Does anyone have an Avatarland update??

[disneyworld1977]

I have decided Avatarland may benefit me... I didn't care for the movie, to me it was a grown-up version of Ferngully, but I figure, while everyone else goes there, that gives me access to shorter lines to ride Dinosaur & KS I don't think Avatartland Belongs in AK, I think something DISNEY based like, Pocahontas, Jungle Book, etc would have been better, but I'm not going to get into that. I just know I won't be heading over there, I want to enjoy the animals and other stuff. I am kind of secretly hoping this will fall through but it not, oh well. I agree AK needs something shiny and new, but not sure if this is it.

I know where you are coming from too. As I stated in another thread, I am up and down about this. If it is a STRONG focus on "Pandora", conservation, the animal life, etc, and not "here is a land from a movie". I would rather them do something on their own, maybe based on a movie that Disney already has, but that's out of my hands. If this is an effort to get mythical creatures/animals into AK than I understand, but that's what it needs to be about, not for example, movie props everywhere.....

 

[lockedoutlogic]

That just cracked me up. Thanks for the chuckle.

I think Everest is cool, even though I'll never ride it again b/c I can't do backwards, and the Yeti wasn't working when I was there - just the shadow and I think some red eyes or something. It was a couple of years ago. But just as a counterpoint, I don't think it's fair to judge attendance pull on a roller coaster years after it's been built b/c there's not a roller coaster in the world that can do that. Much like computers, they become out of date or "old hat" not long after they're built. There's always something bigger and better coming out. It's still "THE ride" at AK. And it's one of the few roller coasters out there that actually immerses you in something other that just a themed car and the track. Kudos to Disney for that - they're all about the details and the story. Well, other than that whole yeti not working thing.

I agree with you on the staying power of rides...but Everest represents a Disney failure beyond just itself.

Management was very disturbed when animal kingdoms attendance and revenues slid after the first year/ year and a half (it opened in april98...so that was a partial..then they even got a bump from the hugely successful millennium after that)...buy late 2001/ 2002 they had a problem and hurried threw up Chester and Hester - which is supremely out of character for them. Feedback was there just wasn't much to do.

So flash forward to 2003 when Everest was announced...
Old Michael E at the press conference...desperately trying to hang on to his empire at that point...made some comments about how they were going to concentrate on animal kingdom...because that's what Disney DOES (it's no secret he was found of it and ramrodded it through in the first place)

I can't remember the exact quote...but it was very close to "we're spending 200 million on this thing...what do you want already?"

So they took out a blah Tarzan show and made it into a puppet fish show that has a modest 3 hour run time...and built Everest.

How aggressive...except that was 8 going on 9 years ago and the park is still sparse by any standards...let alone Disney parks. Dutch wonderland is impressive by this measuring stick.

And so we are talking about an expansion (albeit ambitious and expensive)...it will not roll for likey 11-12 years after the last addition.

Nuttin...no animals...no rides...no shows....not even meet and greets.

So while I'm displaying vitriol for Everest here...it's a MUCH bigger thing than that.

 

[fuzzlekins]

I agree with you on the staying power of rides...but Everest represents a Disney failure beyond just itself.

Management was very disturbed when animal kingdoms attendance and revenues slid after the first year/ year and a half (it opened in april98...so that was a partial..then they even got a bump from the hugely successful millennium after that)...buy late 2001/ 2002 they had a problem and hurried threw up Chester and Hester - which is supremely out of character for them. Feedback was there just wasn't much to do.

So flash forward to 2003 when Everest was announced...
Old Michael E at the press conference...desperately trying to hang on to his empire at that point...made some comments about how they were going to concentrate on animal kingdom...because that's what Disney DOES (it's no secret he was found of it and ramrodded it through in the first place)

I can't remember the exact quote...but it was very close to "we're spending 200 million on this thing...what do you want already?"

So they took out a blah Tarzan show and made it into a puppet fish show that has a modest 3 hour run time...and built Everest.

How aggressive...except that was 8 going on 9 years ago and the park is still sparse by any standards...let alone Disney parks. Dutch wonderland is impressive by this measuring stick.

And so we are talking about an expansion (albeit ambitious and expensive)...it will not roll for likey 11-12 years after the last addition.

Nuttin...no animals...no rides...no shows....not even meet and greets.

So while I'm displaying vitriol for Everest here...it's a MUCH bigger thing than that.

Interesting. I'm much more of a Disney parks novice - haven't really tracked much that they've done over the years or researched anything but my vacations, so my perspective is different than probably a lot here (the die hards). Our first trip was in November 2010 with our DD3 1/2 at the time, and we've been back twice since. We've visited all parks on each trip b/c we go for 8-9 days and spend every single day somewhere from open to close. I enjoy AK but I do think it's probably the weakest of the parks. Not because it's not a great park for what it is but because we have two zoos nearby and let's face it, a big part of AK is essentially a zoo. I love the Lion King show and Dinosaur - those are the main attractions for me. Unfortunately, two attractions aren't enough to make us devote a day there on our next trip (we don't do park hoppers). My husband's comment on our last trip was, "Do you really want to do AK again? We can go to the zoo at home." I couldn't bring myself to skip it altogether on this last trip, but I've decided to indeed forego it on the next. The only things keeping HS on our itinerary are the Jedi training academy, SciFi (b/c we haven't eaten there yet), and TSM. For us, it's all about MK and Epcot. So I do appreciate your sentiment that AK needs help, and I do agree. I read a thread awhile back talking about how they really need a panda to invigorate ticket sales. A fantastic new dessert would get me there sooner than a panda would. No way I'm planning an entire day around one animal unless it's a real fire breathing dragon.

 

[darrius1st]

Look, Disney has to do something with AK because it is the worst park and I hate SeaWorld but I would go there before AK. Truth be told the better get with the program and add other coaster or rides. In my area our region Parks such as Six Flags America and Kings Dominion add a new ride or coaster almost every other year so Disney needs to step up to the plate and knock one out of the park so to speak.

 

[mrsklamc]

and the Yeti wasn't working when I was there - just the shadow and I think some red eyes or something.

It's been like that the last two times I was there. I think I heard somewhere that the only guy who knew how to work it died....but that was probably just a rumor.

 

[fuzzlekins]

Look, Disney has to do something with AK because it is the worst park and I hate SeaWorld but I would go there before AK. Truth be told the better get with the program and add other coaster or rides. In my area our region Parks such as Six Flags America and Kings Dominion add a new ride or coaster almost every other year so Disney needs to step up to the plate and knock one out of the park so to speak.

Hey neighbor! Haven't been to KD in a long time but that park always had sooo many issues with stuff getting stuck (esp. upside down!). Not a big fan of Six Flags but that has more to do with the people that visit it than the park itself. I like Hershey and Dutch Wonderland and we frequent them, but none of them compare to Disney IMO. They're amusement parks rather than theme parks. Disney does magic that KD, HP, etc. would never do. Completely different experiences to me. I don't think I could spend more than a day or 2 at any of those parks. I have yet to determine how long is "too long" in Orlando and I've done 9 straight open to close park days before.

 

[StarWarsJez]

Agreed, we only tend to do a half day at most at AK per trip. Disney desperately needs to do something with it but IMO Avatar is not the answer.

Irrespective of the first films gross, movie history is littered with films that died after the first sequel. Also I don't remember much else about Avatar other than the movie, eg the Avatar 'experience' never extended into other areas like Harry Potter, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, PotC (toys, computer games, lunchboxes etc. etc.). It was just the one film.......and that's it.

I wonder If Disney is just going to stall the whole project and then announce a new Star Wars project. SW has pedigree and has 'legs'. Disney knows that and was prepared to invest $4Bn to prove it.

 

[DRDISNEYMD]

~OMG. This is so exciting -- I cannot wait for Avatarland! I'm looking very forward to the updates!

 

[MissPrincessKendall]

As for the topic of the thread at hand I have heard many rumors about avatar land the newest stating that it will consist of a thrill ride, a 3d type motion show ride, shopping, and of course food! Everyone close to the project at least from my research has said that the entire land is meant to feel almost like an attraction in the sense that it will be completely different than anything else Disney has. I know ppl think this is a bad idea I personally never saw the movie but I love what Disney always ends up with and I am extremely excited to see this new land when it opens. I do hope it still keeps the culture of AK however because I think it is by far the best park.

The post above me mentioned Star Wars and creating something with that. I have heard rumors they officially have the rights so now they are thinking about expanding the SW market in DHS apparently this rumor included a theme place for food and some other sort of interactive things.

I know ppl were mentioning Disney springs in here ( which coming from a former downtown Disney employee) I am very excited for does not mean they cannot do multiple projects at once. Disney has the resources to work on Disney springs, fantasyland, and avatar land at the same time because the phases are different.

 

[StarWarsJez]

Yes In principle Disney can do whatever they want, sure they could make Avatarland, Update Disney Studios, build a Star Wars land (they 100% own the rights). Disney Springs, etc. etc.

HOWEVER the issue is to do with the financing of this work. Like everyone Disney has to budget so it needs to get the most from their dollars. And looking back over the last 10 years they've been VERY shy in investing in the parks (at least when compared to Universal)

So this is about how much is Disney actually going to spend their cash on, on what - and over how many years

 

[twebber55]

to me avatar is the perfect answer for DAK

1. huge following
2. perfect fit in terms of theming ( conservation, living in harmony with nature)
3. J Cameron will push new boundaries

 

[beer dave]

to me avatar is the perfect answer for dak

1. Huge following
2. Perfect fit in terms of theming ( conservation, living in harmony with nature)
3. J cameron will push new boundaries

agreed!

 

[mrsklamc]

over the last 10 years they've been VERY shy in investing in the parks (at least when compared to Universal)

I'm too lazy to do the research right now but the fantasyland expansion and nextgen technology I would guess outspends Universal in recent years.

 

[Postal68]

to me avatar is the perfect answer for DAK

1. huge following
2. perfect fit in terms of theming ( conservation, living in harmony with nature)
3. J Cameron will push new boundaries

Huge following??

It was one crappy film that most people went to see because of the gimmicky 3D

 

[super mike b]

Huge following??

It was one crappy film that most people went to see because of the gimmicky 3D

 

[twebber55]

Huge following??

It was one crappy film that most people went to see because of the gimmicky 3D

Riiiiiiggghhhhhtttt

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I gotta wonder how "rotfl" is a dignified response to an opinion that could also contain a decent assessment/theory.
EDIT: sorry...don't want to single anyone out. riiiiggghhhhttt is not really a thought either

avatar did pump the imax/3-D craze quite a bit if i recall. it did kinda run with it and owes alot of its success to it.

but nonetheless...not cool.

 

[twebber55]

ok

 

[lockedoutlogic]

1. huge following

this is not the right word unless it can be proven...

"following" implies longterm interest and revenue...as in the sales from avatar related products over the last couple of years...not the initial take and home sales.

it was "successful" without debate...but "following" indicates staying power...

and since the average teen crowd that hangs out on a friday night at AMC look less normal than the aliens in the Cantina scene in Star Wars and they drive the box office...that aint much.
nor do the klingon clad comic con hacker types...

this is the heart of this and every avatarland debate on these threads to date: it made money but is it a franchise/property that is right for disney and animal kingdom...

nobody will address this head on...the two responses are:

1. it made gobs...that is not a valid answer for this argument
2. doesn't matter...if its done right it could be based on anything. maybe true...but again that doesn't address the question and puts to much faith - in my opinion - in disney's ability to create "knock out" new attractions. they aren't technologically innovative anymore and have done some pretty bad work since the Eisner/Wells era declined in the mid 90's...
look at the fantasyland: a jazzed up omnimover (first use haunted mansion 1969) ride, repurposed dumbo, repurposed barnstormer, seven dwarve ride that we all hope is cool (but little faith seems to be the stance on that currently)

so theres that.

and the other thing that gets the goat on this: that somehow the "cultural relevance" of avatar is not relevant/not of concern...
oh really? mickey mouse, star wars, marvel, harry potter, pixar....

cultural relevance is "irrelative" huh?
lets stop being stupid about this...cultural relevance and longterm profit potential is rule number one in themepark construction...just like all other media.

the most known, loved, recognized sells more crap for a longer period of time to the most people. so can we not have our head up the dark hole on this?

 

[twebber55]

this is not the right word unless it can be proven...

"following" implies longterm interest and revenue...as in the sales from avatar related products over the last couple of years...not the initial take and home sales.

it was "successful" without debate...but "following" indicates staying power...

and since the average teen crowd that hangs out on a friday night at AMC look less normal than the aliens in the Cantina scene in Star Wars and they drive the box office...that aint much.
nor do the klingon clad comic con hacker types...

this is the heart of this and every avatarland debate on these threads to date: it made money but is it a franchise/property that is right for disney and animal kingdom...

nobody will address this head on...the two responses are:

1. it made gobs...that is not a valid answer for this argument
2. doesn't matter...if its done right it could be based on anything. maybe true...but again that doesn't address the question and puts to much faith - in my opinion - in disney's ability to create "knock out" new attractions. they aren't technologically innovative anymore and have done some pretty bad work since the Eisner/Wells era declined in the mid 90's...
look at the fantasyland: a jazzed up omnimover (first use haunted mansion 1969) ride, repurposed dumbo, repurposed barnstormer, seven dwarve ride that we all hope is cool (but little faith seems to be the stance on that currently)

so theres that.

and the other thing that gets the goat on this: that somehow the "cultural relevance" of avatar is not relevant/not of concern...
oh really? mickey mouse, star wars, marvel, harry potter, pixar....

cultural relevance is "irrelative" huh?
lets stop being stupid about this...cultural relevance and longterm profit potential is rule number one in themepark construction...just like all other media.

the most known, loved, recognized sells more crap for a longer period of time to the most people. so can we not have our head up the dark hole on this?

first i just want to say these are fun but really pointless arguments...nobody knows for sure what will happen but ill counter a couple of your points

Star wars (maybe the best franchise of all time has the 4th most popular ride in DHS...after the refurb the first day it had a 30 minute wait so IP isnt necessarily the most important thing here

Second, there have now been two movies that have come out that compare themselves to avatar while advertising if avatar didnt matter this wouold not be the case

thirdly there are tons of web sites out there for avatar literally..people went into a depression because they couldnt visit pandora

fourth regardless what you deem a good "fit" the powers that be seem to think so... i mean the entire message of the movie is about conservation and living with harmony with nature...this just in it wasn't about space aliens and humans fighting

i (along with others) have given FACTS about its popularity 2.8 billion gross 9 academy award nominations 3 wins, comparisons to other movies, high scores on rotten tomatoes etc i too have yet to hear a reason thats valid and can be proven as fact as to why it shouldnt be built other than "i hated the movie its a dumb idea" or "its not worthy of an attraction" both of which typically comes from people who didnt like the movie... thats fine i didnt like the mummy but its a great attraction, the simpsons i cant stand but the ride is fun, twilight zone was cheesy yet its one of disney s great rides

i think it compares favorably to Cars and cars land... if its done right it will be successful like cars land if its not given a proper budget than maybe not all we can do now is wait and see what it is

i suggest we all keep an open mind and actually see it first before we judge...anyway im done on this its pointless