Avatarland at Animal Kingdom...Why?

Timber-Rider said:
I also wanted to comment on the Dumbo and Peter Pan attractions at Disneyworld. One word. BORING!! Unless you are a five year old, you might find these rides appealing.

Have you met billb?

Consider this an introduction. After reading though the 10 pages there, I'm sure you guys will have tons to talk about.

Timber-Rider said:
Maybe have a nemo like attraction where you get to talk to and control an Avatar, where he or she says stuff like...let's check out this it's totally cool dudes! While the only people who are impressed are kids under 10.

Ooooh, you mean the Dopey Avatar Show!

Timber-Rider said:
I saw some of the Harry Potter stuff online, and it's basically a well done Disney-ish themed area, that is very lucky to have been able to take advantage of an existing thrill ride to make it seem like it would be worth a visit.

This really says everything about your opinion. There's nothing "basic" about any of that area of the park.

Aamilj, I think you're missing the point. We're not comparing Avatar to Twilight Zone, we're comparing it to Potterland.

I know this. This is the reason I gave props to those who asked if Avatar was a response to Potter? I don't believe it is. It is just an expansion to AK that was planned YEARS ago.

Once you understand the history of AK and the plans...it is no secret that there was ALWAYS the intention to have a "mythical" area. Eisner trumped the early plans (Beastly Kingdom) AFTER the park was being built. It was a financial decision. Heck, they had promotional pictures/drawings/brochures outlining the planned Beastly Kingdom available to the public.

Those at the highest levels knew that this expansion was going to happen one day. Once Eisner screwed up the dragon/unicorn theme and basically punted that to Universal... Imagineers had to sit and wait for the perfect "mythical" idea to come around. Then along comes Avatar...at the time that AK is ready for its expansion. Hollywood Studios and EPCOT have had their recent updates. Magic Kingdom is going through theirs. It is AK's turn again.

On a side note, without Eisner nixing the Beastly Kingdom, I doubt we would have ever got Everest. Beastly Kingdom was where the coaster and cool rides were going to be. Once they blew most of Eisner's restrictive budget on the animal side...there was nothing left over for coasters at opening. They had enough for the dinosaurs or the dragons...and Eisner trumped the imagineers and went with the dinosaurs. Moment to note...you ever notice that Dinoland is not up to Disney standards? It is a carnival in a parking lot. The main ride is an exact replica of Indy. This land was done on the cheap because the Imagineers went over budget on the animal side...which is AWESOME!

Everest was added later to appease that (thrill ride) market...but it is certainly nothing on the scale of what Beastly Kingdom was supposed to be. On a side note...Camp Mickey was going to be the entrance area for Beastly Kingdom. Eisner had them throw this area of the park together right before opening because they realized there was not a full day worth of entertainment. I think that all was done in less than 120 days. The floats in the Lion King Show were actually reused from the parade floats as the budget was so tight they cut EVERYWHERE for the Dinosaurs and Camp Mickey.

This (Avatar) is nothing more than an expansion of AK that was planned over a decade ago. AK was to have real animals AND "mythical." Avatar came along at this time and finally gave them a good fit. Even IF they could expand Star Wars...it was probably not a fit in AK. In fact it is hard to think of ANY "mythical" creatures that were a fit absent the dragons...until now.

Look...Potter was a MAJOR expansion of such great importance to Universal that they marketed as a separate them park. Remember how some of the peeps were confused/upset that this was just a land...as they thought they were going to just the Potter Experience. NOBODY is denouncing, or doubting, the success of this expansion. In my opinion, the main ride is the single greatest ride ever built. The entire land/theming is beyond explanation to those who have not been. Universal needed a shot in the arm and they knocked it out of the park...beyond all expectations.

To try and compare Potter, which is a once in a lifetime phenomenon, to a planned AK expansion that was on the board in one way or another long BEFORE the first Potter movie was released is not a reasonable or fair comparison.

AK needs an expansion that fits their theme. In my opinion this is the way to look at Avatar. It is an expansion to one of four theme parks. Nothing more, and nothing less.

I'm not certain why it HAS to be compared to Potter? Why it has to be as good as, or better, than Potter, etc? Why can't it just be a COOL addition to AK. I'm with Jeff when he say it is the coolest zoo in the world. What is wrong with adding a few more "mythical" options and ride experiences to an already awesome experience?

This seems like something that the public and enthusiast could/would celebrate.

Timber-Rider said:

I saw some of the Harry Potter stuff online, and it's basically a well done Disney-ish themed area, that is very lucky to have been able to take advantage of an existing thrill ride to make it seem like it would be worth a visit.

Dude, put down your shovel. Get out of your mom's basement before you comment. You really need to experience some things before you opine. I can honestly tell you that the worst part (least excellent) of Potterville is the Dragons Coaster. While it made great sense as part of a business plan to incorporate them into the overlay (cost savings, value engineering for the initial PowerPoint presentation), the land would be no less served without them. It is that good.

Potterland, regardless of your knowledge of the books/movies, is the singularly best themed environment in the US Theme Park Market, and its nearest (only?) rival is Tokyo Disney-Sea. I would give the nudge to Potter, but perhaps because I'm familiar with the source product and recognize the amazing level of detail in the shop windows, etc.

It honestly made the hair on the back of my neck stand up when I rounded the corner of Lost Continent, and I am probably the most jaded person on CB. And it must be doing the same to the additional millions who have visited IOA over the last 18 months, many of whom shaved a day off of their Disney plans to do so.

Avatar does seem like a rush to capitalize on something else as an attempt to staunch the flow of visitors going to Universal. Like others here, i don't see it doing equally well as Potter, and in fact, if it IS an attempt to replicate the Potter results, I'm entirely skeptical. I'm sure the environment will be stunning, but I don't think it resonates with people on a visceral level like other IP (Potter, LOTR, Star Wars, Marvel, etc)

Now with two more movies coming on line, perhaps with characters and or dialogue that people will remember and fall in love with, maybe there's something that we're all missing. It's entirely possible that the Disney folks have seen the storyboards for next two movies, and that they are the end all for filmdom, and that they immediately saw how it would be a home run for a park environment. if so, we are going to be blessed to have it. Or, as it seems so far, it's some business development person's wet dream that doesn't translate well into reality.

Moment to note...you ever notice that Dinoland is not up to Disney standards? It is a carnival in a parking lot. The main ride is an exact replica of Indy. This land was done on the cheap because the Imagineers went over budget on the animal side...which is AWESOME!

You do realize the logical fallacy in your argument? There was no parking lot there before DinoLand USA was built there. To quote an old line from Billy Joel, "you can't dress trashy 'til you spend a lot of money". Whether you like Dinoland or not, it wasn't a cheap expansion. It's supposed to look like a cheap, tacky roadside carnival (i.e. Pedro Land), but it wasn't cheap. It actually has a backstory that is conveyed through many of the buildings, stands, fixtures, etc. However, it's rightly ignored by most guests. That's the problem with Disney trying to build something that looks cheap and tacky. In order to do it "right" you have to spend a lot of cash to get something that, in the end, looks "cheap and tacky".

As has been mentioned too many times to count. NO ONE in the GP notices or cares that Dinosaur is a copy of Indy. The number of people in a year who go to AK that have been to Disneyland is minimal. If someone didn't tell a guest "this is the same layout" as Indy, they would never know it. NEVER.

Timber-Rider said:
I also wanted to comment on the Dumbo and Peter Pan attractions at Disneyworld. One word. BORING!! Unless you are a five year old, you might find these rides appealing. After spending 45 minutes in line for Peter Pan I felt jipped.

Ummm... you realize that the Magic Kingdom is a kiddie park, right?

But, the Crowning achievement of the Magic Kindom is the Haunted Mansion ride. You won't find an attraction like that anywhere else.

Except in Anaheim. Orlando and Anahiem. And Paris. Orlando, Anaheim and Paris. Other than that, nowhere else. Except for Tokyo. Anaheim, Paris, Orlando and Tokyo. That's it. Oh, and Hong Kong. Wait, where were we?

You do realize the logical fallacy in your argument? There was no parking lot there before DinoLand USA was built there. To quote an old line from Billy Joel, "you can't dress trashy 'til you spend a lot of money". Whether you like Dinoland or not, it wasn't a cheap expansion. It's supposed to look like a cheap, tacky roadside carnival (i.e. Pedro Land), but it wasn't cheap. It actually has a backstory that is conveyed through many of the buildings, stands, fixtures, etc. However, it's rightly ignored by most guests. That's the problem with Disney trying to build something that looks cheap and tacky. In order to do it "right" you have to spend a lot of cash to get something that, in the end, looks "cheap and tacky".

As has been mentioned too many times to count. NO ONE in the GP notices or cares that Dinosaur is a copy of Indy. The number of people in a year who go to AK that have been to Disneyland is minimal. If someone didn't tell a guest "this is the same layout" as Indy, they would never know it. NEVER.

The problem with Dino-Rama is that the attractions are not up to Disney standards. As a Disney geek I am aware of the back-story...appreciate it. I think it is fair to count this as a "cheap update" as compared to Disney's typical expenditures. If they wanted a cheap carnival feel...well let's just say that not many people go to carnivals with 2 rides. I understand the concept...and actually think the theme could expand with more flats...but it is still a relatively cheap expansion.

Disney is reporting Avatar is a 400 million expansion. I believe Potter was 200 million...but already had infrastructure and 2 coasters with minimal theming changes needed. Needless to say that with what we are talking about, Dino-Rama is not in the discussion. 400 million at today's construction costs should excite even the most jaded among us.

Aamilij, I don't understand how you can point out that Avatar is going to cost $400 million compared to Potter's $200 million and not believe that Disney is trying to bottle some of the same magic. This is not a "Cool little expansion" and it has nothing to do with how long Beastly Kingdom was on the drawing boards. It is a business decision in direct response to a competitor. The hypothesis being presented by many of us here is that as such it is likely to be found wanting as the Intellectual property the business is spending tens of millions of dollars to acquire and exploit is not proximate to the intellectual property the competitor has acquired. The land is likely to be cool, and it is likely to increase attendance at Animal Kingdom, but it is not likely to recreate Harry Potter's momentum-changing success at Walt Disney World. That is the hypothesis.

^^^^

Don't tell him to put down his shovel.

Use your Expelliarmus spell!

ThemeDesigner said:
It is a business decision in direct response to a competitor.

Is it? What is the Fantasyland expansion in reponse to? They already have the kid market locked down, but still felt the need to upgrade absent competition. I think it is at least possible that Disney would have expanded AK with a new land at this same time whether Avatar was ever made OR Potter was built.

Disney has been expanding since it was concieved. This was long before Universal.

While thinking about it...what the heck is Cars in response to? Seems to me that Disney is and has been making multimillion dollar expansions for years without reacting...

I'm not saying you are wrong. Maybe Disney is panicking in response to Potter. But observation reveals that there is also good possibility this was a much needed and discussed upgrade to a park that is being done independent of what is happening at Universal.

I agree with Aamilj.

Wait, was that a pig that just few past my window? Or the 4 horesmen of the Apocalypse?

Aamilj said:
While thinking about it...what the heck is Cars in response to?

I think we've beaten the "why Disney had to spend $1Billion on DCA" topic enough. It wasn't a response to competition, it was a response to a woefully underperforming park.

I think we've beaten the "why Disney had to spend $1Billion on DCA" topic enough. It wasn't a response to competition, it was a response to a woefully underperforming park.

You mean Disney looks at each of their parks and decides to upgrade as needed. DCA did need an upgrade. So did AK.

Look I love AK as is. I loved it before Everest. I certainly loved it before Dino-Rama. But I also understand that there are those, especially those types who are not into zoos (even the world's greatest), who want a little more from a Disney Park. I spend at least an hour on each trail...sometimes more. Disney had me with the stilt guys they used to have out front. :) My hunch is I am not their market for this expansion.

For those folks, who did not feel AK is a full day's worth of entertainment...an upgrade in offerings was needed. ...and along comes Avatar.

I'll say it again. I don't know. Maybe this is just a reaction to Potter's success. But I am guessing there is just as good a chance this upgrade was coming regardless of Potterland.

I'm as excited as can be about it. Now I got Potter, Avatar, Fantasyland, and some cool Sea World expansions to look forward to. I've got no reason to worry about what it could/should/will be.

P.S. As far as the hypothesis goes...Potter was a once in a lifetime success in the amusement park business. To ask ANYBODY...including Universal Studio's to EVER be able to put that genie back in the bottle is setting yourself up for disappointment. I'm not saying it can't be done, and if anybody can it would be Disney...but your expectations that Avatar must be the global phenomenon of Harry Potter...is too much. That would be like expecting Andrew Luck to come in his rookie season and break all Payton Manning's records. It COULD happen...but probably won't.

I'm saying...lets just sit back and enjoy all this expansion. It is great for the economy. And certainly great for us Orlando geeks. Leaving March 24th...7 nights...Beach Club...oh yea!

OhioStater said:
Avatar was this generation's Waterworld.

IMO.

And personally, I would rather watch Kevin Costner take a piss.

The Waterworld movie was a huge flop. It cost over 200 milion to make, and barely broke even. Where the Avatar film is one of the highest money making films of all time. Not that it is going to turn into a profitable themed attraction, but it would certainly do better than a waterworld attraction...stunt show maybe. Themed area no.

Waterworld was a dark movie, where it seemed like a majority of the people were out to kill each other, and most were just scavengers trying to live on naything they could find. What kind of theme could you possibly get out of that? Where as Avatar was a colorful world, that you might want to vacation in. I think the Avatar world of Disney, will leave out the sky people, and make it a happy...more smurf like place, with very tall blue people walking around.

When I said basic, I followed it by Disney-ish. Which means very well themed attractions that you can probably find at other parks. For example: the hippogrith coaster, is similar to woodstocks express at Cedar Point, and kind of short. So, Besides all the harry potter designed buildings, props, and that sort of thing. Point out to me an attraction in that area that is totally different than any other attraction you haven't already seen or experienced at another park.

Jeff said:

Timber-Rider said:
I saw some of the Harry Potter stuff online, and it's basically a well done Disney-ish themed area, that is very lucky to have been able to take advantage of an existing thrill ride to make it seem like it would be worth a visit.

This really says everything about your opinion. There's nothing "basic" about any of that area of the park.

You haven't even walked through Hogwarts, and you think your opinion is valid?

Timber-Rider said:
Point out to me an attraction in that area that is totally different than any other attraction you haven't already seen or experienced at another park.

You mean besides the main attraction, "Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey?" The area has more "magic" or dare I say, "charm," than anything Disney has ever done and it's not something you can see in photographs. IN MY OPINION.

Timber:

If it is honestly your opinion that Potter is just "ok"...you would be the only person I've ever heard say that.

I don't know the movie or care to. My family feels the same. That said, the Potter area at IOA is awesome. I was immersed in the environment without knowing what I was immersed in. While the ride is awesome...just walking around the land and looking at the buildings, etc is breath-taking.

To me, you talking like this would parallel somebody saying..."Those New England Patriots are ok."

It is a little bit more than what you give credit. I'm not certain how ANYBODY could not be impressed with what they did there.

My wife and I took our 2 kids to Potterland/Universal last summer. My daughter saw one of the HP movies and we had read about 50 pages of one of the books to my son when he was younger. So not HP fans at all. We were impressed with Potterland. Looked amazing to us as non-HP fans. Enjoyed walking around it (though we didn't go into the gift shop with the hour plus line). Loved the HP ride as well (family voted it as our favorite Universal ride). Seems to me that if you can impress non-HP fans (and all of the HP fans I know who have visited love it), you have done pretty much everything you can do and have a great success.