AVATAR-themed lands for Disney Parks – well, that certainly came out of the blue

Wednesday, 21st September 2011 at 01:44 by
Anthony
45 Comments

Things you didn’t expect to read this week: AVATAR Coming To Disney Parks. Be it from frustration at the continuing success of Universal’s Wizarding World of Harry Potter or disappointment with a string of its own wannabe-epics from Dinosaur to Narnia to Prince of Persia, Disney has resorted to jumping in with James Cameron and Twentieth Century Fox to bring their $2.7bn blockbuster to its parks. Disney’s Animal Kingdom at Walt Disney World in Florida will be home to the first Avatar-themed land, with construction beginning in 2013 for an opening in 2015; conveniently in line with the release of Avatar 2 and Avatar 3 in December 2014 and 2015 respectively.

James and his producing partner Jon Landau and their team at Lightstorm Entertainment will serve as creative consultants on the project and will work side-by-side with our Walt Disney Imagineers as we dream up experiences that will take our guests deep into worlds of AVATAR like never before. There are also two sequels to the record setting first film in the works, which will offer more fascinating stories, characters and locations to explore in the AVATAR universe. Disney’s Animal Kingdom at Walt Disney World Resort is planned as the site of the first AVATAR-themed land with construction expected to begin by 2013.

The land will likely take the spot previously reserved for Beastlie Kingdomme, a long-planned mythological section of the Florida park, and some fans will be anxious at the thought of a mega-bucks movie franchise muscling in on the refreshingly pure landscapes of Joe Rohde‘s Animal Kingdom. Parks and Resorts chairman Tom Staggs announced the attractions, eateries and shops of the land “will be fully formed and highly themed around the worlds of Avatar,” while Cameron stands to receive receive royalties based on merchandise, food and beverage sales.

Why this deserves note here, besides it being the biggest “What the..?” announcement for Disney Parks in years, is precisely because of that terminology: Disney Parks. Their official blog is so gushing in its excitement for “Disney Parks” having secured the franchise that the construction announcement for the Animal Kingdom land comes almost as a footnote. It makes pains to note this will be the “first” Avatar-themed land… so where will the second be? “The company said it plans to add ‘Avatar’-themed lands to other parks but provided no further details,” reports the OC Register. “We don’t have plans or speculation to announce,” Bob Iger said.

We’ll speculate for you then, Bob. However, narrowing down those “other parks” doesn’t leave you with many options, depending on where or how you think Avatar might fit within the existing Disney lands. For Tokyo, DisneySea would be the strongest possibility. For California, perhaps something indoor in Tomorrowland at a push. For Shanghai or Hong Kong, well, anything goes. And for Paris… Walt Disney Studios Park could be crying out a for a big-name franchise within its gates, something other-worldly to sit beyond an extended Hollywood Boulevard, but with money so tight and such a backlog of future projects already stacked up, would Disneyland Paris ever consider spending millions of Euros it doesn’t have on a non-Disney property? Maybe by the time Avatar 6 hits screens…

VIA Disney Parks Blog, The OC Register

Never miss Disneyland Paris news: Follow us on TwitterLike our Facebook Page

Comments

  • I really wish you had resisted the temptation to say “out of the blue”

  • I am in two minds about the idea for Walt Disney World, especially when they have a competing theme park next door to them in the form of Universal Studios, conversely, I wouldn’t want this to come to DLP. I love DLP so much that I would rather it stay all Disney the way it was meant to be.

  • Prince Alwaleed has big pockets but he just needs a bit of encoragement to put his hand in his pocket. How about offering him a parcel of land for a Four Seasons hotel for his help in some Resort projects.

  • I am actuallt quite enthousiastic about this idea. Of course, I appreciate Disney classics with their own sotry line like Big Thunder Mountain, Pirates and Phantom Manor.
    Avatar can really add something to WDS in Paris, if it would ever come here. Imagine the forest-like environment, which is a nice alternative for the tarmac-environment it currently has. Plus, as this project has to beat up against Wizarding Worlds of HP, better expect some very innovative rides, like flying with those sort of dinosaurs, as mentioned by James himself.

  • I am totally against this.We love disney not james cameron’s avatar. Disney is all about it’s classics and the walt disney production’s. Stop stripping out the disney we love please. We want the mickey donald minnie goofie pluto donald duck…etc and the walt disney claasics disney. please do not force none disney productions to disney. Against adding marvel against avatar against everything none disney. Start making new disney productions instead of adding none disney themes to disney parks.

  • I really don’t think this will fit in the Animal Kingdom. It’d be fine if it was one ride, but I’m not sure about an entire land! I think they’re doing this partly to stop Universal from getting their hands on the franchise.

    I like the idea of it being in the Walt Disney Studios, though, if they give it a “behind the scenes” edge.

  • It absoluty not fit in the Animal Kingdom , I have no problem with none disney productions in Disneyland ( I like Star Tours , Indiana Jones ,…)
    But Avatar… I don’t know .. in that case I prefer Star Wars land =)

  • @DisneyLover1: I personally feel your comment is a bit ridiculous. If Avater was produced by Disney, you wouldn’t have been against it, just because it has the Disney signature? That is just a bit shortsighted in my opinion.

    I agree though – the magic kingdom should remain about just that: magic as we know it from the Disney Classics, but I personally don’t see any reason at all not to have Avatar show up in the Studios; in fact I very much like the idea!

    There are films from Disney that I wouldn’t like to see appear in the parks, and there are others that could just add a little spice and atmosphere to a park that still desperately needs it…

    In terms of Animal Kingdom – I agree it would probably not entirely fit there… Why not make an Avatar version of Soaring? :) Wouldn’t see why something like that wouldn’t work (not suggesting they should, as I like Soaring as it is, but just to point out what the possibilities are…)

  • Why does everyone think Avatar is good. It sucks. Everyone in my class thinks it sucks too. Granted the CGI and the 3D was pretty good, but the storyline was TERRIBLE. There is no place for it at Disney and never will be. It doesn’t go ANYWHERE. Especially Animal Kingdom or Magic Kingdom. Why don’t they just put more effort into creating fantasticly amazing “Disney-based” rides?

  • NOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Of all the things. This is not an attraction i will be eagerly anticpating and a whole land are they nuts!!

  • Whether or not some individuals dislike the film – it is massively popular! Disney are doing right to acquire the rights to Avatar. Many people will enjoy the experience it will provide and it will also be a major advertising campaign in ANY of the Disney Parks. I believe that it will fit well in Animal Kingdom as the film had a very deep meaning and view on nature and wildlife. Animal Kingdom feature pre-historic and present animals – so why not future/extra-terrestrial?

    And for those wanting a strict Disney-only park… too late really. As Kevin pointed out they have Indiana Jones and Star Wars.

  • Not sure about this one.

    On the one hand you could say it’s only like Star Tours or an Indiana Jones ride i.e. nothing to do with Disney but they are now seamless parts of the whole experience. But with so many things they could have imported from Disney Sea etc, selling out to a totally none-Disney things such as Avatar may not stand the test of time.

    Avatar may have brought in a bit of box office dosh but Harry Potter is surely going to outlive it by years.

  • @David You obviously aren’t a true disney fan.I was raised by disney movies, I grew up in disneyland. If you were, you would understand my comment and not call it ridic. I’m not just against because it lacks the disney brand. You see, It’s part of what makes disney special that its productions has its own sense and element of magic and charm different from any other productions(Marvel, james cameron productions, WB ..etc) all of the previous examples I have named lack that. It’s called disney. Hence everything in it should be produced by disney. Allow me to give you an example, you certainly wouldn’t be going to Burger king and ordering a Big Mac that’s just Ridiculous now isn’t it?? It simply doesn’t belong there. It just doesn’t belong there.Simply, If you want a Big Mac then go to Mcdonalds where it belongs. Again Disney please, stick to your own productions which we love and adore and grew up loving. Create more disney things and keep disneyland solely to disney productions and characters please. I hope you understand My point.

  • Oh And @Owen It’s never too late.

  • Just to clarify, my post 2 above this is not the same David as higher up.

    I fully agree with Disneylover1. Disney parks are special because they are just Disney (in the main).

    Also, just occurred to me. Animal Kingdom has a big tree (Tree of Life). Does this mean we’re gonna have the Avatar land also with it’s own big tree?

    David E

  • @ Disneylover1:

    I do understand your points, but how do you think about Indiana Jones and Star Tours. Both aren’t produced by Disney.

    I’m happy that Disney is trying something new, which isn’t based on Pixar or Disney toons or princesses. I would have also prefered something original that isn’t based on any Disney movies or other franchises. The best Disney attractions are still the ones not based on cartoons. For example Tower of Terror, BTM, Phantom Manor or Pirates. That’s why I’m also happy that Jack isn’t added to that classic ride.

    I think AVATAR gives them an opportunity to create a wondeful new land with immersive new attractions. And Disney has to build great new rides to rival Harry Potter at Universal.

    By the way I didn’t like the movie, except of the stunning pictures.

  • Avatar is a fad, it has not been around for years, nor is a classic that you think , I must pass that one down to the kids. Indiana Jones, star wars is. Harry potter has already been around for about 15 years, and will be around for years more as little ones love it too. Avatar though may go. It may well have been a box office smash, but I dont see anyone making a land based on Titanic (second biggest gross movie). Why not lord of the rings, or something timeless? I agree with most others an attraction yes, a land no. But hey if anyone can pull this off, and make me like it, Disney can !

  • @DavidE Thank you

  • @relax It’s very evident that you haven’t understand my points. Even though they’re very clear. (Tower of Terror, BTM, Phantom Manor or Pirates) Are disney originals and they’ve been developed and created by disney. It doesn’t have to be based on a cartoon or a movie as long as it doesn’t belong to another company or franchise.
    The disney resort should only consist of disney products not marvel or any other company. I can’t imagine spider man character walking next mickey mouse. or a parade with sleeping beauty and snow white ,hercules, tarzan, beauty and the beast then all of a sudden spider man or an avatar cart behind them with the magical disney castle in the background. that would be terrible indeed. they simply do not belong in disney parks Period.

  • @Disneylover1:

    I do understand your points. My question was, how do you think about Star Tours and the Indiana Jones attractions, since both franchises aren’t produced by Disney.

    The rest of my post was just my general view on this topic.

  • I think that @Relax does understand your points as he is agreeing that the best rides are owned and created by Disney but what he is also saying is that non Disney entities can work in the park – as seen with Indiana Jones and Star Tours. Avatar could work really well, however, parades and shows I believe have been and always will be Disney ONLY as they focus on magic and dreams which is the core focus of Disney films – hence Princesses etc.

    Also just to say – Marvel is owned by Disney and so have a right to be in a Disney park. But again – I can not see the characters featured in the parades.

  • @Owen@Relax So you two agree with me, That Marvel Products Do not own the same sense of magic and charm that disney products and characters own. Correct?

  • I wouldn’t mind to see Marvel rides in the Studios Park and I think they would be a perfect addition to WDSP.

    Disneylover1, you still haven’t answered my question regarding Star Tours and Indiana Jones. Both franchises aren’t produces by Disney, yet both are part of the Disneyland park. So what do you think about these two franchises?

  • I believe that star tours shouldn’t be inside disney parks. Instead of having a theme of a non disney product “star tours” It could have been themed as WALLE for instance. Indiana jones could have been Woody’s or goofy’s Wild gold hunt adventure or something like that. As long as it’s relevant to disney.Developing rides and products created by disney,is a million times better and more appropriate than adding none disney rides and products. It saddens me to see spider man Iron man X men products being sold in disney store the same store that sells mickey minnie donald woody Simba etc.. It really does. I hope you understand my points.

  • I want to add that I don’t mind on what a new attraction is based. For example TSPL is one of the worst additions to any Disney park, and it is based on Disney characters. I don’t like it, because it consits just of three boring carnival rides.

    On the other hand I can’t wait to see Ratatouille, although it will also be based on a Disney character, but the attraction seems to be immersive and features a new one of a kind ride system.

  • @owen@relax I apologize if I seem too offensive. I am very passionate about disney and it bothers me to see constant intrusion changing to it’s core and elements. That is ,in my opinion, stripping the disney we love from it’s roots. I have to disagree. None disney entities do not fit in disney parks. They should be put on they’re own park. Let me speak from personal experience. I’ve been visiting disneyland paris since it’s opening every year and I can genuinely tell you that the star tours ride and Indiana jones rides are amongst the less crowded rides in the park. It’s queue is always 5 minutes.On the other hand peter pan’s ride is always 60 minutes or so. Just an example. My point is that people visit disney parks to escape from reality into the land of magic. Having said that, constant change to the roots of disney will forbid us from that. I hope they wake up and start realizing that.If Walt were living today he would’nt agree with the intrusion of other companies in disney parks. He simply wouldn’t allow it. It should be disney products ,rides , toys etc..and that’s it. All Disney. Nothing else.

  • @Disneylover1:

    You aren’t too offensive, it’s just your opinion, like I have mine.

    I think Star Tours is one of the best attraction WDI has ever created. The reason why the queue is only 5 minutes is that is is nearly 20 years old. You just have to look at the US parks where Disney opened Star Tours 2 and there the lines are huge.

    Indiana Jones is another example. The Indiana Jones Adventures found in Tokyo and Anaheim are also very, very popular.

    And you do think that these two franchises don’t allow to escape reality?

    I just think that it can’t always be based on Disney’s characters. For example Pixar just doesn’t fit into a Jules Verne themed Discoveryland.

    I’m glad that Disney doesn’t use only their products, since not everything appeals to everyone. I’m a big fan of baoth Star Wars and Indiana Jones and in my opinion they fit perfectly into Disney’s parks. I also hope that Disney will bring Avatar and Marvel to WDSP.

  • @relax I disagree. And saying that because it’s 20 years old isn’t a good argument to be honest. Big thunder Mountain and many other fan favorite attractions are just as old. I disagree and I have stated why in my previous posts. I’m sure most disney fans agree with me. Nevertheless, I respect your opinion but disagree with them.

  • It’s not a bad argument in my opinion. Star Tours relies heavily on the ride simulator technology. The new version consists of an improved simulator technology and offers 3D. The next thing is that Star Tours requires a certain height, while all Fantasyland rides are suitable for all.

    Big Thunder Mountain is a gravity coaster and the technology for these kind of rides hasn’t changed since 30 years.

    Many Disney branded attractions got replaced, because they weren’t that popular anymore.

    I’m sorry for you that Disney isn’t satisfying your expactations, but I think the majority still loves the Star Wars and Indy franchises and that’s why Disney continues to use them. Disney wants to appeal to more guests and not only to the Disney fans. That’s why they bought Marvel and I’m sure they will appear in the parks sooner or later.

    I hope Disney will create a fantastic Avatar land at DAK and maybe one day we will have one of these attractions in Paris as well.

    Just out of interest. Disney releases movies for adults under the Touchstone Pictures label. How do you think about using those movies, I mean they are still Disney productions. For example Who Framed Roger Rabbit was released under that banner, or Nightmare Before Christmas was at first also released under the Touchstone label. Now they are part of the themeparks as well.

    Before Pixar was bought by TWDC, those movies weren’t Disney productions as well. Disney only distributed the movies and collected a fee. So according to your opinion, those movies shouldn’t have been part of the parks until 2006? Would you be fine with Star Tours and Indy inside the parks, when Disney would have distributed them?

    I have another example. You said you like TOT, which is based on a TV show from CBS, also not part of Disney.

    One last sentence. If most Disney fans would agree with you, Disney would have ripped all not Disney branded attractions out of the parks, because of lack of interest. Nevertheless Star Tours opened in the 80ies and is still park of the Disney parks, while many Disney branded rides opened later and have already been closed.

    I’m also sorry if I may sound offensive. English isn’t my first language and so I sometimes may sound rude, but I don’t want to be.

  • @relax What is your point exactly? what does the mechanism and technology have to do with concepts?! I love disney to the limit. As far as I know disneyland paris never replaced a disney branded attractions.
    Toy Story and other “Pixar” movies were written and co produced by disney in some way or another John lasseter initially worked in disney studios. He then got fired then started working with disney on Toy Story. Toy Story’s script was rejected many times by disney producers they altered many things and introduced the disney charm and touches on it before releasing it. So saying that disney only distributed it and collected fees is completely False.
    I thought I made myself clear when I said all none disney products do not belong in disney parks. Just like fish do not belong on dry land. As i mentioned previously, You wouldn’t be going to burger king and complaining about not being able to get a Big Mac Why? Simply because it doesn’t belong there. You want a Big Mac Go to Mcdonald’s. You certainly can not go to an italian restaurant and order sushi for example. Why? It doesn’t belong there. You want japanese food go to a japanese restaurant. Simple really, You want to see Marvel Characters go to Marvelland. Build their own land do not mix the two together it doesn’t feel right.That’s all there is to it. And it’s ok we’re just having an argument. In the end all I want is for disney to stick to it’s roots and not add none disney products and merchandise to their enchanted magical Parks.

  • @relax Read this “Pixar presented an early draft of the film to Disney on November 19, 1993.[22] The result was disastrous. It presented Woody as a “sarcastic jerk”. This was because Katzenberg kept sending notes to Pixar saying that he wanted more edge. Katzenberg took Walt Disney Feature Animation president Peter Schneider in the hall during the screening and asked him why it was so bad. Schneider responded that it “wasn’t their movie anymore.”[27] Schneider wanted to immediately shut down production, fire all recently hired animators and move the key writers (John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter and Joe Ranft) into the Disney Studio, pending a new script approved by Disney. Pixar refused and said that the entire story will be changed in two weeks.[28] As promised, two weeks later a new script had been written that made Woody a more likable character. It also included a more adult-orientated staff meeting amongst the toys rather than a juvenile group discussion that had existed in earlier drafts.”

  • @Disneylove1 You say that you don’t like the idea of non-Disney entities in the parks and also mention Marvel as an example. But Pixar IS Disney and Marvel IS Disney. There is no denying that. And so, why shouldn’t they feature in the parks or as merchandise?

  • @Owen Pixar And Marvel are very different. Marvel isn’t Disney, it’s only intruding and disney are allowing it. Disney haven’t co-produced anything Marvel produced since it was established. We all know that spider man X men etc.. aren’t disney characters. All of a sudden now, we have to fool ourselves and pretend they belong to Disney? Doesn’t work that way. On the other hand, Woody Buzz Nemo etc.. are all co-produced and co-created by Disney in some way or another. If it weren’t for disney they would not have been know today. Disney always had a hand in pixar. Therefore Saying that Pixar and Marvel are pretty much the same is completely wrong. If you read my previous posts. You will find answers to you questions.

  • That’s a very ineresting discussion here. It should be moved to the forum.

    I don’t know what to expect from AVATAT, because I didn’t like the movie. I’ve seen it only once and there is no need to see it again. Nevertheless James Cameron created a fantastic world called Pandora and I’m sure WDI is able t create a wonderfully themed land with good attractions. I assume there will be a one of a kind E-ticket ride to rival Harry Potter at Universal.

    Someone close to that deal mentioned in an Los Angeles Times article that Disney plans to bring Avatar to Paris and Hong Kong as well. If that’s true, I hope they choose WDSP. I also think Avatar should be used in DHS instead of DAK.

    I have to admit that I’m also a bit disappointed that WDI doesn’t come up with a land that isn’t based on any franchise or Disney movie or cartoon. Recently nearly everything new is based upon Pixar and princesses (TSPL, Cars Land, TLM or the new Fantasyland at WDW). Even the most beautiful Disney park Tokyo DisneySea gets Pixar attractions. At least HKDL is getting original rides, although these are variations of existing rides.

    So I’m a little bit happy that WDI is trying something new. I think WDI is still able to create original ideas and they missed an opportunity here.

    I don’t understand all the negativity against Star Tours and Indy, both franchises are perfect additions to the Disney parks, but I do agree with Disneylover1, that Marvel shouldn’t be in the Disneyland Park. In my opinion the superheroes would fit better into WDSP and I think Disney will build attractions around them. Otherwise the purchase of that company wouldn’t make any sense. I also want to say, that I don’t like the Marvel merchandise in the shops of DLP. They should only sell these products inside DV and WDSP.

    I also agree with Disneylover1 that Pixar feels more like Disney than Marvel due to it’s family oriented movies. But according to the book Disney War, Disney wasn’t involved in creating the Pixar movies, they just were responsible for distribution and marketing. There wer some big fights between Disney and Pixar while creating Toy Story. Afterwards Disney wasn’t allowed to get involved into the production and still isn’t, although they bought it.

    I hope Disney will also refresh the relationship with George Lucas to bring more of Star Wars and Indiana Jones into the parks. Both movie series are still very popular and hopefully Star Tours 2 arrives soon in Paris.

    I’m sure Disney paid a lot for Avatar and so I don’t think we will see any new attractions, which aren’t based on Disney movies and characters, in the near future.

    Do you think it will be part of Shanghai Disneyland?

  • @dagobert I agree and disagree with you. My point is that disney is good enough on it’s own without any intrusions. Disney isn’t like any other company where you can add different things to it and it becomes better. Disney is unique and has it’s own image and sends it’s own unique message to fans from all ages. Therefore, conversely if you add and mix non Disney productions and merchandise to it. It ruins it.
    John Lasseter worked at disney in the first place. According to wikipedia “Lasseter oversaw all of Pixar’s films and associated projects as executive producer and he directed Toy Story, A Bug’s Life, Toy Story 2, Cars, and Cars 2″. Even though he weren’t working at Disney for some time he has the Disney roots installed in him. Hence you see all his directions own the sense of Disney. Furthermore, that is why he is appointed as director and the chief creative officer at Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios. He is also currently the Principal Creative Advisor for Walt Disney Imagineering. So all pixar’s productions are pretty much dinsey’s productions in one way or another.

    I disagree with you. I hope Disney will rely on itself only, because they’re the only company that can work to perfection and deliver the image we expect from it. I hope we never see any none disney productions in all disney parks whether it’s WDS or disney village or the disney park itself. I can’t understand why you’re disappointed that all recent disney rides have been based on disney productions. That is the way it should be working. I hope everything they do and create will be solely Disney’s work and no one else’s. We fell in love with Disney when it was working on it’s own and we will continue loving it working on it’s own. Mixing other companies with Disney will only deprive us from enjoying the Disney we all fell in love with in the first place.We will wake up someday finding Disney transformed into something else irrelevant to the Disney we all know and love. It will become another company. I pray this never happens.

  • I think you will be disappointed by Disney’s future. Since Disney purchased Marvel, I’m pretty sure they will use their characters to create attractions based on them. Now they have bought the Avatar rights and you can bet that they will use it, maybe in Paris too.

    I didn’t point it out correctly, I’m not against Disney attractions per se as long as they aren’t cheap additions like Toy Story Playland. I just wanted to say that Disney was also at its best when they didn’t rely on any characters ore movie. For example Phantom Manor, Pirates of the Caribbean or Space Mountain are some of the best Disney rides. Or nearly none of the Tokyo DisneySea attraction are based on any Disney property. So I just think it doesn’t need Disney movies to design great rides.

    Even under Walt Disney not every ride was based on his movies or characters. I’ve already mentioned POTC or the Haunted Mansion and the Matterhorn or the Jungle Cruise aren’t based on them either. Le Visionarium, Rock’n’Roller Coaster or Cinemagique are or were great rides without any Disney connection.

  • @dagobert I pray your wrong.
    I’ve said this before. If you read the previous posts carefully you’d notice that. I’ll say this again for you. It doesn’t have to be based on a Disney movie as long as it’s not based on a non-disney concept.If the original idea and concept is created and developed by disney then that makes it a Disney creation. You understand me?

  • Disneylover, thanks for clarifying. It seems I didn’t read it carefully.

    Nevertheless I think you have to get used to Marvel and Avatar. Maybe it will take some time until attractions based on those will come to Paris, but I’m pretty sure they will come, as will Star Tours 2 come.

  • @ Disneylover1, relay, Owen & co, do you all have acounts on the Magicforum?

    I think this is a very interesting discussion and so I put it there for further discussion.

  • Wow – I didn’t realize my post would end up causing such a thread. Anyway – I didn’t want to say you were ridiculous, but the idea of “it’s only good if it was originally created by Disney” is just very shortsighted, and yes: I still feel ridiculous.

    If you would be the same as saying “I only want lamps that were designed by Thomas Edison”, or “I only want to eat pasta when some Italian Mama kneaded the though”.

    When I go to Disney, I want to experience the magic I am used from them. I don’t care whether Walt himself designed the ride, or James Cameron designed Pandora…

    I just still don’t and probably never will understand how you can defend all Disney and be so negative about all non-Disney. I’m sure imagineers won’t be putting Spider-Man in Fantasyland as it would suck there, but I see no harm in making him appear in the Studios…

    Disney Parks for me are to entertain, and to create an atmosphere I absolutely love. If that remains good, I really can not see why we shouldn’t be thrilled at welcoming any adition that adds more magic to the parks. I would love to fly through Pandora ;)

  • Apologies for the typos above ;)

  • @David I have explained myself clearly above and you can find my opinion about your post above. If you’re interested read them. I completely disagree with you. You want to fly through pandora fly else where. Pandora doesn’t belong in disney.

    Oh and this : “If you would be the same as saying “I only want lamps that were designed by Thomas Edison”, or “I only want to eat pasta when some Italian Mama kneaded the though.” Is an utterly ridiculous example and doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
    Read my posts carefully and you will understand.

  • @David… Exactly. If and when the Imagineers introduce Marvel to the Disney Parks, in no way will it belong in Disneyland Parc. But the studios YES! Or ever with regards to DLP the 3rd gate – Superhero World is ideal. And Disney entities can remain there also… Basil the Mouse Detective, Bolt, Hercules; the park could be brilliant and so much different to any other Disney Park. In the end, each resort has to have something unique in order to have a reason to pick that particular destination.

  • @David I have explained myself clearly above and you can find my opinion about your post above. If you’re interested read them. I completely disagree with you. You want to fly through pandora fly else where. Pandora doesn’t belong in disney.
    Oh and this : “If you would be the same as saying “I only want lamps that were designed by Thomas Edison”, or “I only want to eat pasta when some Italian Mama kneaded the though.” Is an utterly ridiculous example and doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
    Read my posts carefully and you will understand my points.

  • @dagobert:
    No I don’t have an account on Magicforum, but maybe I’ll get one. That’s indeed a very interesting discussion.

    @Disneylover1: Would you try the attractions based on Marvel or Avatar, if they would come to Paris, or would you skip them.

    Since WDW is the first resort that gets attractions based on Avatar, I think it will take some time we will see it in Paris. Until then I can imagine there will be Marvel rides coming first.

    Maybe even Shanghai Disneyland and HKDL will get something based on Avatar before DLRP.

    I’m with you David and Owen, as long as Marvel and Avatar go into WDSP, I’m pretty fine with these additions. Hopefully TWDC invests some money into ED SCA and brings Marvel and Avatar into WDSP.

+-Write a comment...

Note: Comments are moderated but will appear immediately if you have a previous approved comment on DLP Today (identified by your email address).

SUBSCRIBE

DISNEYLAND PARIS TODAY

Sunday, 21st December 2014

Disneyland
Park
09:30 - 22:00
Walt Disney
Studios Park
10:00 - 21:00

ARCHIVES