Originally Posted By dagobert Here are some great construction pictures of Avatar Land. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://damouse.com/2015/09/16/aerial-photography-shows-pandora-world-of-avatar-rising-into-reality/">http://damouse.com/2015/09/16/...reality/</a>
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Wow, those structures inside the mountains are really impressive. I can't even begin to think about how complex the engineering must have been for those. They seem like something that will be neat to see, even for people who haven't seen the film(s)
Originally Posted By dagobert The more I see about Avatarland the more excited I get. It looks really impressive. Hopefully the attractions will be as good as the landscape.
Originally Posted By monorailblue I wish I could join in the accolades, and I do hope the land turns out spectacularly, but I just can't feel excited about this property in this park. I know there is a very sizeable, silent number that feel the same way.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I probably wouldn't be as excited about it if it weren't for that fantastic job that Joe Rohde has done at the Animal Kingdom in creating a sense of place. I think it could be truly spectacular.
Originally Posted By oc_dean I have high hopes for the river excursion. I have no doubt it will be heavy in detail .. the length of the ride .. I hope won't be on the short side. I'm not expecting PotC length ... but it would be disappointing if the river ride makes just a few turns .. enters a few rooms .. and done in 3 minutes or less. I can't exactly visualize the 'flying' ride. I take it, this "Soarin' 2.0" ... being in a super large room, with a huge a IMAX screen. I haven't read too much on Avatarland. Perhaps I missed something that outlines the 2 rides in better detail.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I guess for me, as with most of the AK, I am thinking more about the "look and feel" of the place than the attractions. Obviously I hope the attractions are well done, but I have always judged the AK a little differently than the other parks. If you are concerned only about attractions, the AK is just not a park you will enjoy much.
Originally Posted By oc_dean I get what you're saying. Many moons ago Orange County had something called Lion Country Safari .. in addition to various zoos .. found in Griffith Park up in LA, not to mention a zoo in Santa Ana, and of course the good ones in San Diego - San Diego Zoo, and the Wild Animal Park in Escondido. With ALL THAT .... I get that Animal Kingdom is not about "rides". It's a "plus" .. but not the main driving point to going. It's about the overall atmosphere ... while watching animals in their "somewhat" natural habitat.
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>I guess for me, as with most of the AK, I am thinking more about the "look and feel" of the place than the attractions. Obviously I hope the attractions are well done, but I have always judged the AK a little differently than the other parks. If you are concerned only about attractions, the AK is just not a park you will enjoy much.<<< The park is so beautiful that the attractions are somehow not so important for me too. EE is a lot of fun, even if the Yeti doesn't work, but besides a fun ride, it also looks great. EPCOT is similar. I just love that park, even with the outdated attractions.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Disney has really invested in steel haven't they? Not sure if the Na'vi would like that.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "I wish I could join in the accolades, and I do hope the land turns out spectacularly, but I just can't feel excited about this property in this park. I know there is a very sizeable, silent number that feel the same way." Slient????? Bwahahahahaha........hahahahaha. Hahahahaha...... Ha.....ha It's probably not very sizable either.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Disney has really invested in steel haven't they? Not sure if the Na'vi would like that.<< By its very existence, Disney is a luxury brand (all entertainment is), so this is merely a drop in the bucket at this point. If you want a quick primer in how WDW's very essence is horrible for the environment, just check out The Circle of Life film at the Land pavilion in Epcot. That's a surefire way to dampen any vacation fun!
Originally Posted By monorailblue You can't conclude the number is small if there are so many talking about it you conclude that they aren't silent, can you? This message board certainly isn't ever going to reveal any widespread thoughts either way. Among those I know, I know of no one with broad or particular interest in this project--or of any Avatar sequels for that matter.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<or of any Avatar sequels for that matter.>> So what? I've never seen any of the Cars films, but think DCA's Carsland addition looks great. Good themeing and attention to detail can stand on their own. Being a fan of the source material is not needed. There have even been cases when Disney managed to create pretty fair attractions (gasp) WITHOUT source material... Pirates... Haunted Mansion, etc.
Originally Posted By monorailblue I'm not sure what is going on here. Why the mocking and the anger? I hope the land is a great success; I am not excited about it; I am persuaded that many are not. Why the ruffled feathers?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I wasn't mocking anyone... I was trying to be wry and amusing. If I failed, my bad. I just hate seeing a very promising looking land written off before it even opens. Frankly I was never a fan of Avatar either... I never even saw the movie until a year or so after Disney announced Avatarland. Then I watched it just to see what it was about. Although I didn't think it was the greatest film I've ever seen, I saw how the landscape and settings could provide the basis for a great land at Animal Kingdom.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "This message board certainly isn't ever going to reveal any widespread thoughts either way." No. But the massive box office success of the movie suggests pretty widespread appeal. "Among those I know, I know of no one with broad or particular interest in this project--or of any Avatar sequels for that matter." But what makes you think you and your friends are representative of some sort of silent wave of people?
Originally Posted By monorailblue The success of the first film has yet to be repeated, but the first film's popularity certainly may suggest that the land will be very popular. I doubt anyone can credibly argue that it is shows that there aren't a sizeable number of people who have little to no interest in this particular project. (Since it appears necessary to elaborate on at least this point, I will do so: 'sizeable' or 'very sizeable' (as I originally put it) do not denote, much less imply, 'majority.' 10% of WDW Guests is a very, very sizeable number of people in this context, although it may not be if we are talking about something different. 10% of WDW potential Guests is even more sizeable. That still leaves plenty of room for the vast majority of people to be thrilled to their core over this project.) I'm not sure why the "some sort of silent wave" language is used--provocation, it would seem--but if you have some rational way to think about the world around you that entirely sidesteps your personal experience, I'd be interested in hearing how you put in practice. I, alas, am fettered by my experiences. (And in the same clarifying vein, let us consider: suppose, for purposes of our discussion, that surveying showed that 15% of WDW Guests had either a "not interested," "meh," or "don't care" reaction to questions about interest in Disney Avatar Land: World's of Pandora At Disney's Animal Kingdom, or whatever it is called. (See: I can be unnecessarily flippant, too!) That's a very significant number. Suppose 15% of the Guests attending each WDW park decided right at noon to leave. You'd definitely see a wave of people at each location. Thus each attempt to twist my statements into something absurdly hyperbolic falls totally and utterly flat.)
