Disney has now joined forces with James Cameron, the man behind the mega features Titanic and Avatar. There are to be two new Avatar films in the future which will provide further lands or attractions for Disney at a later date.
All of this is well and good, but why couldn't Disney have purchased Harry Potter instead? That franchise could have done very well at Disney instead of where it now resides at Universal. Harry Potter is fanciful science fiction. Avatar is living in harmony with your surroundings.
While Avatar does seem to fit the message that Animal Kingdom brings forth every day, the movie franchise just doesn't seem to fit there. And what of the beloved Camp Minnie Mickey with all of the character meet and greets, and the much loved Festival of the Lion King.
It is not so much that Disney has joined forces with James Cameron. He is an amazing film maker. Disney has successfully joined forces with George Lucas and Steven Spielberg with great success. But neither of these pairings produced a whole Land. An attraction that just got a very popular reboot, and a ride at Disneyland with a show at Walt Disney World that both garner great crowds. Indiana Jones and Star Tours are two of the best movie to ride success stories where the non Disney movie came before the attraction. One film series is Science Fiction, the other all action and adventure.
What does Avatar bring to the table? Blue people, fanciful flights on a strange bird and a fight between progress and keeping the land intact. A fight seen in various counties throughout the United States each year. The film is relevant in today's society. But should it be put into a theme park?
I think Avatar, or Pandorland, or whatever they want to call it holds promise. What I don't agree with though is Disney's decision to place this land at Animal Kingdom. It's place belongs at Hollywood Studios with the other movie attractions and shows. As a matter of fact, it would fit perfectly there.
Was Animal Kingdom chosen because they needed more E-ticket attractions? Probably not as the park is loaded with them. Dinosaur, the Safari, Expedition Everest, Kali River Rapids and the Finding Nemo Show provide a full days entertainment. Was Animal Kingdom chosen because of its size in relation to the other Walt Disney World parks. Probably not since they are removing one land to create another. That sounds like they don't simply have the room. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that this new venture will be at Animal Kingdom. Oh I know the movie and the Theme Park share the same philosophy, but is that enough to get rid of a child's favorite in a park with so few areas for children to enjoy?
Goodness knows there is room at Epcot for this new land. There are many buildings that sit empty for most of the year. That space could probably be used.
I am not sure why Animal Kingdom was the choice here for the new land. But I am not privy to what goes on behind closed doors in those Disney meetings. I can't wait to see if Disney can make it fit at Animal Kingdom, and if it makes sense once it is complete. 2013 is not that far off before we will know.
That's just my opinion. As always feel free to discuss this article at www.dmlboards.com and a special thanks to Andy and Leanne for letting me share my opinions.
Discuss this article on our forums: Website: Your Kidding, Right Disney?