Tbad556
Veteran Member
- Aug 17, 2009
- 7,262
It covers the mystical creatures portion of the park that was lost with Beastly Kingdom and the whole environmental storyline with Pandora fits perfectly with the park.avatar? animal kingdom? wtf?
It covers the mystical creatures portion of the park that was lost with Beastly Kingdom and the whole environmental storyline with Pandora fits perfectly with the park.avatar? animal kingdom? wtf?
Disney originally had planned to create a land of mythical creatures like dragons as part of Disney's Animal Kingdom, but those plans never materialized and the land remains undeveloped. Although aliens would seem an unlikely addition to Disney's elaborate zoo, the entertainment conglomerate said the Avatar land will emphsize the film's theme of "living in harmony with nature."
I was gonna say.. what the hell is Leonopteryx?I was speaking sarcastically... Leonopteryx is a fictional animal native to Pandora.
I would not be worried. With what Disney's doing at FLE and DCA, this has the potential to be 100x better.What the hell? This really came out of left field! I have to say though, I like the idea! I'm a little worried, but this could be exactly what the doctor ordered for AK.
Yea, and adjacent to Camp (behind Rainforest) is a large chunk of unused land. Just a big grass field ready to act as an expansion.Camp Minnie Mickey, where Beastly Kingdom was suppossed to go.
You have a point, but I think this fits in a lot better with the environmentally friendly aspect of the park.I still wish Beastly Kingdom would have become a reality. At least dragons are animals in a sense, whereas the Na'vi are a humanoid race with some animal-like features. It could be neat, though. Pandora was a very visually engaging world.
I agree mostly. We all do win. I kind of hate though how anything new Disney does now is automatically assumed to be in response to Potter. I mean, Marvel was in response to Potter. Fantasyland was in response to Potter. Now Avatar is in response to Potter, too? Maybe Disney is actually making something new for the sake of being having something new like they have been doing for decades. Remember how they acquired rights to Muppets, Star Wars, Indy, Pixar, Goosbumps, TNMT, Power Rangers, Etc. in the pre-Potter days simply to make cool attractions? Why are they not allowed to carry that tradition without being made out to look desperate in response to a company whose two Orlando parks combined (with Potter) still can't match the earnings of Magic Kingdom? Some things, like Gaston's beverages, are certainly nodding to Potter, but to draw any big move Disney does in direct comparison to Harry Potter seems bogus to me.Three things,
1.This is Disney's answer to Potter
2.The leak of Transformers info coming to Orlando was not an accident.
3.Potter Phase 2 budget just increased
I can't stress how big this is, I said it in another thread. We all win and I mean WIN! Over the next five years the battle will rage on unlike anything we have seen since the mid 90's in themepark wars, and its happening in our backyard.
Yes. I'm literally picturing the same situation where Disney swoops in with this huge idea for a land instead of 1 attraction. But oh God, get ready to see the characters as Na'vi people.Three things,
1.This is Disney's answer to Potter
Honestly, I don't think Steven Spielberg was the one in charge of leaking info about Transformers coming to USF. Come on.2.The leak of Transformers info coming to Orlando was not an accident.
Let's hope!3.Potter Phase 2 budget just increased![]()