AIREAL--for Avatarland?

[tarak]

I'm all for Avatarland, as long as I don't have to see James Cameron's face anywhere.

And holy smokes at those photos of Zhangjiajie National Forest park. Thank you for posting the link, twebber55!

 

[DPCummerbund]

~Great comment, thanks for sharing your perspective on how and why *you* experience Disney. It's in your own way & I totally respect that. You've made mention that you don't like TOT, Splash Mountain, and have never ridden RNRC because you don't like the IP's -- regardless, these are among the most popular attractions at WDW. Are you somehow implying that these attractions should have never been built based upon your personal preferences and what *you* define as appealing???

~And again, you as in the "collective you" have yet to present anything to support this claim that Avatar won't appeal to "many" people -- it's just feelings and emotions from a vocal few -- "who didn't like the movie." I didn't like the movie, this in no way represents the majority of people or potential theme park visitors.

I understand your point, and no, I don't think Disney should just build things that I happen to like. I think they should build whatever the LARGEST majority happen to like. Yes, many people liked Avatar, but MANY MORE people like Star Wars.

I have two points against Avatar:

1) Having purchased Star Wars, Disney should put Avatar on the back burner & focus on Star Wars.

2) Disney is betting a lot on ONE movie, when we don't know how the next 2 or 3 will be liked by the general public.


If you want some support for those claims, here's some.

Avatar is a very valuable franchise: according to this article, Avatar ranked #7 all time, with ticket sales of $2.78 billion dollars. Star Wars is ranked higher, at #2 or #3 all time, at $4.02 billion. True, that's six movies instead of one, but most of that revenue came in the 70s, when ticket prices were much lower.

Secondly, that's only tickets. Star Wars is much more valuable as a FRANCHISE. As of 2012, Star Wars has made $27 BILLION in revenue. In 2011 alone, Star Wars made $1.5 billion in games and toys alone.

Just look at that number: even though no new movies have been released in years, Star Wars still sells more merchandise in the last two years than Avatar made in ticket sales altogether.

That doesn't even count books and other merchandise. My local bookstore carries Avatar and Star Wars on DVD and Blu-Ray, and Star Wars still outsells Avatar by a wide margin. Also, there are whole sections full of Star Wars merchandise, like action figures, bobble heads, and several shelves worth of books. Avatar has NOTHING else. No one is interested in reading other Avatar books, buying Avatar toys, playing Avatar board games or video games, or anything like that.

I'm not saying that Avatar shouldn't be built. I'm saying that having acquired Star Wars, every dollar you put into Avatar after that would probably have been better spent - from a company and guest perspective - on Star Wars.


2) We don't know how the next movies will be received.

Imagine Disney bought the rights to Star Wars shortly before "Episode 1" came out. They decide to hurry up and build something, like a restaurant. Should it be a recreation of the Cantina from Star Wars, or "Jar Jar Binks: Meesa Think Yousa Be Hungry"?

We just don't know if the next THREE movies are going to be any good or not. They may be great, and Avatarland will be a genius move. Or, they could flop horribly, and Disney will look awfully silly if they're just opening up a new land that's dedicated to a series that nobody likes. We just don't know.

 

[twebber55]

I understand your point, and no, I don't think Disney should just build things that I happen to like. I think they should build whatever the LARGEST majority happen to like. Yes, many people liked Avatar, but MANY MORE people like Star Wars.

I have two points against Avatar:

1) Having purchased Star Wars, Disney should put Avatar on the back burner & focus on Star Wars.

2) Disney is betting a lot on ONE movie, when we don't know how the next 2 or 3 will be liked by the general public.


If you want some support for those claims, here's some.

Avatar is a very valuable franchise: according to this article, Avatar ranked #7 all time, with ticket sales of $2.78 billion dollars. Star Wars is ranked higher, at #2 or #3 all time, at $4.02 billion. True, that's six movies instead of one, but most of that revenue came in the 70s, when ticket prices were much lower.

Secondly, that's only tickets. Star Wars is much more valuable as a FRANCHISE. As of 2012, Star Wars has made $27 BILLION in revenue. In 2011 alone, Star Wars made $1.5 billion in games and toys alone.

Just look at that number: even though no new movies have been released in years, Star Wars still sells more merchandise in the last two years than Avatar made in ticket sales altogether.

That doesn't even count books and other merchandise. My local bookstore carries Avatar and Star Wars on DVD and Blu-Ray, and Star Wars still outsells Avatar by a wide margin. Also, there are whole sections full of Star Wars merchandise, like action figures, bobble heads, and several shelves worth of books. Avatar has NOTHING else. No one is interested in reading other Avatar books, buying Avatar toys, playing Avatar board games or video games, or anything like that.

I'm not saying that Avatar shouldn't be built. I'm saying that having acquired Star Wars, every dollar you put into Avatar after that would probably have been better spent - from a company and guest perspective - on Star Wars.


2) We don't know how the next movies will be received.

Imagine Disney bought the rights to Star Wars shortly before "Episode 1" came out. They decide to hurry up and build something, like a restaurant. Should it be a recreation of the Cantina from Star Wars, or "Jar Jar Binks: Meesa Think Yousa Be Hungry"?

We just don't know if the next THREE movies are going to be any good or not. They may be great, and Avatarland will be a genius move. Or, they could flop horribly, and Disney will look awfully silly if they're just opening up a new land that's dedicated to a series that nobody likes. We just don't know.

all valid points..i will say that star wars is coming to DHS...so i would look for both avatar and star wars to be at wdw

also my money is on james cameron to make another huge hit although i dont think it needs to be huge just look at cars 2 being a dud yet cars land is huge success

 

[DRDISNEYMD]

I'm all for Avatarland, as long as I don't have to see James Cameron's face anywhere.

And holy smokes at those photos of Zhangjiajie National Forest park. Thank you for posting the link, twebber55!

~LOL! You are too funny! I don't want to see his face either, but I'm sure we'll see his name somewhere!

I understand your point, and no, I don't think Disney should just build things that I happen to like. I think they should build whatever the LARGEST majority happen to like. Yes, many people liked Avatar, but MANY MORE people like Star Wars.

I have two points against Avatar:

1) Having purchased Star Wars, Disney should put Avatar on the back burner & focus on Star Wars.

2) Disney is betting a lot on ONE movie, when we don't know how the next 2 or 3 will be liked by the general public.


If you want some support for those claims, here's some.

Avatar is a very valuable franchise: according to this article, Avatar ranked #7 all time, with ticket sales of $2.78 billion dollars. Star Wars is ranked higher, at #2 or #3 all time, at $4.02 billion. True, that's six movies instead of one, but most of that revenue came in the 70s, when ticket prices were much lower.

Secondly, that's only tickets. Star Wars is much more valuable as a FRANCHISE. As of 2012, Star Wars has made $27 BILLION in revenue. In 2011 alone, Star Wars made $1.5 billion in games and toys alone.

Just look at that number: even though no new movies have been released in years, Star Wars still sells more merchandise in the last two years than Avatar made in ticket sales altogether.

That doesn't even count books and other merchandise. My local bookstore carries Avatar and Star Wars on DVD and Blu-Ray, and Star Wars still outsells Avatar by a wide margin. Also, there are whole sections full of Star Wars merchandise, like action figures, bobble heads, and several shelves worth of books. Avatar has NOTHING else. No one is interested in reading other Avatar books, buying Avatar toys, playing Avatar board games or video games, or anything like that.

I'm not saying that Avatar shouldn't be built. I'm saying that having acquired Star Wars, every dollar you put into Avatar after that would probably have been better spent - from a company and guest perspective - on Star Wars.


2) We don't know how the next movies will be received.

Imagine Disney bought the rights to Star Wars shortly before "Episode 1" came out. They decide to hurry up and build something, like a restaurant. Should it be a recreation of the Cantina from Star Wars, or "Jar Jar Binks: Meesa Think Yousa Be Hungry"?

We just don't know if the next THREE movies are going to be any good or not. They may be great, and Avatarland will be a genius move. Or, they could flop horribly, and Disney will look awfully silly if they're just opening up a new land that's dedicated to a series that nobody likes. We just don't know.

~Fabulous comment, you've made a formidable argument and there is a lot here that I agree with, but only to an extent!

~You're placing too much emphasis on the "movies" potential to flop, when emphasis should be placed on the budget, resources and vision to create an amazing one of a kind theme park experience for guests. This is what matters.

~And, please don't turn this into Avatar versus Star Wars because it's not. Avatar opened the door for Disney to *finally* negotiate and leverage Lucas into a reasonable asking price for Star Wars after decades of a partnership that yielded very little in terms of theme park experiences and material.

~I think Disney should build where it's most needed -- which is Animal Kingdom and Pandora is a fabulous fit for AK. If Disney were to put Avatar on the back burner for Star Wars, I wouldn't be disappointed -- but only if they have serious intentions of building right away. I just want to see Disney create some fabulous new attractions.

~Frankly, I am convinced that Disney has *no* incentive to create any more new attractions at WDW, especially given how they have experienced both record growth and profits, with virtually little to no investment in the parks -- during one of the toughest economic climates this country has had to endure. Disney has managed just fine by offering discounts and free food. So, why build?

~I am so grateful that Disney is locked into this commitment with James Cameron. It's the only way I see something amazing coming to fruition in the parks.

~I just love your enthusiasm for Star Wars, but I think your hopes for Star Wars is quite ambitious. Avatar has no bearing on any plans for Star Wars and I don't expect to see anything for Stars Wars at DHS before the year 2020. Unfortunately, I find all of this Star Wars talk to be all for naught! It's just wishful thinking to expect anything from this IP to materialize within the park(s) during this decade. Sorry!

~With that said, the only exception is if Universal's Diagon Alley extension makes headlines, like the debut of WWoHP. That "may" prompt Disney to react -- key word being --->react<---. This may spark a reaction and bring plans for a Star Wars land into fruition a little faster. I don't know, we'll see. Disney has not been "proactive" when it comes to constructing new rides and attractions at WDW. Which is part of why I am very excited for Avatarland!

 

[Rumors Rocks]

all valid points..i will say that star wars is coming to DHS...so i would look for both avatar and star wars to be at wdw

also my money is on james cameron to make another huge hit although i dont think it needs to be huge just look at cars 2 being a dud yet cars land is huge success

 

[MJMcBride]

This is what I ask those who have decided that they already dislike Avatarland.

Would you rather have Camp Minnie-Mickey? Remember, that you're still losing Festival of the Lion King when it moves to Africa.

So, you're basically saying that you would rather have another place to meet Donald, Goofy, and Pluto than having a potential 3-5 new attractions for Disney's Animal Kingdom.

I would rather have Mystic Point or Australia

 

[Chuck S]

I would hope they build and open the new home for Festival of the Lion King prior to closing the current location. Then I would hope that they perfectly time the opening of the Avatar area to coincide with the release of another Avatar movie. That would give it a boost in popularity and help make is successful. But making a "land" based upon a movie that many people will have forgotten about by the time it opens is not good marketing. Now that Disney owns the Star Wars franchise, perhaps they should do more with that at the studios, making new rides and attractions when they release another Star Wars movie.

Granted Animal Kingdom needs expansion, but they could do a LOT without using the Avatar theme, going back to the dragons, unicorn and fantasy creatures.

 

[twebber55]

in all seriousness, beer dave just brought up some new /neat technology that might be for avatar and the same debates keep getting brought up..how bout we call it quits on the debate..im willing to let it go can the anti avatar folks do the same? its getting to a point of being ridiculous

 

[Suger Mag]

in all seriousness, beer dave just brought up some new /neat technology that might be for avatar and the same debates keep getting brought up..how bout we call it quits on the debate..im willing to let it go can the anti avatar folks do the same? its getting to a point of being ridiculous

 

[JoWiJo]

Sounds really interesting, and could have many applications. Rides and shows alike could be enhanced.

But they would need to be careful how this technology would be used. I could see this potentially creating some issues. Not sure to what extent, but there probably would be some. Just as some people hate being spritzed with a tiny amount of water at attractions, even on the hottest day of the year, there will be a few people that object to being blasted by a small puff of air.

But getting sprayed by water is typically brief. An unwanted continuous tactile sensation of a non-existent butterfly could cause some unexpected behavioral responses. Imagine a four-year-old that is startled when a butterfly lands on them. The kid isn't afraid of butterflies, but the sudden appearance of one frightens the child. It's touching the kid's arm, and she wants to shake it off, but can't. The child would be horrified. And face it, some adults would freak out too.

While I do believe this technology could be used well in new and refurbished attractions, imagineers would need to be careful in when and how the technology is used.

 

[Suger Mag]

Sounds really interesting, and could have many applications. Rides and shows alike could be enhanced.

But they would need to be careful how this technology would be used. I could see this potentially creating some issues. Not sure to what extent, but there probably would be some. Just as some people hate being spritzed with a tiny amount of water at attractions, even on the hottest day of the year, there will be a few people that object to being blasted by a small puff of air.

But getting sprayed by water is typically brief. An unwanted continuous tactile sensation of a non-existent butterfly could cause some unexpected behavioral responses. Imagine a four-year-old that is startled when a butterfly lands on them. The kid isn't afraid of butterflies, but the sudden appearance of one frightens the child. It's touching the kid's arm, and she wants to shake it off, but can't. The child would be horrified. And face it, some adults would freak out too.

While I do believe this technology could be used well in new and refurbished attractions, imagineers would need to be careful in when and how the technology is used.

Interesting point, I could see this being an issue with a lot of folks that are sensitive to stimulus etc. To a certain extent, it would be akin to avoiding a rollercoaster if you were very prone to motion sickness. But if it is as responsive as it seems, you might be able to program in some sort of a critical threshold response... violent jerky (panic) motions would turn off the effect.

 

[DPCummerbund]

~LOL! You are too funny! I don't want to see his face either, but I'm sure we'll see his name somewhere!




~Frankly, I am convinced that Disney has *no* incentive to create any more new attractions at WDW, especially given how they have experienced both record growth and profits, with virtually little to no investment in the parks -- during one of the toughest economic climates this country has had to endure. Disney has managed just fine by offering discounts and free food. So, why build?

~With that said, the only exception is if Universal's Diagon Alley extension makes headlines, like the debut of WWoHP. That "may" prompt Disney to react -- key word being --->react<---. This may spark a reaction and bring plans for a Star Wars land into fruition a little faster. I don't know, we'll see. Disney has not been "proactive" when it comes to constructing new rides and attractions at WDW. Which is part of why I am very excited for Avatarland!

I definitely agree with these two points. The whole reason for building new additions is to draw new crowds, and to draw repeat visitors back more often. It's very possible that revising the Fastpass system, Magic Bands, etc. will more to "enhance" the WDW experience than a new attraction could, even at their outrageous costs. So, it may seem silly to guests that Disney is spending so much money on non-attraction enhancements at WDW, but they may bring in more money than Avatar or Star Wars could.

So to that second point - Universal and Harry Potter. One of the things Disney would really like would be if everybody stayed on property and never left. I've only left the WDW property when I've been to Orlando, and I haven't been to Universal yet. Sure, things like the Transformers & Spider-Man ride sound like they might be fun, but they've never been enough of a draw to make me want to rent a car, possibly add a hotel night, the extra expense of tickets (vs. adding on a day or two to a WDW mulit-day pass), etc.

But the next time we go, we will most certainly go to Universal because of WWoHP. It sounds like it's definitely worth at least a day or two (with all of the other stuff that will now be worth checking out). So, instead of staying at WDW for 5 days (our usual MO), we'll probably do 3-4 at WDW and 1-2 at Universal.

Of course, as you mentioned, they're expanding WWoHP. If it's as good as everybody says it is, now it's 2-3 days at Universal, 2-3 days at WDW.

I've been reading a lot of "chatter" (and it's only rumors now) about Lord of the Rings possibly coming to Universal too. There's another HUGE franchise that lots of adults would be attracted to.

I mentioned it to my wife last night - wouldn't it be neat if WWoHP and LoTR were at the same park? Without prompting, she said "Wow, if they did that, we may never go to Disney again!"

Sure, we're nerds. But there are a LOT of Star Wars, Marvel, DC, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, etc. fans out there. And most of these franchises have huge bases among kids AND adults.

So I'm not necessarily against Avatarland. Honestly, I'd prefer never leaving WDW property. But by not investing in the major franchises that so many people are drawn to nowadays, Disney is making me go to other parks to see the latest and greatest attractions that are based on my favorite stories. And if I really like those attractions, and Universal can build some amazing hotels and reasonable transportation, it may become hard to justify even splitting a trip with WDW. So, I think if they wait too long to get started building stuff like Star Wars, they might be digging themselves a very deep hole.

 

[beer dave]

I definitely agree with these two points. The whole reason for building new additions is to draw new crowds, and to draw repeat visitors back more often. It's very possible that revising the Fastpass system, Magic Bands, etc. will more to "enhance" the WDW experience than a new attraction could, even at their outrageous costs. So, it may seem silly to guests that Disney is spending so much money on non-attraction enhancements at WDW, but they may bring in more money than Avatar or Star Wars could.

So to that second point - Universal and Harry Potter. One of the things Disney would really like would be if everybody stayed on property and never left. I've only left the WDW property when I've been to Orlando, and I haven't been to Universal yet. Sure, things like the Transformers & Spider-Man ride sound like they might be fun, but they've never been enough of a draw to make me want to rent a car, possibly add a hotel night, the extra expense of tickets (vs. adding on a day or two to a WDW mulit-day pass), etc.

But the next time we go, we will most certainly go to Universal because of WWoHP. It sounds like it's definitely worth at least a day or two (with all of the other stuff that will now be worth checking out). So, instead of staying at WDW for 5 days (our usual MO), we'll probably do 3-4 at WDW and 1-2 at Universal.

Of course, as you mentioned, they're expanding WWoHP. If it's as good as everybody says it is, now it's 2-3 days at Universal, 2-3 days at WDW.

I've been reading a lot of "chatter" (and it's only rumors now) about Lord of the Rings possibly coming to Universal too. There's another HUGE franchise that lots of adults would be attracted to.

I mentioned it to my wife last night - wouldn't it be neat if WWoHP and LoTR were at the same park? Without prompting, she said "Wow, if they did that, we may never go to Disney again!"

Sure, we're nerds. But there are a LOT of Star Wars, Marvel, DC, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, etc. fans out there. And most of these franchises have huge bases among kids AND adults.

So I'm not necessarily against Avatarland. Honestly, I'd prefer never leaving WDW property. But by not investing in the major franchises that so many people are drawn to nowadays, Disney is making me go to other parks to see the latest and greatest attractions that are based on my favorite stories. And if I really like those attractions, and Universal can build some amazing hotels and reasonable transportation, it may become hard to justify even splitting a trip with WDW. So, I think if they wait too long to get started building stuff like Star Wars, they might be digging themselves a very deep hole.

My girls are huge HP fans-- I think one read the books seven times. After going to HP land, all she could say was it was really small, when you entered the land you could see out of the land on the other side, and it was not Disney. She said it was ok. At the time she was 18. I have never gone, but will take her word for it. Maybe she is biased from a lifetime of disney.

 

[DRDISNEYMD]

I definitely agree with these two points. The whole reason for building new additions is to draw new crowds, and to draw repeat visitors back more often. It's very possible that revising the Fastpass system, Magic Bands, etc. will more to "enhance" the WDW experience than a new attraction could, even at their outrageous costs. So, it may seem silly to guests that Disney is spending so much money on non-attraction enhancements at WDW, but they may bring in more money than Avatar or Star Wars could.

~Wow! This is a fabulous comment! I've only come across a precious few who share this perspective.

So to that second point - Universal and Harry Potter. One of the things Disney would really like would be if everybody stayed on property and never left. I've only left the WDW property when I've been to Orlando, and I haven't been to Universal yet. Sure, things like the Transformers & Spider-Man ride sound like they might be fun, but they've never been enough of a draw to make me want to rent a car, possibly add a hotel night, the extra expense of tickets (vs. adding on a day or two to a WDW mulit-day pass), etc.

~I have to agree with you. I have mixed feelings about Universal and I still need time to process exactly how I feel about it. I will say that it's totally worth it for me to fly down for a WDW only trip -- it's just so convenient. I know I wouldn't do a Universal only trip -- the max I could stay there is two days, even after the expansion. But that's another topic.

But the next time we go, we will most certainly go to Universal because of WWoHP. It sounds like it's definitely worth at least a day or two (with all of the other stuff that will now be worth checking out). So, instead of staying at WDW for 5 days (our usual MO), we'll probably do 3-4 at WDW and 1-2 at Universal.

Of course, as you mentioned, they're expanding WWoHP. If it's as good as everybody says it is, now it's 2-3 days at Universal, 2-3 days at WDW.

I've been reading a lot of "chatter" (and it's only rumors now) about Lord of the Rings possibly coming to Universal too. There's another HUGE franchise that lots of adults would be attracted to.

I mentioned it to my wife last night - wouldn't it be neat if WWoHP and LoTR were at the same park? Without prompting, she said "Wow, if they did that, we may never go to Disney again!"

Sure, we're nerds. But there are a LOT of Star Wars, Marvel, DC, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, etc. fans out there. And most of these franchises have huge bases among kids AND adults.

~LOL. I just don't get the allure of LoTR. I could not care less about The Hobbit or LoTR, I haven't seen the movies or read the books. Again, I try not to place too much emphasis on the whole "fan" aspect -- this can be easily misinterpreted. Here are the facebook "likes" from the IP's you've just mentioned.

• Harry Potter - 66 million likes
• Avatar - 48 million likes
• The Lord of the Rings - 13 million likes
• Star Wars - 11 million likes
• Marvel - 6 million likes
• The Hobbit - 3 million likes
• Star Trek - 2.5 million likes
• DC comics - 1.5 million likes

~If you were to add all of the "likes" from LoTR, The Hobbit, Star Wars, Marvel, Star Trek, and DC comics together it would amount to 37 million likes -- just 11 million likes short of Avatar's 48 million. I think you've grossly underestimated the amount of Avatar fans out there, plus there are three more sequels.

So I'm not necessarily against Avatarland. Honestly, I'd prefer never leaving WDW property. But by not investing in the major franchises that so many people are drawn to nowadays, Disney is making me go to other parks to see the latest and greatest attractions that are based on my favorite stories. And if I really like those attractions, and Universal can build some amazing hotels and reasonable transportation, it may become hard to justify even splitting a trip with WDW. So, I think if they wait too long to get started building stuff like Star Wars, they might be digging themselves a very deep hole.

~I have no intention of leaving WDW in the future, it's a hassle for me. I'll want to see Diagon Alley and check out Sea World while I'm offsite. But, I'll have to do this before arriving at WDW because once there, I won't leave.

~Anyway, I'm so glad you're *not* against Avatarland! Yay! I knew there was something super special about you! Seriously, I really want you to keep an open mind and please try to get a little excited about this *all* new, innovative, mysterious & intriguing theme park experience that James Cameron and the Disney Imagineers have in the works for AK. I hope you will join the party and follow along. I can't wait for more updates!

 

[Rumors Rocks]

in all seriousness, beer dave just brought up some new /neat technology that might be for avatar and the same debates keep getting brought up..how bout we call it quits on the debate..im willing to let it go can the anti avatar folks do the same? its getting to a point of being ridiculous

 

[DPCummerbund]

in all seriousness, beer dave just brought up some new /neat technology that might be for avatar and the same debates keep getting brought up..how bout we call it quits on the debate..im willing to let it go can the anti avatar folks do the same? its getting to a point of being ridiculous

Well, I kind of agree with you, except for two things:

1) Nothing in the link said that this new technology had anything to do with Avatar, and

2) His entire post was once sentence: "Check this out and tell me you still think Avatarland will be a flop." So, um... I did.

If this post is an invitation to discuss Avatar's possible floppiness, I don't think that discussing the issue is out of line.

If this post was just a link to a cool new technology that Disney had created, nobody would have even mentioned Avatar.

I do think it's a cool technology, and it's interesting to discuss all of its possible applications. Considering that it's frequently seen in the video as being stationed above a TV set, I would think that it's just as likely to end up in Disney Infinity (or a similar home application) as anywhere in the parks. However, I could see it in a ride like Buzz Lightyear or Toy Story Mania.

 

[beer dave]

Well, I kind of agree with you, except for two things:

1) Nothing in the link said that this new technology had anything to do with Avatar, and

2) His entire post was once sentence: "Check this out and tell me you still think Avatarland will be a flop." So, um... I did.

If this post is an invitation to discuss Avatar's possible floppiness, I don't think that discussing the issue is out of line.

If this post was just a link to a cool new technology that Disney had created, nobody would have even mentioned Avatar.

I do think it's a cool technology, and it's interesting to discuss all of its possible applications. Considering that it's frequently seen in the video as being stationed above a TV set, I would think that it's just as likely to end up in Disney Infinity (or a similar home application) as anywhere in the parks. However, I could see it in a ride like Buzz Lightyear or Toy Story Mania.

I agree with this post, but don't quite see how this could be used in buzz or toy-- are the aliens or carnival games going to shoot back? Otherwise, there is nothing to be "felt" With the renovation of figment, there could actually be a touch lab, or you could have light saber battles with a projection in star wars land, etc.

 

[Rumors Rocks]

More innovative tech for Avatarland.

Disney invents touchscreen that lets you feel textures

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ents-touchscreen-that-lets-you-feel-textures/

A user touches a live video feed on a screen designed to transmit not only audio and visual, but haptic — or touch — information. (Disney)

Tactile Rendering of 3D Features on Touch Surfaces

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo1n5CyCKr0

The company that brought you the first animated feature film and the multiplane camera may be at work on its most game-changing invention yet: Flat touchscreens that let you feel the shape and texture of pictured objects, almost like they were actually there.

The technology is called “tactile rendering of 3D features,” and an early version of a rendering algorithm has already been developed by engineers at Disney Research in Pittsburgh. The process behind it is, predictably, both technical and confusing, but the basic premise is that small, electronic pulses can trick your fingers into perceiving bumps and texture, even if the surface is actually flat.

That’s not a new discovery — scientists have known since 2001 that friction is the predominant force that lets you perceive textures. But Disney’s findings, which the company will present at a user interface symposium in Scotland this week, suggests sweeping applications in devices we already use, like smartphones and tablets. Imagine reading a topographic map and actually feeling the hills and valleys. Or — in the far more distant and ambitious future — shopping for something online and feeling it through your phone before you buy.

“Touch interaction has become the standard for smartphones, tablets and even desktop computers, so designing algorithms that can convert the visual content into believable tactile sensations has immense potential for enriching the user experience,” Ivan Poupyrev, the director of Disney’s Interaction Group, said in a release.

But the technology could also do more than merely enrich user experience, a fact Disney hints at in an accompanying demonstration video. Textured screens could prove invaluable to blind or disabled users, both for accessibility and for getting a sense of their surroundings — the technology can translate 2D videos to 3D tactile renderings in real time. And more distant applications could potentially revolutionize fields like education and medicine.

This is, of course, still just research — it could be years before any genuinely 3D tablets hit the marketplace. Until then, we have stand-ins like the Tactus tablet, which are still pretty cool.

 

[beer dave]

And it keeps getting better! My kids always wanted the touch and taste labs on figment to be open-----

 

[twebber55]

More innovative tech for Avatarland.

Disney invents touchscreen that lets you feel textures

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ents-touchscreen-that-lets-you-feel-textures/

A user touches a live video feed on a screen designed to transmit not only audio and visual, but haptic — or touch — information. (Disney)

Tactile Rendering of 3D Features on Touch Surfaces

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo1n5CyCKr0

i could totally see this tech in the queue for the E ticket