A few thoughts on Avatar, will Pandora fit in at Disney’s Animal Kingdom


The Na’vi Hometree on Pandora reminds me of Disney’s Animal Kingdom’s Tree of Life. Of course, we can’t forget that Avatar is a sci-fi film too.

I’ve had a day to think about the announcement of Disney licensing James Cameron’s Avatar properties for it’s theme parks. We’re still very early in the process, but even in just the last 24 hours many interviews with key players have been published. That gives us a slightly better idea, but it’s still pretty much conjecture. Never the less, I have put down a few thoughts on the news, realizing that all this could change as more details of the partnership are revealed.

Disney did a good job keeping the Avatar partnership secret, I’d only heard a few rumors about the idea prior to the announcement but the exact names of Avatar or Cameron never explicitly surfaced, so I didn’t feel comfortable reporting it. However, many Disney fans now feel like they’ve been blindsided and they’re not happy.

One thing is clear, Bob Iger wasn’t kidding when he told investors that Disney was looking at acquiring even more characters for the Disney umbrella. Marvel Comics, Prince of Persia, and now Avatar. I’m afraid to ask what’s next. That said, the characters we think of as Disney now, were someone else’s characters before that. Winnie the Pooh and Mary Poppins are two famous examples but even Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella were drawn from other mythos. After Walt we’ve added Star Tours, and Indiana Jones to the parks, not to mention Twilight Zone and, in the Walt-era,  The African Queen.


The glow of the phosphorescent plants of Pandora will no doubt play a large role in the new land. Whether it’s an indoor space that glows all day long or some sort of night time show, I’m really looking forward to this.

There are some interesting comments from Jay Rasulo saying that if they hadn’t licensed Avatar, they would be doing something else at Disney’s Animal Kingdom. Do tell? What was that something else? Something Disney owned and created? Where you don’t have to share merchandising rights? On the other hand, there is likely some argument for not letting a competitor get these rights. Could Disney afford to let Universal build a Pandora to go with their Harry Potter scoop? It appears this deal is at least in part to prevent the risk of that happening?

Is Disney’s Animal Kingdom the right park? What about Disney’s Hollywood Studios? First lets look at what needs DAK has to fill. It definitely needs some new attractions, but DHS might win in that category as DAK does have the animal encounters. What DAK really needs is some reason for guests to stay in the park after dusk when the animals are no longer visible. This is where Avatar’s planet of Pandora will really shine.


Of course, the Na’vi weren’t the only aliens on the planet. Human researchers used avatars to meet and interact with the natives. It will be interesting to see how that storyline is integrated.

It is likely there won’t be any actual animals, as Avatar is set on an alien world. That means the fantasy theme that runs through the latest additions to DAK will continue. From Dinoland to Expedition Everest the trend has been to fill in the blank left by the absence of Beastly Kingdom. And sure, the theme of DAK is nature, but it’s still an artificial construction of nature designed to make us hyper aware of nature. Pandora fits in that mold quite nicely.

The size of the new land is projected to cost somewhere between $400 and $500 million. That’s about right as this will be a brand new land from the ground up. Unlike Universal, Disney doesn’t have to worry about people putting off their vacations between now and 2015, with three other parks and a new Fantasyland that is still rolling out in phases in 2014, there will still be a lot to see. There might be some people who postpone a few months to make sure the new land will be open before their 2016 trip. A good way to cancel out that effect would be to have a huge 45th Anniversary celebration (hint).


Cameron has said he really wants to see a flying attraction that captures the feeling of what it’s like to ride an Ikran aka Banshee.

So far the most legitimate complaint I’ve read is that the movie Avatar was rated PG13. (Disney has confronted this before as some of the Star Wars films were PG13, also the Pirates films.) That means a whole slew of kids who are visiting DAK for the day probably have not seen the movie. Now, the movie was rated PG13 for violence and it deserved that rating. However, the situations of space travel, colonization, personal identity, learning to work with nature instead of against it, etc are all G rated topics. Disney and Cameron can mediate this issue by releasing some G rated TV cartoons and a few comic books aimed at the younger set. Turns out Disney has a TV animation division, who knew!

Sequels, and additional material, have to be up to snuff. Disney’s now counting on it. If Avatar goes all Matrix 2&3 on us (or worse Star Wars 1,2,3 and the retcon that Lucas is trying to pull on his original series) then Disney has just invested in a fizzled franchise. So we’re really putting our faith in James Cameron.


Of course, if you have banshee, you have to have the famous floating Hallelujah rocks made of unobtanium.

For the people who just don’t like James Cameron, I can’t do anything for you man. Believe it or not, there is a segment of the population out there that thinks Walt Disney is evil. It’s true. My personal feelings are that Cameron has been one of the few film makers out there who has effectively tapped into modern themes to build new interesting worlds and mythologies. He’s done it the same way thousands of story tellers, including Walt Disney & George Lucas, have before him, by leveraging existing stories, plot developments, and themes to create something new. To damn Cameron for that, but not Disney and Lucas, is a bit hypocritical.

One storyline from Avatar I know Disney will avoid is how colonization has been an evil force in the world. We’re still seeing the affect of colonization play out around the world with deforestation, dictatorships installed by industrialists, and even the ongoing arab spring. Disney avoided that when building both Africa and Asia at the park, I don’t see them addressing it here.

The question that I really want the answer to is will Avatar give WDI the playground (and budget) they need to show they’re still on top of the game. The Wizarding World of Harry Potter is great, but even with the mythology created by J.K. Rowling, it wouldn’t be attracting as many guests if early word about how the detail transports you right into the books/movies hadn’t been so strong.

This is the new frontier in theme parks–who can integrate the latest technology and design for the most immersive and transportive environment. Which is, of course, the original frontier where Walt built Disneyland it was an immersive environment like no one had ever seen before. The industry had been in a bit of a slumber, but with Harry Potter, Universal had staked a claim at the top of the castle. Now it’s up to Disney to reclaim the crown.

What do I want to see from Pandora in Disney’s Animal Kingdom?

  • TIE Total Immersion Experience. Part of the movie of Avatar was the experience of being in another body. Disney’s TIE technology is perfect for this.
  • Incredible detail on the level never seen before in a theme park anywhere.
  • The Na’vi and not just on a screen somewhere, but actual Na’vi living as part of the one-world.
  • Hometree. I often felt that the Tree of Life in someway inspired the Hometree in Avatar. It would make sense if Pandoraland had a replica. It would also be cool to have a memory tree where you could ‘link’ and listen to the thoughts of the world.
  • The Halleluiah mountains made of unobtanium that seem to defy gravity and float. These have to be in an attraction somewhere.
  • Glowing stuff. Whether the whole land is build indoors and set at night or whether there is a special ceremony where the world lights up after dark, Pandoraland has to glow. Heck set up face painting stations and paint Na’vi patterns on guest’s arms and faces, so everyone gets in on the fun.

Even Disney admits they’re still in the blue-sky phase as far as project development. But here’s some speculation anyway:

  • Using the old Body Wars cars from EPCOT for a Star Tours like experience. Would be a cheap way of getting in an extra ride for the land. Yes, its derivative and it’s been done, but more capacity is more capacity.
  • Expect a roller-coaster type attraction, but not a traditional coaster. Something with the flying Ikran.
  • Some sort of Lucky the Dinosaur encounter with Pandora lifeforms.

The final piece of the puzzle is where to build the new land. Will it be on the plot of land that was once intended to hold Beastly Kingdom or back on the parcel that had been intended for Australia. My feeling is that it will go in the back of the park where Australia had been intended. We’ve already heard that the Bird show will be going away and that it will be come the entrance to the new land. This will also add a walking path to Rafiki’s Planet Watch allowing them to close the train and move Festival Of The Lion King to Africa where it belongs. Maybe another show will go into Camp MinnieMickey or they’ll figure out something else to do with that area, like, you know, a ride or two.

As I said, pretty much anything anyone says is conjecture at this point. But hey, I love to dream about this stuff. If you do as well, I’d love to hear your ideas about what a dream version of a new land based on Avatar would look like at Disney’s Animal Kingdom.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
This entry was posted in Film, Walt Disney World and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to A few thoughts on Avatar, will Pandora fit in at Disney’s Animal Kingdom

  1. Sakina says:

    I was talking about where it’s placement would be with my sister earlier today.

    The back of the park between Asia and Africa seem like a good place like you said. Although where the train runs, there are all those those animal facilities you see on the way to Planet Watch.

    I also suggested where Camp Minnie-Mickey is because seriously there Festival of the Lion King is the only reason there is foot traffic in that area. The idea of relocating that show SEEMS to me like the most logical idea. I know there might be a lot of logistics in moving the show itself since that building is built to specifically fit the floats and so on, but even though Animal Kingdom has the largest LAND AREA of all the parks, the layout of attractions makes in limited in space.

  2. Joseph Kastner says:

    Here’s my problems with it …

    Disney is betting the farm on something outside their company that has yet to be fully realized. People like to say, “Well, Star Wars and Indiana Jones were outside Disney and they worked great in the parks!” Problem – they were ALREADY established franchises; Avatar is not. “But it made $2 billion dollars worldwide!” With a HUGE “but” – high prices for tickets for the 3-D or IMAX experiences, which accounted for the majority of the film’s grosses. Additionally, 76 percent of the film’s grosses came from overseas. I am not saying the film wasn’t successful, but there are issues. That first film, however, could be a total fluke for all we know. What Indy and Star Wars also had going for them was significant merchandising sales; again, Avatar doesn’t. Another thing Indy and Star Wars had going for them were emotional attachment – characters and stories we identified with and felt connected to; once more, Avatar does not have that. Honestly, did the average movie goer coming out with the names of characters planted in their heads. I know people who saw it and thought it was okay, but were hard pressed after just seeing it to identify any characters. “ummm, the tough latina chick … ummm the xenophobic military guy.” The fact that prior to the introduction of the “Ten Best Picture Nominations”, Avatar was the only Best Picture nominee to have no nominations in either acting or writing categories – that says a lot.

    • I’m with you on this. It seems a bit out of place to me. For me, the movie was entertaining and visually stunning, but it didn’t feel fresh. Certainly not a “classic” like other Disney components I think of. I personally love when Disney does original works – including in theme parks. However, Animal Kingdom certainly does need something…I’m just not sure this is it.

    • Truecoat says:

      Cameron has a well established track record and there is no way this movie was a fluke. To say audiences weren’t emotionally attached is being misinformed. Some people ended up with Avatar syndrome. Here is a quote from an article about it.

      The movie caused depression among people; young or old, nonetheless. Minute by minute, internet forums record floods of depressed and even suicidal users. Why? Because they can’t visit the fictional planet of Pandora.

      Well, now everyone will be able to and it should do well for Disney with 2 more movies coming out. Regardless of whether the movie’s story has been told many times before, it was the way it was told that connected with audiences. You don’t make that kind of money just being a “3-d” movie or omeone would have beat it by now.

      Also, the academy is hard pressed to give acting nominations to computer generated characters.

  3. Connor says:

    Regarding the fitting in at Animal Kingdom issue; go and listen to the soundtrack of Avatar. I can totally picture that music transitioning from the “normal” DAK BGM.

  4. Pingback: The Disney Blog

  5. Kris says:

    Bottom line here is that disney can win! If universal got this people would be whistling Dixie! people have wanted a big project for a long time, and when they get it it’s not good enough! Some say it is to over the top for kids, but hat about teens? Fantasy land will be opening so theres the kids land, and avatar will be for the big boys! It is so fascinating to me how Disney can never find a happy median with the people. either it’s to childish or to over the top for kids. Disney is about all ages enjoying things so I think we need to cut them a break, and as for a surprise who doesn’t like that? I thought it was cool that it was just random can’t see why people would seem offended or upset? strange world we live.

  6. Adam Britten says:

    To the comment that Avatar is PG13…so is Pirates and yet people bring their little kids on that ride all the time. Personally, I would LOVE if Disney didn’t “dumb Avatar down” so that it’s kid appropriate. I would love to see an intense flying thrill ride that was made for adults as part of this expansion.

    • Joseph Kastner says:

      The ride came first though. I do agree, however. The PG-13 rating does not bother me in the least.

  7. Pingback: Alltop Disney

  8. Jeremy says:

    I don’t get the, “Walt would disapprove” or “PG13″ complaints. Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Pirates were all PG13 films representing a ride or show inside a Disney Park.

    My issue is this is a entire land dedicated to a outside franchise. One that has no history in the Disney Parks. We don’t know how anyone will react to even a ride. Let alone a whole land built around one property. Cars Land is in a similar boat in my opinion. For a short term gain, I don’t think Disney is looking at the long term effects of having a whole Land dedicated to one movie. Thirty years from now, if Avatar has not become the franchise Disney and Fox were hoping for through this venture, chances are Disney will be left with a huge hole to fill, and replacing or changing a entire Land is a whole lot more expensive then changing or replacing a single ride. If you ask me that’s too big a risk. Even one for the masterful creators over at WDI.

    No I don’t like Avatar. No I don’t wish to see it in the parks. But I can accept a ride within the realms of a land built and designed by Imagineering. I just can’t accept a whole AvatarLand.

    • Joseph Kastner says:

      Actually, all but one of the Star Wars films (Episode III – Revenge of the Sith) were rated PG, not PG-13. As for Indiana Jones, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Temple of Doom were rated PG; Last Crusade and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull were PG-13.

      • Katie says:

        Yes, but the PG-13 rating was created over the uproar that Temple of Doom caused. Plucking a beating heart out of someone’s chest? Yeah, I don’t think kids should see that. So while it may be technically rated PG, that is only because the rating didn’t exist. (You could argue Raiders should have been PG-13 too… those melting faces were scary!!)

  9. John Tremain says:

    I’m not the hugest fan of Avatar the movie but I see this as an enourmous WIN for those of us who felt like we were never going to get a beastly kingdom of any kind…People seem to be forgetting there are creatures galore in Avatar- everything from dragon like creatures to strange equine and I for one would love to see these as animatronic figures -imagine the flora and immersive environmets! The movie has Disney theme park written all over it! No beastly kingdom–Hey as long as they dont cost cut – I think this has the potential to be super cool!

  10. Chaos Mandy says:

    I feel meh about this news. I have yet to see Avatar (wanted to, but never did for some reason) so it might work okay. But I would much, much rather bring back the Beastly Kingdom idea.

    It just feels stale because it’s been several years since Avatar came out and there really isn’t a franchise like Star Wars or Indiana Jones – it’s just that one movie. I’d rather see a whole Star Wars land – there is much more to work with.

  11. NT3 says:

    I agree a lot with Jeremy here.

    Licensing Avatar is a great idea. But like a lot of people have said, nobody knows what we’re dealing with yet. It’s a film that got mediocre reviews, made a ton of money because of the overseas market and it’s ticket prices, and was mostly memorable for it’s outstanding visuals. The next 2 sequels might be amazing and spawn a cultural phenomenon…or, like you said John, they could be another Matrix 2 & 3.

    My problem is, like Jeremy said, that Disney is building a whole LAND around this. And a land that, to be done correctly, needs to be huge and expensive. If the future films are not successful and nobody remembers Avatar in 15 years then what are you left with?

    I would be fine with Disney building an awesome Harry Potter-esque dark ride based on Avatar. The story is already there. You go into the military facility, become an avatar yourself, and encounter all of this stuff in the most amazing 3D motion simulator you’ve ever been on.

    I’m even fine with putting it into Animal Kingdom and building some kind of small but immersive aftershow involving all of the elements you mentioned: real living Na’vi, cool stuff that glows, etc. But to build an ENTIRE LAND with this stuff? Crazy!

    Think of it this way. How many places are there left in current Disney parks to build a new land? Probably just wherever in Animal Kingdom they build this. So until Disney builds another new park or decides to raze an existing land to build something new (probably decades away) this is the last new land to be built at Walt Disney World. Think of every blue sky idea you have for Walt Disney World and then realize that in the next 20-30 years, possibly the rest of your lifetime, you’re not going to see it get built because Disney decided to build Avatar instead. All based on a movie franchise that hasn’t even been fully filmed yet…let alone released and proven a success.

    This is my problem with Avatarland.

  12. Kevin Crossman says:

    I don’t understand why this would go behind Asia. Wouldn’t the loud noises of this land operating at night be bothering the animals that are housed nearby? Camp Minnie-Mickey seems like the obvious and best choice for this new land.
    1 – Entire land was supposed to be temporary and only houses a single attraction
    2 – Placing Pandora here would put it on the exact opposite part of the park from Everest, creating a very nice spacing with the E-tickets at the Park (Kilmanjaro, Dinosaur)
    3 – Lion King show structure could be placed in Africa where it is thematically proper

    Maybe I’m just bummed because I think Flights of Wonder is such a great show and I don’t want ANYTHING to mess up the theming of Asia, which I think is themed so well.

    • Jeff says:

      Amen Kevin.
      Camp Minnie-Mickey is the obvious location choice.
      I’m stunned at the number of people who think otherwise.
      Time will tell, but I’m almost positive Disney will agree.

  13. Todd says:

    I just don’t see how there is room in the Camp Mickey area. I’m sure they could squeeze something in there but it seems they would need more room. I guess they could get rid of the body of water and go West and North (thru the buildings.

    There is the large plot of land in the back that seems like it would just make more sense.
    Not sure how they would handle a night time show that wouldn’t bother the animals.

    Time will tell.

  14. Mary Ellen says:

    I have a hard time seeing AKL being the right home for even an attraction (not to mention a land!) based on a complete fantasy concept. frankly, the appeal to me of AKL is that it more than any other park, is about REALITY – animals, science, biodiversity. the most far fetched sci-fi aspect is the dinosaur land and the Dinosaur! ride.

    I will be sad to see the animals disrupted (and they will be – do you think its a coincidence that the noisiest rides like Everest and Primeval Whirl are so far from the real animals?) and sad to see this huge chunk of fiction mixed in with Animal Kingdom.

    DHS seems a much better fit – all about special effects, out of this world sort of theming in that park. I’ve not seen the movie but it does appear that the special effects (star wars), graphic animation (Pixar) and far-from-reality theming of the movie is much better fit for this park.

  15. wesley69 says:

    With the expansion of Fantasyland in the Magic Kingdom, expansion in the Animal Kingdom makes sense. This is a total answer to Harry Potter as long as the project is done correctly and the Imagineers are allowed to run with the ball the way they did in DisneySea, Tokyo.

    The ideas behind Avator fit perfectly within Animal Kingdom. While, I would have liked to have seen the Disney version of the Beastly Kingdom, this will work. The original Beastly Kingdom was based on mythological creatures -the dragon – the unicorn – various Greek mythological creatures. They come from stories of the past. We, today, are creating our own stories, our own imagined worlds. The world of Pandora is a new myth, just as the Alien in the Alien movie is.

    I would situate it in the space behind the Rainforest Cafe and up to and including the Lion King Show that should be relocated in Africa. Australia and possibly South America needs to be near Rafaki’s Planet Watch, giving the train a real purpose. I would also expand the Kali River Rapids Ride.

    Africa, from the Tucker House down could be shut down at 5 or 6, as would Rafaki’s Planet Watch, but the non-animal rides, Everest, Kali, Dinoland, Discovery Island would stay open, in addition to Pandora. I would use the soar’in technology for a flight an Ikran aka Banshee around Pandora or even something similar to that used in Harry Potter. Another ride, possibly by boat, could be through the forests of Pandora at night time which would circle the Tree of Souls. Another could be a live show near the Na’vi Hometree, where the Na’vi could instruct us in their culture and respect for all life. Or as suggested, an immersion process by which we, the visitor, are turned into Na’vi and see through their eyes, doing all sorts of things as we run through the trees, fall from the sky, drop onto a Toruk.

    This could definitely make the Animal Kingdom a stronger leg within Walt Disney World. Then its time to get working on Epcot and Hollywood Studios.

  16. jeffery says:

    First off, my parents & I LOVED AVATAR! We thought it was a wonderful film and we definitely believe that J.Cameron will make the 2nd & 3rd films great. We were pretty stoked about this news considering that we loved this film and we love going to the Disney parks. Winning! OK, so here’s a few thoughts I had:

    1. Having this land in the back of the park between Africa & Asia would appear to be the most logical option because I got a feeling that this land is going to be massive.
    2. I definitely hope to see at least 2 big thrill rides, 1 smaller, family-friendly attraction, and at least 1 state-of-the-art interactive attraction of some sorts.
    3. I definitely want to see the Na’vi walking around and interacting with guests. That would be funny if 1 of them was wearing a Mickey Ears hat. LOL. (:
    4. I hope to see life-size Audio-Animatronics of some of the other Pandora creatures.
    5. Yes, there should definitely be some nighttime entertainment in this area of the park. However, I’ve been to 1 Extra Magic Hours night @ DAK back in ’08 and the lighting in the park was not great. That’s something they’ll have to look at as well as making sure that NO animals escape and endanger guests during the night.
    6. As long as Festival Of The Lion King stays @ DAK, I’d have no problem with them moving the show to the Africa part of the park. If they do that, they’ll have to put something new to replace the gaping hole that it would leave behind at Camp Minnie-Mickey
    7. Btw, does anyone know where I can find concept drawings for what this “Beastly Kingdom” was supposed to look like? Thanks
    8. Overall, I’m definitely excited for AVATAR to come to Disney’s Animal Kingdom & for the expansion of Fantasyland in Magic Kingdom. I still haven’t seen the new Star Tours at DIsney’s Hollywood Studios yet, so I’ll definitely be looking forward to that when my parents & I go on our Disney World/Disney Cruise Line trip next December.
    Next up for WDW should be at least 1 big new thing @ DHS & at least 2 new attractions @ EPCOT.

  17. Pingback: Erin Foster

  18. Andrew says:

    I think it is a great idea. My first reason is that this hopefully isn’t a land based on AVATAR. It should be a land based on Pandora. These aren’t the same thing. Even though the story was mediocre that doesn’t detract from the beauty of Pandora. I know for certain (even before this announcement) that I would see AVATAR 2&3. Why? Well because I loved the mythical land and want to experience more of it.

    Secondly, who cares if 75% of the revenue was made from overseas? Thats probably one reason why WDW was chosen. Does anyone know the overseas tourist percentage for the resort? I don’t but I’m willing to bet that it is a considerable amount. I come from the UK and will definitely visit Pandora as I did WWoHP.

    My third reason is that this land is based on mythical creatures. Think of it as BK 2.0 as many other journalists are dubbing it. From the revenue, AVATAR clearly has a fanbase who will be wanting to see their favourite mythical characters up close.

  19. Doug says:

    We did not see AVATAR in the theater. We rented it on DVD and never watched the entire film. It was visually stunning but lacked an engaging plot. BUT, I am excited about this addition to Walt Disney World.

    No doubt the land will be stunning and immersive. It probably wont be my favorite Walt Disney attraction, but it will vastly expand the Disney fan base just as MARVEL did and Pixar has. Had Disney created a land on a current Disney intellectual property, they would receive repeat business, but AVATAR will expand the fan universe to include people who wouldn’t have step foot in a Disney theme park. A healthy growing income flow will ensure a sound financial future for a place I love to visit. That’s why AVATAR excites me.

  20. Matt says:

    @NT3

    Just to let you know, Avatar did not receive “mediocre” reviews. It received an 83% rating on RottenTomatoes by its critics, a 95% rating by it’s Top Critics, and a 93% by audience (It’s audience made up 600,000+ ratings)

    Not only is it the highest grossing film of all time it is the best selling DVD and Blue-ray of all time.

    I think regardless of how the next two films do, if done right this land will be a success. Even if these films absolutely bomb (which I doubt) the attractions Disney does will still be successful. And honestly, I think that they only way to do Avatar right is to create an entire land. One attraction would not do it justice.

    • Joseph Kastner says:

      Given the pedigree and how this was touted as “the greatest movie of all time” and Oscar contender, those are mediocre reviews. Metacritic, which is usually more reliable, has it at 83 out of 100. You also have to examine the review themselves. I will guarantee you that 90% of those positive reviews placed visuals and the environmental message ahead of actual story and character development.

  21. Brian says:

    This is a ‘who cares’ property. The movie came and went both in theaters and audiences minds. Yes it was financially successful, but the majority of movie goers have long forgotten this movie, simply look at the lack of anything Avitar on the market and even the rapid drop of dvd/blueray sales when released. There is nothing memorable, no classic quotes, and no resonating characters. The thought of over-sized glue humanoid characters looming over us humans does not sound magical, but terrifying.

    Regarding Disney’s “successful” take on the attractions, the same was said for The Little Mermaid which after months of being open is walk on and this is not because of the hourly capacity, look at the extensive length of queue, it’s because the ride is mediocre. Another 3-D simulator attraction, with smells, water/mist squirts, wind burst, we’ve seen it all before, only the film changes. With the saturation of 3-D force upon the local theaters, the uniqueness is gone, yet the admission price for AK and the other parks will surely push the $100 mark when open, that’s a whole lot of cash for a property most people don’t care about.

    It is pointless to state a negative about this as those who see Disney as the market leader and refuse to look at content will debate the decision do move forward with this idea and the “brilliance” imagineering will create. Reality is not addressed.

    Regarding the family issue, how are the overtly voluptuous female Navi in tattered bikinis and ripped male Navi in skimpy loin cloths going to be made appropriate for my son and daughter? I personally can’t wait to take my son and have his picture taken with a general who tells my son to “Shut his pie hole,” and then grimaces at the camera for a photo op. Now that’s Disney magic at it’s best.

  22. Pingback: The Disney Blog

  23. Pingback: Rommel

  24. Leandro says:

    The main difference between WWoHP and the new Avatar land is about the fans of each franchise:

    -Harry Potters fans are more likely to go to Universal ONLY to see the the land. However, I guess that non-fans don’t have a huge incentive to visit the park BECAUSE of the WWoHP.

    -On the other hand, there aren’t huge legions of Avatar fans. But, everyone that would go to Disney would visit the new land, expecting amazing and surreal stuff, just like was the movie experience.

    Conclusion: I don’t expect people going to WDW ONLY to see Avatar, but once there, Animal Kingdom will be a “must-go” park. And that’s exactly what Disney wants to! More people spending more time on the whole resort! WOuldn’t be great for the company to have everyone that goes to Magic Kingdom on the others parks as well?

  25. Pingback: The Disney Blog

  26. Pingback: Rommel

  27. Amphigorey says:

    I might be more inclined to like this if “Avatar” hadn’t been “Dances with Aliens.” I’m tired of the White Guy Saves the Natives trope.

  28. Travis says:

    I think Avatar land is a waste of time. The movie was huge and now people dont even know what it was. And they have it on DVD. I think they should make a Indiana Jones or a Star Wars land.

Comments are closed.