Im thinking they should go through with it, they need 1 or two more countries. If not lets get some new things to do and see inside the existing pavilions
Printable View
Im thinking they should go through with it, they need 1 or two more countries. If not lets get some new things to do and see inside the existing pavilions
I think what the posters who are expressing annoyance at the tour groups are trying to get out is that people who visit need to relax and tone it down some. It's not just the Brazilian groups either. Quite honestly people can ruin your vacation in a heart beat. My wife has been run over by white soccer moms pushing strollers, my cousin's wife was chastised by a soccer mom for standing up during the Boo to You Parade because her kids couldn't see. Problem was, we had been in our spot for over an hour waiting for the parade and the witch came up when the parade started. The worst was when I was pushed off of the tram by a latino while I was holding my three year old and a stroller. We were both pretty lucky that I didn't have a free hand because the outcome would have ruined a vacation for both of us. People need to relax regardless of what country you are from. This isn't about culture, this isn't about race. It's about being a respectable human being to each other and treating each other fairly. Say excuse me, in what ever language you know and show some freakin' compassion.
A year in to this rumor, and not a peep any anything happening at Epcot. I really think this all started because they came out with the country-themed Vinylmations, and needed one more country to fill the set - and chose Brazil.
Anything happening at Epcot is a ways away, with Disney Parks finishing up their California Adventure re-do, the Fantasyland Expansion about halfway, and apparently Disney still paying a pretty sum so that James Cameron can be lord and master over a land at Animal Kingdom that's still about 3 years away....
I personally would like to see a major expansion at DHS next, although I'd still like another country or two in the WS...
if they do build it....will it stink? and have rude people working there? that way it could be like the folks from brazil.
Maybe an added pavillion and a DHS expansion will be announced as the Fantasyland expansion is winding down. If the plan is to expand Fantasyland and add Avatarville to AK just to compete with Harry Potter, I'm not sure it's enough. Adding to Epcot and DHS would be helpful.
If they have to do major expansions at all four parks to compete with Harry Potter, which so far has been one new attraction and a rethemed area, they need to rethink everything they are doing...Quote:
Originally Posted by ohiodisneydad
Chuck Avatar, call in The Hunger Games. Although I'm not sure how you'd make a park land or attractions out of that...but find a property that the attracts guests at several age levels. Message or no message, Avatar isn't what they need.
Hunger Games isn't what they need, either. They already did away with the princess land because it was too female-geared. Imagine if they tried to build a land out of that chick flic?Quote:
Originally Posted by doconeill
But the numbers don't indicate it's a chick flick. It is skewed more towards females, but with the fight scenes, etc. males are going to it as well - far better than that sparkly vampire ****.
I'm not saying that's the solution either, but they need to look at what is drawing. They totally blew it on what they offered J.K. for Harry Potter.
I haven't seen Hunger Games & everyone I've talked to loves it but I'm not sure it's a Disney "type" story that they could use. Neither is Avatar in my opinion. But to slightly get back on topic, expanding World Showcase may not bring people into Epcot specifically to see the new country but adding one or two new destinations increases the time people spend in the park. The addition of Harry Potter made Universal a destination park and not just one of those other parks in Orlando. WDW is already a must do destination for much of the civilized world. Now the plan should be to add more rides/attractions/pavillions to increase the amount of time people stay in WDW.
I think that Avatar is more Disney than Harry Potter is. Now I'm not wild about Avatar coming to Animal Kingdom, but I'd rather that than Harry Potter. Hunger Games, while a decent movie, is more suited to Universal Studios Hollywood.
I didn't like the Hunger Games at all. To me, a Harry Potter world, makes me more sense than a Avatar themed one. I'm still not sold on the idea of an Avatar themed land at animal kingdom, but who knows, once Disney release some artist impressions, then I might be swayed.
I don't understand how the hunger games is a chick flick. Yes the main character is a girl, but I don't think anyone would argue that Harry Potter is just for guys because the main character is a boy...
I imagine a hunger games land would be a land with force fields that burn you alive, plagues and vicious animals that try to kill you and no food service stations at all.
I thought this one was clever:
http://mikeduran.com/2012/03/the-hun...k-in-disguise/
Written by a guy, so take this one with a grain of salt. But still seems to be a good summary:
http://www.chickflickreviews.net/the-hunger-games
And there isn't a film on this list that I will ever bother seeing. And that INCLUDES 'Brave' (hear me, Disney?):
http://www.bestromancemovies.com/chick-flicks-2012.php
The only one of those articles that really try to make the case for it being a true "chick flick" is the first one. And his opinion suffers from complete ignorance. Yes, when you hear about love triangles and such you certainly are hearken back to Twilight, but the love triangle is such a minor part in the story. In the first book/movie one angle of the triangle is completely fabricated for the benefit of the audience and the other character is hardly present through The Hunger Games at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by supernova
Yes the love story does grow through the next two parts, but so does the conflict and danger. It's a fairly well balanced story.
I don't understand why we have such a need to generalize film based on their characters. We see a female lead and therefore it must be a movie for women. We see a film with an African-American cast and therefore it's a movie for black people (sorry, I just got done watching The Princess & the Frog). Look past the surface of the characters and enjoy them for their substance.
I'm still convinced the casting for Princess & the Frog was a very intentional PR move on Disney's part, as well as an HR move. How many non-white face characters has Disney been able to employ up until that movie? Here's a hint... by including the princess, prince and villain, they've upped that number by 300 percent. Which is equivalent to the increase in their product line offerings.