DCTooTall
<MARQUEE BEHAVIOR=ALTERNATE><img src=http://www.em
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2008
I've been extremely quiet on all the Avatar threads for the past several months/Year.... I just got tired of always saying the same thing on every new incarnation of "AVATAR IS DEAD!" or "AVATARLAND IS STUPID" threads. But I'm thinking I'll poke my head back up since we have a slightly different core topic (the 3 sequels at once), and I'm seeing a lot of different people here than who were around the last time I really spoke up on this subject.
First off.... I see several different arguments against the Avatar based attractions which are repeated, but don't really make sense when you look deeper.
(a) "I Don't believe any attractions should be built off of Non-Disney Properties." It isn't like this is the first time Disney has licensed or used a property it didn't create in-house for an attraction... or even a headliner for an expansion. You literally can't walk around any of the parks without tripping over non-Disney Original IP. Just look at all the Pixar attractions in EVERY Park. Pixar, When it created all these Stories, Was NOT part of Disney. It was a 3rd party studio that had a distribution deal with Disney. Disney however Eventually Acquired the Studio and brought it in-house, But even the films released after the Disney relationship strengthened came from ideas and stories conceived at the studio before that time. Or Pooh. A.A.Milne was not a Disney Employee. Disney didn't even have any ownership of the Pooh Characters beyond a simple Licensing deal.
The Sunset Boulevard Expansion at the Disney-MGM Studios was the first Major expansion at the park, and it's Headline attraction was based off a license for the Twilight Zone property. (Which also wasn't a very family-focused property). I could also mention all the non-Disney MGM properties based in that park.
And don't forget everyone's FAVORITE Disney Licenses.....Star Wars and Indy. These are Properties that Disney has licensed for YEARS, and which they only just recently acquired ownership of. To say that Disney shouldn't build an attraction off Non-Disney Original IP is unfair to all of the high quality attractions Imagineering has given us over the decades using stories, places, and characters which someone other than Disney made popular.
(b) "I don't know/care about/don't like/have no interest in/don't agree with the story in the movie. They can't make a decent attraction out of this unliked/bad/forgotten about property" Once Again.... Splash Mountain. If it weren't for that attraction, or the song "Zip-a-dee-do-da", How many of us would really know what the movie "Song of the South" was about.... or that it even existed?? Even if the source material isn't the most conducive to a great attraction, Don't underestimate imagineering's ability to give us something much greater than the source material would hint was possible.... if they are given the freedom and resources to work with.
(c) "This is a movie! It doesn't fit in the Animal Kingdom park!" Honestly... I think it'll be a great fit, and can fit better here than any other park. More importantly, The Animal Kingdom is probably the park that is the most in need of a major addition. From a thematic view, the core idea behind the first Avatar movie was an environmental message. (Seriously, they beat you over the head with it. it was hard to miss). That Environmental message fits seamlessly with the core theme of the Animal Kingdom.
Outside of that.... Try not to see it as "Avatar: The Theme Park Land!".... Think about it as "Pandora"... the world upon which the movie was based. We are talking about a very lush and beautiful environment that would very easily fit into the Animal Kingdom. Just imagine the current foliage, the trees and bushes, along the path from Discovery Island to Camp Mickey/Minnie. There is already a jungle vibe there with the overgrowth, so creating a "seamless" transition from the jungle of Discovery Island, to the alien jungle of Pandora shouldn't be too difficult to pull off for the Imagineers.
Beyond just that ready-made fit, Cameron has already created as part of his super-detailed alien world, a complete ecosystem, complete with plants and animals that complement each other and fit within the location he created. He created much more detail in the ecosystem of the planet than we saw in the movie. In this regard, I see the Disney deal for the IP as already giving Imagineering the completed building blocks to build a comprehensive story and environment for the attractions and set designs they have in mind. They don't need to take the time, effort, or money to try and design the details of the place, Because someone has already done all that groundwork for them. (Sorry Rodhe.... No safari's to the Amazon to learn about untouched by man ecosystems)
So there is a lot of upside and potential for Imagineering to create something amazing here, Something that is worth taking a wait and see approach and not calling it a failure before we even get actual concept ideas.
Beyond just that.... Animal Kingdom needs the love. According to all rumors or rationalization, Everest is going to need a pretty lengthy refurb if we ever want to get Betty the Yeti out of the Disco. The Problem is that the park just doesn't have the attraction capacity to absorb the loss of one of it's few E-tickets.... either in attraction capacity... or even really in the ability to pull people into the park. Since the attraction still works as a coaster, There is no reason to bring it down like it needs. The Pandora expansion would/should give the park the extra breathing room so they can afford to take Everest down for a more extensive refurb. I can also see the whole bioluminescent aspect of the planet making for some amazing nighttime visuals, and the added attraction capacity (and location away from the animal pens) could make it more likely that they could keep the park open later after the animal based attractions have to close as the animals are bedded for the night.
(d) "Avatar was a pretty weak movie/universe and won't stand the test of time. They should pick something more popular... like Star Wars!"
I'll freely admit that the first Avatar movie had some very impressive visuals, in part because they were the first of their kind that we saw in the theaters, But had a pretty weak and rehashed story once you got past the eye candy.
When you think about it though.... So did a pretty great Eye-Candy movie that came out in 1977. The first Star Wars movie broke new ground visually, but it also had a pretty weak story that was a rehash of any number of old serials.
It wasn't until Empire and Jedi that the Star Wars Universe was fleshed out into something much more substantial, and ultimately gave the franchise the real staying power it has today. (Which really says something when you look at how hard Lucas has tried to destroy the franchise in the years since.).
Avatar had some great visuals, But it's Dances with Smurfs/Pocahontas storyline wasn't anything we hadn't seen before. With the Sequels planned there is potential to flesh out the universe created into something much more fleshed out and able to withstand the test of time. (Will Avatar become Star Wars after Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi? Or will it become the Matrix after Reloaded and Revolutions? We don't know yet and it's too soon to say).
Now, Star Wars also had a major advantage over any new original theatrical property that will be released today.... The way the theater system worked in the late 70's, and the way the pop culture machine worked in the late 70's, is ENTIRELY different than the way things operate today. The First Star Wars movie had a bit of an extra boost with it's initial run since there weren't 20 other movies with huge budgets competing for the theater space the same weekend, and each following weekend.
No matter how you look at it, I truly believe it's too early to make a final judgement on how Avatar will end up going.... Either as a theme park property, or as a theatrical/pop culture property.
First off.... I see several different arguments against the Avatar based attractions which are repeated, but don't really make sense when you look deeper.
(a) "I Don't believe any attractions should be built off of Non-Disney Properties." It isn't like this is the first time Disney has licensed or used a property it didn't create in-house for an attraction... or even a headliner for an expansion. You literally can't walk around any of the parks without tripping over non-Disney Original IP. Just look at all the Pixar attractions in EVERY Park. Pixar, When it created all these Stories, Was NOT part of Disney. It was a 3rd party studio that had a distribution deal with Disney. Disney however Eventually Acquired the Studio and brought it in-house, But even the films released after the Disney relationship strengthened came from ideas and stories conceived at the studio before that time. Or Pooh. A.A.Milne was not a Disney Employee. Disney didn't even have any ownership of the Pooh Characters beyond a simple Licensing deal.
The Sunset Boulevard Expansion at the Disney-MGM Studios was the first Major expansion at the park, and it's Headline attraction was based off a license for the Twilight Zone property. (Which also wasn't a very family-focused property). I could also mention all the non-Disney MGM properties based in that park.
And don't forget everyone's FAVORITE Disney Licenses.....Star Wars and Indy. These are Properties that Disney has licensed for YEARS, and which they only just recently acquired ownership of. To say that Disney shouldn't build an attraction off Non-Disney Original IP is unfair to all of the high quality attractions Imagineering has given us over the decades using stories, places, and characters which someone other than Disney made popular.
(b) "I don't know/care about/don't like/have no interest in/don't agree with the story in the movie. They can't make a decent attraction out of this unliked/bad/forgotten about property" Once Again.... Splash Mountain. If it weren't for that attraction, or the song "Zip-a-dee-do-da", How many of us would really know what the movie "Song of the South" was about.... or that it even existed?? Even if the source material isn't the most conducive to a great attraction, Don't underestimate imagineering's ability to give us something much greater than the source material would hint was possible.... if they are given the freedom and resources to work with.
(c) "This is a movie! It doesn't fit in the Animal Kingdom park!" Honestly... I think it'll be a great fit, and can fit better here than any other park. More importantly, The Animal Kingdom is probably the park that is the most in need of a major addition. From a thematic view, the core idea behind the first Avatar movie was an environmental message. (Seriously, they beat you over the head with it. it was hard to miss). That Environmental message fits seamlessly with the core theme of the Animal Kingdom.
Outside of that.... Try not to see it as "Avatar: The Theme Park Land!".... Think about it as "Pandora"... the world upon which the movie was based. We are talking about a very lush and beautiful environment that would very easily fit into the Animal Kingdom. Just imagine the current foliage, the trees and bushes, along the path from Discovery Island to Camp Mickey/Minnie. There is already a jungle vibe there with the overgrowth, so creating a "seamless" transition from the jungle of Discovery Island, to the alien jungle of Pandora shouldn't be too difficult to pull off for the Imagineers.
Beyond just that ready-made fit, Cameron has already created as part of his super-detailed alien world, a complete ecosystem, complete with plants and animals that complement each other and fit within the location he created. He created much more detail in the ecosystem of the planet than we saw in the movie. In this regard, I see the Disney deal for the IP as already giving Imagineering the completed building blocks to build a comprehensive story and environment for the attractions and set designs they have in mind. They don't need to take the time, effort, or money to try and design the details of the place, Because someone has already done all that groundwork for them. (Sorry Rodhe.... No safari's to the Amazon to learn about untouched by man ecosystems)
So there is a lot of upside and potential for Imagineering to create something amazing here, Something that is worth taking a wait and see approach and not calling it a failure before we even get actual concept ideas.
Beyond just that.... Animal Kingdom needs the love. According to all rumors or rationalization, Everest is going to need a pretty lengthy refurb if we ever want to get Betty the Yeti out of the Disco. The Problem is that the park just doesn't have the attraction capacity to absorb the loss of one of it's few E-tickets.... either in attraction capacity... or even really in the ability to pull people into the park. Since the attraction still works as a coaster, There is no reason to bring it down like it needs. The Pandora expansion would/should give the park the extra breathing room so they can afford to take Everest down for a more extensive refurb. I can also see the whole bioluminescent aspect of the planet making for some amazing nighttime visuals, and the added attraction capacity (and location away from the animal pens) could make it more likely that they could keep the park open later after the animal based attractions have to close as the animals are bedded for the night.
(d) "Avatar was a pretty weak movie/universe and won't stand the test of time. They should pick something more popular... like Star Wars!"
I'll freely admit that the first Avatar movie had some very impressive visuals, in part because they were the first of their kind that we saw in the theaters, But had a pretty weak and rehashed story once you got past the eye candy.
When you think about it though.... So did a pretty great Eye-Candy movie that came out in 1977. The first Star Wars movie broke new ground visually, but it also had a pretty weak story that was a rehash of any number of old serials.
It wasn't until Empire and Jedi that the Star Wars Universe was fleshed out into something much more substantial, and ultimately gave the franchise the real staying power it has today. (Which really says something when you look at how hard Lucas has tried to destroy the franchise in the years since.).
Avatar had some great visuals, But it's Dances with Smurfs/Pocahontas storyline wasn't anything we hadn't seen before. With the Sequels planned there is potential to flesh out the universe created into something much more fleshed out and able to withstand the test of time. (Will Avatar become Star Wars after Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi? Or will it become the Matrix after Reloaded and Revolutions? We don't know yet and it's too soon to say).
Now, Star Wars also had a major advantage over any new original theatrical property that will be released today.... The way the theater system worked in the late 70's, and the way the pop culture machine worked in the late 70's, is ENTIRELY different than the way things operate today. The First Star Wars movie had a bit of an extra boost with it's initial run since there weren't 20 other movies with huge budgets competing for the theater space the same weekend, and each following weekend.
No matter how you look at it, I truly believe it's too early to make a final judgement on how Avatar will end up going.... Either as a theme park property, or as a theatrical/pop culture property.
