Avatarland at Animal Kingdom...Why?

My six year old got Star Wars on blueray for Christmas along with a ton of costumes, so I've been watching the movies with him and that's when I began questioning Disney's decision. Will Avatarland be beautiful? I'm sure it will, but it certainly doesn't have the merchandising, pop-culture stay power that Star Wars or Harry Potter has.

I'm actually surprised Lucas hasn't demanded that Disney do more with his baby.

Why bother? We'll all buy the movies again Alienray in a few years, when he's "improved" them so much that they're not the same movies.

I'm not sure why people always want Animal Kingdom to be something more.

It's not so much that *I* want it to be more. I think it is great, and appreciate the zoo-like bits of it probably more than the average guest.

But, I'm pretty sure that Team Disney Orlando wants it to be more. Most of the year, AK has the shortest hours of any of the parks, and not just because it is dark; busy winter weeks see it open a good hour or two past the end of civil twilight. (And, if you get a chance to visit the park after dark, do so. The lighting package there is really quite stunning!) For a good chunk of the year, AK closes as early as 5PM, essentially making it a "two meal" park.

There are pretty much only two ways to fix that. One: come up with an evening spectacular that keeps people from streaming out of the gates after the afternoon parade. Two: give people another reason why they have to be there. And, I'm not sure "one" works without "two" anyway, given the current lineup.

(Edited to add: surprisingly, over President's Week, AK actually has slightly longer operating hours than Studios.)

Animal Kingdom has short hours because it has animals.

Then perhaps it is time that we ask more of the monkeys...

Can't they work in shifts or do the union rules not allow that?

Jeff said:
We've all had time to sleep on it. I agree with the sentiment that Avatar offers no long-standing cultural influence at all.

I agree completely. Avatar was a great movie in 3-D IMAX though, if you saw it anything other than 3-D I beleive it would suck. I don't own it nor do I want to, and i'm not plunking down all that change for the 3-D T.V. fad just to watch it.

Animal Kingdom has short hours because it has animals.

Except that...

not just because it is dark; busy winter weeks see it open a good hour or two past the end of civil twilight.

And, that's not an inconvenience to the animals. My understanding is that they are generally taken backstage after sundown.

In every other theme park in existence, hours are dictated by demand. I doubt that AK is is the one and only exception.

So if the animals are off exhibit, that leaves half of a park. I've walked through the Asia part near the end of the day with most of the animals no longer visible, and I don't recall that the safari runs very late either. I'm just making the point that the park has shorter hours for the same reason any zoo does.

So why doesn't Busch gardens close early? They have animals in Tampa. AK isn't a zoo.

So if the animals are off exhibit, that leaves half of a park.

And that's the problem. The place needs to be viable after dark if it is to become a three meal park for 4-6 months out of the year. And, I am willing to bet large numbers of Mickeybars that TDO wants it to be a three meal park. Otherwise, that huge investment in a new gate isn't all that great in ROI terms...

I believe there is some over-analysis going on here. If Disney does it right, the movie will not matter. I have never seen a Potter movie...but the ride and land are so damn cool, it really does not matter. That is what makes it successful. You do not have to like or even care about the movie(s) to appreciate the theme park experience. If Potter was done cheap and crappy it would have failed...regardless of how successful the movie/franchise was.

The fact Waterworld was not a good/successful movie does not change the fact the Waterworld show in Hollywood has had a successful run. The show is well done and exciting.

Avatar will succeed or fail based upon what quality it presents as a theme park attraction. The movie behind the attraction is almost irrelevant.

Busch Tampa is theme park with animals. AK is a zoo with rides.

I don't know that AK "needs" to be open longer. The gate is still the same price as the other parks, with fewer operating hours. Heck, they didn't even open with a real sit-down restaurant. (Yak & Yeti opened late 2007.) I suspect the financials are very different for that gate, and I don't believe for a second that they aren't getting the ROI they'd like.

Aamilj said:
If Potter was done cheap and crappy it would have failed...regardless of how successful the movie/franchise was.

Yeah, but the reason it succeeds on an order of magnitude rarely seen in theme parks is not *just* because it's really well done. It succeeds because it's really well done *and* based on an extremely popular franchise that was engrossing and immersive on a global scale, to all imaginable age groups, as a friggen' book. That's why the Wizarding World is able to draw people from Europe/Asia/everywhere, not *just* because it's well done.

An Avatar attraction, no matter how well done, will never have the drawing power of the Wizarding World because Avatar isn't a comparable product. All it has going for it is visual beauty, and if that (and cool ride or three) were enough to be a global draw, why are people visiting Potterland in Orlando instead of DisneySea in Tokyo? The world has no emotional investment in Avatar, and no theme park ride will change that.

I'm not saying it won't be a success or a cool attraction - I just think it's idiotic to expect it to perform / attract crowds on the level of the Wizarding World, no matter how well done the final product is.

Disney World already draws people from Europe/Asia/everywhere. Universal needed a grand slam like Potterland a lot more than Disney needs one.

In the end, I will trust the folks at Disney to know what they are doing (how many details do we even have at this point in terms of what Avatarland will be like?) more so than I do the folks in this thread (no offense).

Are we even that sure that this was designed in response to Potter World, whether to compete or to mooch or even to synthesize?

That's what I've been thinking too, Andy. I thought that the Fantasyland revamp was in response to the Wizarding World park. I think that Avatarland is in response to Disney planning, but not adding, a new land yet. This is a replacement for the old Beastly Kingdom idea, unfortunately.

Were they announced at the same time? I have a distinct feeling they were and that's why Avatar is being held under a microscope. Fantasyland is a much bigger deal.

Busch Tampa is theme park with animals. AK is a zoo with rides.

Disney did a marketing campain about AK not being a zoo, so Disney would beg to differ.

and if that (and cool ride or three) were enough to be a global draw, why are people visiting Potterland in Orlando instead of DisneySea in Tokyo?

I don't know how accurate these figures are (damn Wikipedia is down), but DisneySea appears to be the 4th highest attended park in the world as of 2010. they are apparently able to attract a large crowd without successful movie themes. I'd suggest that a big reason for their popularity is that they have done an outstanding job at building attractions people like.

I'm not arguing that Harry Potter is not a world phenomenon. It is. My only contention is that if a simple well done Waterworld show can succeed in Holywood, and DisneySea can succeed in Japan, etc...then the old fashioned approach of building ground breaking attractions with excellent theming could easily prove successful.

Ditto to what others are saying about whether this is even an answer to Harry Potter. It seems we are tearing the thing down before we know what it is. Disney may not need one phenomenon to compete with Potter. Fantasyland, Avatar, etc are just expansions in their own right. Why does it HAVE to be like Potter? Has Disney claimed it was?

Disney has a history of short term failures (CA Adventure, MGM, etc)...but they knock it out of the park eventually. I'd argue that if done correctly, there is a chance that Avatar the theme park land will have a much more lasting effect on the culture than Avatar the movie. Nobody today would know who Dumbo was without the ride...same for Peter Pan and others. Sometimes the magic of Disney Park's fuels the entertainiment (Pirates of the Caribean) division. Their attractions stand on their own merit.

This has nothing to do with me liking a movie. Cartoon blue men have as much appeal to me as wizzards on brooms...which is to say NONE. I do appreciate a well themed technological amusement park attraction though.

I believe that there is a strong market of consumers who are more than willing to spend money on well concieved and executed theme park rides/lands.