Stupid Guest Tricks

Guys, Star Wars and Indiana Jones aren't Disney either. What's the difference here? James Cameron versus George Lucas? It shouldn't make any difference. Personally, I'm going to reserve judgement until more is announced.

I'm....confused honestly. I'm not hating on it or praising it, I'm just confused about it.

The 2017 comes from another article as an opening date. 2013 is when they start construction.

And they will have plenty of time to change things as time passes. Especially if the two sequels to Avatar flop. The second film is already filming, with the third being in pre-production. I still reserve the right to not like it as it progresses, but it potentially brings another rollercoaste to DAK. Maybe one that mimics the flight of a Toruk (the pterodon like creatures). Or what about a "Star Tours-esque" ride on a vehicle that flys thru the different scenes of the movie and then attacked by the animals throughout? There is potential there if done right (and the sequels don't flop).

I never saw the movie...no interest, so I am not feeling the idea of them taking up valuable themepark real estate for this.

Guess I'm a 'negative nellie' too LOL

I'd rather have an entire Jack Sparrow Land (hey, the Princesses are all getting their own pavilions right? why not?


~bru

There's gotta be some kind of water deal as Cameron said he would focus on the undersea environment in the next flick.

At a guess I would think they are doing it in AK becuase Avatar has a conservation theme as does the park. There could be some tie ins there. This also seems like it is opening the door for beasts that never were.

CBeilby wrote:Guys, Star Wars and Indiana Jones aren't Disney either. What's the difference here? James Cameron versus George Lucas? It shouldn't make any difference. Personally, I'm going to reserve judgement until more is announced.

Honestly I'm none too thrilled about those additions either. They seem artificial and forced. But, they at least make sense for a theme park who's main draw is families on vacation.

Maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy, but I didn't see Avatar as family fare. Older kids/teens, sure, but it's not something a whole family can watch and enjoy.

I'm still going with "Poor choice, horrible fit". Even if the plans for the addition grow and evolve, the original movie won't change. (Though, I suppose saying that in the same conversation as mentioned George Lucas is a bit contradictory...)

I have to say, this is one of the most interesting conversations I've seen here in a long time. It's interesting, James Cameron went to Disney before he went to Fox with his idea for a movie. I, too, am curious to see what happens with the second and third films. In any case, I agree that we could see a land at Disney World go one of two directions, and neither will be neutral.

If the Avatar area doesn't work out, maybe they could use another Cameron movie for a nice family area.

Titanic...

Terminator...

Robocop...

True Lies...

The Abyss...

Rambo...

Piranha...

Hmm... Maybe Hugh Heffner would have some better options for a nice family area...

I am guessing they are going to have to bulldoze some trees for this new attraction...