Discussion in 'Disney Rumors and News' started by Postal68, Aug 18, 2013.
And many (me included) didn't even think it was a good movie.
Log in or Sign up to hide this advert.
It wasn't...a visually impressive technical movie with very average character development and a completely predictable/bland plot.
I'm a fan of the technical development and design of the disney parks...that's why I'm here.
I like the look and the feel, the nuts and bolts...the history
So I'll just go ahead and say it:
I don't think what's left of Disney corporate and "imagineering" can take what is mediocre IP and build something top notch...
Does anybody else think so?
And...they seem to be too budget focused when it comes to WDW. Which is dumb because its where the money is made
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. So was Star Wars (aka..episode 4: A New Hope). Let's see...Farmer runs away from home after family killed...saves princess....becomes savior in battle against evil forces who kidnapped the princess... Oh! but it's all in SPACE!!
Yup.... Never seen that story before.
Honestly.... I'm keeping my hopes up they can pull it off. Between the patent we saw a couple years ago with the "interactive plants" developed by Disney, and the existing jungle-like overgrowth we've got in that area, I'm thinking they have the basics where they could pull something halfway decent off. As long as they have a halfway decent budget, give the Imagineers the freedom to do their job.....and Keep Rodhe away [and his ability to magically make large portions of attraction development budgets disappear].... Then I think they could pull something amazing off.
Now... I'm not really holding my breath that it would be anything like what we saw when they built EPCOT Center with the level of attractions we had at one time..... But I do think they could pull something off that's closer to "The Living Seas" instead of "The Seas with Nemo".
(Funny thing that made me laugh this weekend.... I Had a bit of nostalgia and looked up the pre-show movie from The Living Seas on Youtube. Someone mentioned they heard something that sounded very Disney, to which I replied instantly without thinking about it, "Yup, Sadly it's no longer there. It was Part of 'The Living Seas' before Disney killed it and just made it 'The Seas...WITH NEMO!'")
why avatarland. so many other better films / worlds to chose from
If you had bothered to read the thread, you might have an idea.
I gotta call a technical foul on you for the comparison of 1977 to 2009...
But you know that's a false analogy. Not the plot line point...but the cultural setting.
All three lord of the rings were 5x better than avatar and they preceeded by years...as did two of the Nolan batman movies. Maybe not quite the same genre...but a good story is a good story no matter what colors the characters speaking it are.
There was no bar for Star Wars to meet...because it set the bar.
Avatar didnt... Honestly meet it or move it. It made cash from the "you gotta see it" crowd that forgot it before they hit the pillow that night.
And if you remember...it had one of the biggest periods of no competition that winter... There was nothing...you hadn't seen that very often for about 10 years before and may never see it again.
But anyway...you "hope" they can do something "decent"
But you don't believe it... Hence the tepid endorsement.
I'm right there... Hope...but have as little faith as possible on this. And a shame too... Animal kingdom needs top of the line just as much as DCA did and needs the draw way more than MK did...
But I don't see it.
And 1000% right about dippy Joe...he'll probably schedule trips to Venus to "immerse himself".
Sadly, he's gonna bring this one down too.
The guy has spent easy over 2 billion on that park and there is hardly anything there...
He must have pictures of Iger with some farm animal
You scared me a little there
See... The thing is I'm not ENTIRELY sure it is a false analogy. Sure, times are different, but if you look at the films themselves, you can see a lot of similarities.
Visually stunning. Check
Technically groundbreaking. Check.
Not of TON of legit competition around the time of release. Check.
Visually unlike anything people had seen before. Check.
Triggered a bunch of 'gimicky look-alikes'. Check.
Box office haul benefiting from "YOU GOTTA SEE THIS" word of mouth.. Check.
Egomaniac perfectionist filmmaker.... Check.
Culturally, True. We are a vastly different society than we were in 1977. But I think a legitimate argument could be made that if the social interaction and cynicism of today existing in 1977 you'd see a similar level of hate surrounding the first Star Wars film, along with a legitimate question of if we'd have the same type of "Star who?" comments regarding the planned sequel so many years after it's initial impact.
I also think that the sledgehammer of the environmental message, and the portrayal of the militarized corporation within Avatar helped boost it's hateability levels a bit since it made for a couple easy targets in today's political climate.....
But my initial point stands. If you are looking at just the 2 films themselves, there are a lot of similarities that could be drawn between them. It's also worth mentioning considering 2 of the most popular comments you hear are "Avatar is no Star Wars" and "why would they make a sequel/attraction/land based on such a silly and predictable movie?" For all we know, Given the time to mature the Avatar universe could turn into something very similar to Star Wars....and it's easily cheaper and easier to get in on the ground floor than to wait 25yrs and have to spend $4bil to get complete control over the property.
And both those properties have major things AGAINST Disney ever being able to do anything with them. Lord of the Rings would require dealing with the Tolkein estate, and deal with the whole "I Never want Disney to have control over my work" legacy from the Author.
Batman is a DC work. Not only is DC Marvel's competition in the Comic Book space.... but it's owned by Warner Brothers and already has a long established Theme/amusement Park agreement with Six Flags.
And neither would be as good a fit thematically within Animal Kingdom as Avatar is with that afore mentioned Environmental/conservation sledgehammer they used in the film.
Which bar? The story? There were plenty of great story and character driven films in the 70's. There are some that are still to this day considered classics. And we already agreed above that neither film was really groundbreaking in it's plot and character development.
The Money Making ability? Star Wars was indeed a great blockbuster, but Jaws preceded it as a major blockbuster..... and Avatar moved the bar again quite dramatically for it's boxoffice haul.
Visually? Star Wars Definitely set the bar back in 1977 for what could be done visually within a movie.... and again, Avatar set a modern bar with the way it utilized the 3d technology and motion capture technologies.
I'm seriously not sure in which aspect you believe Star Wars created a bar with that first film that Avatar didn't really match? maybe length of time on a big screen? Avatar was available in theaters for much longer than most movies I can think of in recent history, in large part because of the fact the 3D effects were such a large part of its appeal for people...combined with the relatively low competition. Star Wars likely was available longer between re-release and discount theaters.... but it also came out in a time before the consumer home video market or hundreds of choices on cable or on demand made it much easier for someone to just wait out the initial theater run and catch it later at home.
Oh.... and as for people forgetting about the film before there head hit the pillow, need I remind you of the multitude of stories such as this one that came out around that time? http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html
Heh.... I'd say that is more my personality giving the tepid endorsement than a lack of faith that something amazing could emerge. I'm extremely reluctant to give a full on glowing endorsement for much of anything because I know so many potential things could happen to ruin the best outcomes.
I believe that given the resources, freedom, and conviction to follow thru and not bow to the vocal 'omg!!!1111 Avatar sux!!!1111!!11' contingent in the Disney Fan Community, That we could see something surpassing anything we've seen in Florida for years out of the Avatar/Pandora Project at the Animal Kingdom.
I Believe that the talent still exists within Imagineering. I believe Cameron created a very impressive playset for them to work with. and I believe that Animal Kingdom's setting and vibe could very easily compliment Pandora and make it better than if it was plunked down at the end of the Streets of America at MGM.
What I'm not sure of however is if the Accountants will be willing to spend the money needed for a quality expansion on an 'unproven' property. I'm not sure that the Marketting people or execs won't get cold feet and start demanding changes to try and quiet the complainers [Just look at Alien Encounter to see an example of a great Imagineered Attraction getting killed because the Marketting/Execs getting scared because of complaints from people who couldn't even read or listen to all the warnings]. And I'm not entirely sure if there is a personality strong enough within Imagineering currently who can drive the project thru to completion without it's getting marred and mangled along the way from all the competing outside influences.
Honestly, I'm not so sure it's all Joe's fault. Looking at Iger, I'm thinking he may just be so disconnected from the creative side of the house that he doesn't realize that the super artistic/dreamer/creative type like Rohde has a place within the Imagineering family... But that that place isn't at the top of the food chain. Even though "Imagination" is what begins the word coined by WED, you wouldn't get anywhere with the Engineering part.
Something I've noticed recently when watching some old interviews or making of specials, Is that you have seen a lot of Joe over the years talking about the details, and the realism, and the artistic aspects of projects... but with the great Imagineers of years past you saw a lot of them talking about a problem that needed solved and the engineering behind solving the issue.... or how the engineering or logistics behind the attraction helped to shape the experience.
I basically could see where in the past there was a definite balance between the Imagination side and the engineering side... with any unbalance usually skewing towards the Engineering side [Think: Matterhorn, Space mountain, Monorail, etc]. Under Rodhe's leadership however we see the balance disappearing with more focus being spent on the imagination side, at the expense of the engineering.
So I doubt there is blackmail material to force Iger to keep them despite the issues.... but instead a problem with Iger being so disconnected he cannot see past the dazzle and realize a problem. [And Joe's tendency to overspend on 'Research' probably makes him an easy target for the beancounters which have helped to further dilute Imagineering's potential]
i wish this debate would turn into where its going to be and how many attractions? this gets old...move on its ok
Well...I feel like we're closer in our thinking than the words indicate...
But neither of us is gonna budge.
You still give Star Wars little credit for what it was (and most entertainment people agree on): a game changer from technical and most importantly an economic angle. It was.
Don't see avatar as on the same field... Except
With maybe 3D... Which of course wasnt exactly cutting edge. It made gobs... But so did a movie about a boat where everyone knew the damn story and tons of really poor comic book movies since ( and more than one pirate movie)
But the problem With avatarland isn't this comparison of movie quality... It's that it does NOT have a longterm following... No matter how many Facebook likes it has (a kitten falling off a toilet gets 500,000 likes) and unlike Harry potter, Star Wars, or fantasyland... Has almost no merch potential on the ground... Especially in animal
The beaners know this...and that is why I fear the budget is DOA.
Unless... Disney lays it out there like they do in Japan: "we'll build what ever you want... As soon as the check clears" to Cameron... Who might be crazy enough to fall for it.
But probably won't.
So honestly how good of a shot can you honestly think this has?
And that...I believe...gets down to the fundamental issue of why we keep having the avatar debate. The prospects don't look great right now. Opinion of course.
I wonder if this would have been even a thought if they had bought Lucasfilm in 2011?
That's kinda up to Disney, isn't it?
Your think the entertainment juggernaut could maybe be a little more consistent, huh?
And not pump an elaborate section of mostly rehash in fantasyland for 5 years?
This is where I divert
From the "trust the mouse" and "how much can they do/spend crowd?"
The answers to those are "no... It hasn't been earned recently and companies that peddle "stuff" must meet that at all times... There is no breaks"
"A ton... They are squeezing consumers...gosh darn it... They really are". And " you don't have to buy it" plays right into their hooks
Just gonna say it. Just the way it is. Don't have to read it or care. But that Doesn't change the fundamental.
You should read jim hills article on avatar especially the comments section (maybe you have already) good read
Thanks for the tip... Definitely will.
Though I can't really take jim hill serious... He typically just wings it
But I'll take a lookie
I read the Jim hill article...it's premise is that Cameron is a perfectionist and takes forever...
While that may mean good things for the avatar addition...it also could mean bad things for wdw as a whole:
The last thing fans should want is this thing turning into a test track...because its a natural excuse to delay much needed additions, corrections, and refreshes across all four parks
"Close to a billion dollars of investment on avatar and Disney springs..."
Are you willing to wait 10 years for more with that as your bridge?
Avatars and an Apple Store?
Just playing the advocate here
Tootall and Dave,
Im usually with you...but the argument avatar is anywhere close to as significant or successful as Star Wars from a cultural standpoint or even has what can be loosely hinted at staying power is just silly...
My opinion...we'll disagree.
i do agree with you its not on the level of star wars, BUT 1977 and 2013 are very different times for movies..no red box etc....
star wars was just as much known for its special effects as avatar
still dont think any of this matters in terms of theme park success
I'm not saying it is either-- however, it may be in the future-- possibly due to a collaboration. Everything has a beginning.
I wish I had thought of putting a rock in a cardboard box and selling them as pets. That was a dumb idea, right?
That was a dumb idea...set
Humanity back 500 years
I thought of something much too late to market it, but I once remembered the pet rock thing and pondered the concept of selling Y2K compliant rocks, complete with a letter of guarantee.
Separate names with a comma.