Avatar ground breaking = done deal?

[tentaguasu]

For those of you who are long time Disney watchers what should we all take from the Avatar groundbreaking? Is this really going to happen and at the scale they've discussed?

I know Disney is always working on ideas, and that some projects start and never finish. Even when construction started.

Others go from "gigantic new land with three e-tickets and five restaurants" in concept to "land expansion with one mid-sized ride" at construction start to "themed bathroom and gift shop" by the end...

So how "locked in" is Disney on this, as a large scale project?

My uneducated guess is very locked in.

With all the activity at US, it would look bad to stop after all the hoopla (though it would take 24 hours and a Star Wars plan to overcome that...)

The bigger reason is that Disney seems to have a clear and compelling cost-benefit reward for turning AK into a full day park.

From a Disney-lover repeat visitor guest perspective Star Wars at HS is probably much more attractive. But HS is already an all day visit and while it needs work and SW would be really cool, from a beam counting perspective I'd bet just about any property this side of the Teletubbies that keeps people at AK for 4-5 more hours is a clearer win than anything they do elsewhere.

My conclusion? Pandora is coming, and in a fairly big way.

Agree? Disagree? What do wiser heads say?

 

[xie]

For those of you who are long time Disney watchers what should we all take from the Avatar groundbreaking? Is this really going to happen and at the scale they've discussed?

I know Disney is always working on ideas, and that some projects start and never finish. Even when construction started.

Others go from "gigantic new land with three e-tickets and five restaurants" in concept to "land expansion with one mid-sized ride" at construction start to "themed bathroom and gift shop" by the end...

So how "locked in" is Disney on this, as a large scale project?

My uneducated guess is very locked in.

With all the activity at US, it would look bad to stop after all the hoopla (though it would take 24 hours and a Star Wars plan to overcome that...)

The bigger reason is that Disney seems to have a clear and compelling cost-benefit reward for turning AK into a full day park.

From a Disney-lover repeat visitor guest perspective Star Wars at HS is probably much more attractive. But HS is already an all day visit and while it needs work and SW would be really cool, from a beam counting perspective I'd bet just about any property this side of the Teletubbies that keeps people at AK for 4-5 more hours is a clearer win than anything they do elsewhere.

My conclusion? Pandora is coming, and in a fairly big way.

Agree? Disagree? What do wiser heads say?

It means they will probably do it, generally speaking. What isn't a "done deal" is size and scope. They could add or cut the size of the area and number of attractions at will and most certainly will do that right up until the last minute. I don't know how much money Cameron is putting into it, but his ego is the size of the Moon, so he'll push them to make it big (and possibly fund a good bit of it himself).

I hope it's better than New Fantasyland.

 

[ToyStoryMania1]

While I have to say the layout and look of new fantasyland is definitely nice, it was kind of disappointing.

You made some great points in the new to turn Animal Kingdom into an all day park. Right now if you survey Disney visitors of their favorite parks EPCOT and Magic Kingdom are towards the top with lackluster answers given to HS or AK.

The need this to bring in more of the young male demographic as well as keeping more people in the park. Avatar will continue to be profitable and I think Disney sees potential.

I would love to see either Star Wars or Lord of the Rings in Hollywood Studios.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

My conclusion? Pandora is coming, and in a fairly big way.

Agree? Disagree? What do wiser heads say?

Agreed. It is the time and AK is the place that will pay off big for their big $800 mil investment.

And remember: This is crazy James Cameron. He will NOT allow them to go small. He is smart. He has it as part of his deal that they won't go small.

This is going to be good.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

My conclusion? Pandora is coming, and in a fairly big way.

Agree? Disagree? What do wiser heads say?

Agreed. It is the time and AK is the place that will pay off big for their big $800 mil investment.

And remember: This is crazy James Cameron. He will NOT allow them to go small. He is smart. He has it as part of his deal that they won't go small.

This is going to be good.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Agreed. It is the time and AK is the place that will pay off big for their big $800 mil investment.

And remember: This is crazy James Cameron. He will NOT allow them to go small. He is smart. He has it as part of his deal that they won't go small.

This is going to be good.

There's no real way to know. That's the most accurate assessment we can come up with.

All other comments for 2 years (and 3+ years to come) are nothing but hypothesis... They don't even qualify as theory.

 

[rteetz]

I think its pretty fair to say its a done deal that at least something avatar is coming. Animal kingdom needs something whether this is the right answer has yet to be seen but AK needs something new.

One things is details of course, size, rides, restaurants that type of thing. I don't even think disney knows many of those final details yet.

James Cameron from everything that has been reported is a very difficult person to work with which I think will be great for disney that has the possibility to see some great innovation from disney imagineering that we haven't seen in a long time.

 

[Borishack]

Avatar will continue to be profitable

Continue to be profitable? What on earth are you referring to? There have been no sequels and during and after it's theatrical run Avatar did piddling toy/gift spinoff business (when was the last time you purchased an Avatar action figure? ) Yes, the Blu Ray sold well, but analysts said that was solely because of the gimmick factor (it was one of the first 3d Blu Ray releases).

By the way, the lemmings who purchased that DVD for their "3D home cinema" are about to own expensive boat anchors.

For the 3D fad has run its course and the format is dying:

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/future-3d-tv-dims-espn-yanks-your-face-channel-6C10312930

A quote from the article sums it all up:

"The whole problem with 3D TV is it was a solution to a problem consumers didnt have"

A recent meeting of Animal Kingdom Avatar advocates:

 

[wiigirl]

There's no real way to know. That's the most accurate assessment we can come up with.

All other comments for 2 years (and 3+ years to come) are nothing but hypothesis... They don't even qualify as theory.

True....

 

[Yellowstonetim]

Continue to be profitable? What on earth are you referring to? There have been no sequels and during and after it's theatrical run Avatar did piddling toy/gift spinoff business (when was the last time you purchased an Avatar action figure? ) Yes, the Blu Ray sold well, but analysts said that was solely because of the gimmick factor (it was one of the first 3d Blu Ray releases).

By the way, the lemmings who purchased that DVD for their "3dD home cinema" are about to own a lot of expensive boar anchors.

For the 3D fad has run its course and the format is dying:

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/future-3d-tv-dims-espn-yanks-your-face-channel-6C10312930

A recent meeting of Animal Kingdom Avatar advocates:

A quote from the article sums it all up:

"The whole problem with 3D TV is it was a solution to a problem consumers didnt have"

I think what he meant was quite clear: Avatar made tons of money at the theater, tons of money on blue ray, and will continue to make tons of money when the sequels come out.

Duh. Beware the hyperbole.

3D is not dying, it will have a permanent niche. Every movie won't be in 3D. Most won't be in 3D. But movies like Gravity and Frozen are meant for 3D and did very well in the format, this year. Hollywood hoped a large percentage of movies would be 3D. Ain't gonna happen, either.

 

[OldsDr]

For those of you who are long time Disney ....

... What do wiser heads say?

I would like to comment but I don't think I qualify.

 

[Borishack]

I think what he meant was quite clear: Avatar made tons of money at the theater, tons of money on blue ray

Past tense. Old history. The person I quoted said "continues"

and will continue to make tons of money when the sequels come out.

First point: if they come out. Back eons ago during the Avatar heyday, Cameron said the first sequel was going to come out in 2012. What happened? Can you explain to us why no sequel appeared then? And since Cameron waffled then, explain why we shouldn't assume he will waffle again.

Second point: even if he does manage to get a sequel out (three? Yeah, we'll believe that when Disney buys Universal), how do you know it is going to make "tons of money?" That presumes there is an installed base of hard core Avatar fans, which has been disproven again and again and again. Frankly, if Cameron does get a sequel or two out their fate will rest on what else they are competing with at the time of their release. The novelty of the original is gone (fancy 3D CGI) so no, that gimmick alone isn't going to sell tickets.

Or to put all the above differently, Avatar has not proven itself yet as a franchise and whether it will succeed at that is still up in the air.

3D is not dying

It was clear I was referencing 3D television, which is dying and will not have a permanent niche. As for films, studios back in the late 50s during the prior 3D fad were also saying that format would have permanent niche.

And they were wrong.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

Past tense. Old history. The person I quoted said "continues"

First point: if they come out. Back eons ago during the Avatar heyday, Cameron said the first sequel was going to come out in 2012. What happened? Can you explain to us why no sequel appeared then? And since Cameron waffled then, explain why we shouldn't assume he will waffle again.

Second point: even if he does manage to get a sequel out (three? Yeah, we'll believe that when Disney buys Universal), how do you know it is going to make "tons of money?" That presumes there is an installed base of hard core Avatar fans, which has been disproven again and again and again. Frankly, if Cameron does get a sequel or two out their fate will rest on what else they are competing with at the time of their release. The novelty of the original is gone (fancy 3D CGI) so no, that gimmick alone isn't going to sell tickets.

Or to put all the above differently, Avatar has not proven itself yet as a franchise and whether it will succeed at that is still up in the air.

It was clear I was referencing 3D television, which is dying and will not have a permanent niche. As for films, studios back in the late 50s during the prior 3D fad were also saying that format would have permanent niche.

And they were wrong.

Ummmmm. For something to continue it must have a past.

Cameron is notorious for going slow and doing it right. New tech invented. Filming at bottom of ocean and all three filmed at once. It's gonna happen.

You always bring up franchise. We don't need no stinking franchise. Cameron will bring inventive unique amazing visuals and people will go to see it in droves. It's that irritatingly simple.

I think 3D is different now. For the first time it doesn't hurt, it was good and required for Gravity, and will be a niche. If it survives theaters it will survive as a niche in TV sets if not TV programming. I love 3D movies at home. Avatar is awesome!

 

[rteetz]

Ummmmm. For something to continue it must have a past. Cameron is notorious for going slow and doing it right. New tech invented. Filming at bottom of ocean and all three filmed at once. It's gonna happen. You always bring up franchise. We don't need no stinking franchise. Cameron will bring inventive unique amazing visuals and people will go to see it in droves. It's that irritatingly simple. I think 3D is different now. For the first time it doesn't hurt, it was good and required for Gravity, and will be a niche. If it survives theaters it will survive as a niche in TV sets if not TV programming. I love 3D movies at home. Avatar is awesome!

exactly. Cameron wanted to make the first avatar movie like 20 years ago but the technology wasn't there so he waited and created the things himself that weren't created. Cameron is slow but he does top notch projects technology wise.

 

[Borishack]

Cameron is slow but he does top notch projects technology wise.

And therein lies the core problem.

Avatar was basically a C-grade sci-fi movie...with absolutely supreme 3D effects. The latter were proof of concept, a great demonstration of the awesome computing powers used to create them.

But the script was simplistic and weak (basically a Sci-fi ripoff of Dancing with Wolves) with forgettable characters.

But Avatar fans completely ignore all that and equate CPU cycles with movie quality.

 

[AJRitz]

And therein lies the core problem.

Avatar was basically a C-grade sci-fi movie...with absolutely supreme 3D effects. The latter were proof of concept, a great demonstration of the awesome computing powers used to create them.

But the script was simplistic and weak (basically a Sci-fi ripoff of Dancing with Wolves) with forgettable characters.

But Avatar fans completely ignore all that and equate CPU cycles with movie quality.

And Citizen Kane would make a crappy theme park land. What's your point?

Generally speaking, great films don't make great theme park lands. Great, immersive, compelling environments make great theme park lands.

Complex stories make awful theme park attractions (which is why I hope the Lord of the Rings/Disney rumors die - and I love the Tolkein books). Great theme park attractions tell simple stories - ones in which theme park guests can be immersed for a few minutes and walk away having "gotten it." Theme parks tell much of their story with atmosphere, architecture, lighting, music - things other than rides and "CPU cycles." THAT is where Cameron and Disney Imagineering working together will excel, and that is why there's every reason to believe that Pandora will be a great addition to Disney's Animal Kingdom.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

And Citizen Kane would make a crappy theme park land. What's your point?

Generally speaking, great films don't make great theme park lands. Great, immersive, compelling environments make great theme park lands.

Complex stories make awful theme park attractions (which is why I hope the Lord of the Rings/Disney rumors die - and I love the Tolkein books). Great theme park attractions tell simple stories - ones in which theme park guests can be immersed for a few minutes and walk away having "gotten it." Theme parks tell much of their story with atmosphere, architecture, lighting, music - things other than rides and "CPU cycles." THAT is where Cameron and Disney Imagineering working together will excel, and that is why there's every reason to believe that Pandora will be a great addition to Disney's Animal Kingdom.

Exactly!

 

[rteetz]

And Citizen Kane would make a crappy theme park land. What's your point? Generally speaking, great films don't make great theme park lands. Great, immersive, compelling environments make great theme park lands. Complex stories make awful theme park attractions (which is why I hope the Lord of the Rings/Disney rumors die - and I love the Tolkein books). Great theme park attractions tell simple stories - ones in which theme park guests can be immersed for a few minutes and walk away having "gotten it." Theme parks tell much of their story with atmosphere, architecture, lighting, music - things other than rides and "CPU cycles." THAT is where Cameron and Disney Imagineering working together will excel, and that is why there's every reason to believe that Pandora will be a great addition to Disney's Animal Kingdom.

agreed 100% you need that immersive environment without it your not going to have a successful theme park.

 

[Borishack]

Generally speaking, great films don't make great theme park lands.

Memo to Mr. Iger: the jury has spoken. You must immediately close down Pinnochio's Daring Journey at DL, Star Tours at DL and WDW and Splash Mountain at both and Tokyo Sea. All are deeply flawed.

Great, immersive, compelling environments make great theme park lands.

You imply films with decent scripts and characters and those with "immersive, compelling environments" are mutually exclusive. They aren't, and what you miss is character and narrative combined with compelling environment are what make truly great attractions and lands. That's why HP at Universal is the monster success it is. The ambience there has as much to do with the personas of the characters and the experiences they have had as it does the incredible gothic majesty of Hogwarts.

And what is clear is Avatar is the antithesis of a film offering character and narrative. Which is what led to it ending up on a disproportionate number of "most overrated movies" lists. Here are a few choice examples:

http://moviechopshop.com/2009/12/31/most-overrated-movie-of-2009-avatar/

http://www.dailyfunlists.com/most-overrated-movies-of-the-last-decade/

coed.com/2010/09/08/25-of-the-most-overrated-movies-of-all-time/

Great theme park attractions tell simple stories - ones in which theme park guests can be immersed for a few minutes and walk away having "gotten it."

Help us out here: exactly what is the compelling "simple story" that visitors to Pandora-land are supposed to "get?" Oh, we know - it's about conservation of blue cat people. Save the Navi..........

 

[rteetz]

Memo to Mr. Iger: the jury has spoken. You must immediately close down Pinnochio's Daring Journey at DL, Star Tours at DL and WDW and Splash Mountain at both and Tokyo Sea. All are deeply flawed. You imply films with decent scripts and characters and those with "immersive, compelling environments" are mutually exclusive. They aren't, and what you miss is character and narrative combined with compelling environment are what make truly great attractions and lands. That's why HP at Universal is the monster success it is. The ambience there has as much to do with the personas of the characters and the experiences they have had as it does the incredible gothic majesty of Hogwarts. And what is clear is Avatar is the antithesis of a film offering character and narrative. Which is what led to ending up on many "most overrated movies" lists: http://moviechopshop.com/2009/12/31/most-overrated-movie-of-2009-avatar/ http://www.dailyfunlists.com/most-overrated-movies-of-the-last-decade/ coed.com/2010/09/08/25-of-the-most-overrated-movies-of-all-time/ Help us out here: exactly what is the compelling "simple story" that visitors to Pandora-land are supposed to "get?" Oh, we know - it's about conservation of blue cat people. Save the Navi..........

you really like to quote websites I've never heard of any of those so obviously they aren't very popular. Splash mountain is a disney classic. Depending on what they do with Star Wars there is potential for a star tours upgrade. The story is conservation of wildlife they just used the made up Navi people but the technology behind the movie and the great detail work in the film can make a terrific land. Why do you have no hope in disney they still can do great things and I think great things will come with avatar in AK. All you do is bash avatar yes it wasn't a good movie but that doesn't mean it can't be a good land.