney has been using for years. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, I guess?

Now for a less original, but still related, thought: I'm concerned that Disney is basically all-in on this with no guarantee that the 2nd and 3rd movies are going to be good enough to create the sort of franchise that you can build a whole theme park land around. Avatar was visually groundbreaking, but by the time 2 and 3 come around, it will be commonplace to see great visuals like that. If they don't similarly push the envelope from a technological standpoint -- and there's little incentive for Cameron to do so, frankly, because he's going to make a mint either way -- then it has to rely upon story, and that's somewhere that Avatar kinda fell short. Not that the story was bad, it just wasn't particularly original, and it was fairly predictable.

I'm definitely rooting for Disney here, and it looks like they intend to sink enough money into it to do it the right way. Moreover, Avatar does lend itself to some pretty awesome ride experiences and could provide a vehicle for Disney to do something along the lines of what Universal did with HPatFJ, which is the single most impressive thrill ride I've ever been on. With those things in mind, I'm excited about this. It does still seem odd, though.

hehe. interesting twist. I for one will never see theater 3D as being a useful substitute for actual three dimensional experiences that are not stimulated on a screen. I dislike "3D technology" still and take the glasses off at times during the shows in order to avoid getting a migraine.