Avatar land coming to Animal Kingdom!!

[Hooked On The Mouse]

Of all of the great things Disney could have done in the parks, it is very disappointing that they are building land based on Avatar.

The movie is forgettable. There are no memorable characters and little story. It was popular only because it was a special effects spectaular. Those special effects, however, will be dated in just a few years. Story and characters are the magic of Disney. Perhaps Avatar's special effects could be enough to sustain an attraction, but not a land.

Avatar is no Harry Potter. Avatar is no Star Wars.

If the sequels bomb (and plenty do) Disney will be left with a half built Pandora land.

A Sci-Fi themed land does not fit with the tone of AK.

I think Disney was blinded by Avatar's big box office receipts. Just because people saw the movie does not mean they care enough about it to pay big money to visit a land based on the movie.

But once again and most of all - there are so many other far far better additions they could have made. Very disappointing.

I think this just about says it all, no point in retyping it.

 

[KellyNY]

I'm guilty of not having read all of the posts but did read several articles about the Avatar and Disney venture.

My personal opinion is that it's all about money and not guest wishes.

Perhaps it will end up being something that I'll have to eat crow about but my dislike of James Cameron is so strong that I refused to see Avatar and I can find no way that it associates with the Disney brand. At this time Animal Kingdom is my second favorite park and I would rather see other additions.

Avatar is in no way on the level of Harry Potter, as I saw previously (and correctly) pointed out.

Please, Disney management, rethink this BEFORE you invest all this money.

This is a very divisive and unDisneylike decision. Are you certain that your core fans, those of us who frequent your parks REGULARLY, will support "Avatar Land"?

OK, so you never saw the movie because of J. Cameron and somehow you can conclude that it is not on HP level and bad idea for Disney, how?
It reminds me a constant debate about Universal, something like, "Disney is so much better, never visited Universal and never will..."

 

[JimmyV]

I gave my opinion in regards to the announcement earlier in the thread, but just thought I'd mention something about this. I read a few months ago that, while there are a lot of sites and forums (like this) dedicated to those who live, breathe and sleep Disney, 80% of Walt Disney World guests are first time visitors.

An excellent point. And 50% of all guests are males who have little interest in the princess and fairy direction that WDW has taken in its most recent modifications/expansions. Disney risks losing the male audience to Universal, and this is probably an attempt to stave that off. I know more than a few families that have split up with the mom and girls going to the MK while the dad takes the boys to Universal. Don't bet this has gone unnoticed.

 

[nytimez]

I gave my opinion in regards to the announcement earlier in the thread, but just thought I'd mention something about this. I read a few months ago that, while there are a lot of sites and forums (like this) dedicated to those who live, breathe and sleep Disney, 80% of Walt Disney World guests are first time visitors (while the inverse is true of Disneyland).

This is actually an often-cited statistic that's wrong. The average visitor to WDW is someone who's been there multiple times, with 75 percent of all WDW guests "repeat" customers.

There's a little bit of truth to it, however, as WDW "repeat" visitors come once a year or once every few years -- while Disneyland repeat visitors come much more frequently.

However, it's absolutely inaccurate to say that most WDW visitors are first-timers.

 

[Zife]

This is actually an often-cited statistic that's wrong. The average visitor to WDW is someone who's been there multiple times, with 75 percent of all WDW guests "repeat" customers.

There's a little bit of truth to it, however, as WDW "repeat" visitors come once a year or once every few years -- while Disneyland repeat visitors come much more frequently.

However, it's absolutely inaccurate to say that most WDW visitors are first-timers.

Interesting. Perhaps I'm thinking of people who visit multiple times/year...

 

[nytimez]

Interesting. Perhaps I'm thinking of people who visit multiple times/year...

Your larger point is perfectly valid -- sites like the Dis are for the most rabid of the rabid fans and may not necessarily reflect the feelings of the larger Disney community. I know that if I was a Disney exec, I'd be interested in the comments and reactions here -- but I'd take them all with a healthy dose of salt. Including my own.

 

[JimmyV]

This is actually an often-cited statistic that's wrong. The average visitor to WDW is someone who's been there multiple times, with 75 percent of all WDW guests "repeat" customers.

There's a little bit of truth to it, however, as WDW "repeat" visitors come once a year or once every few years -- while Disneyland repeat visitors come much more frequently.

However, it's absolutely inaccurate to say that most WDW visitors are first-timers.

Disney University employee training used to tell trainees that it was 80/20 first timers vs. repeats. Not sure if they still use that statistic. In reality, it is probably impossible to calculate. If parents who are repeat visiors bring their 3 kids who have never been, then within that family unit, you have 60% first timers. But the "family" may count as repeat visitors under some other analysis since the person who arranged for and paid for the trip was a repeat visitor. And who know about BTGs. I'll bet many of those folks are first timers. And if you listen to some here, they will tell you that BTGs make up 80% of the guests at certain times.

 

[RedSox68]

Disney wouldn't allow Rowling to have total control over the HP area. Universal basically told her she could do whatever she wanted and so that's where she went.

And for those who might remember, there was the start of a section at MGM devoted to Roger Rabbit's movie! Then Disney and Spielberg had a major falling out and now there are only a few props left. THAT would have been a great section -- recreating toon town and all with all those great props and sounds.

And lest we not forget that Disney's original plans and models (which we saw in MK City Hall back in the day) included TWO lands -- one was supposed to be the live animal park and the other was supposed to be fantasy with dragons and unicorns, etc. Some of those symbols can still be seen on some of the archways and gates! Wish they had finished their original dream first!

 

[PatriciaH]

I am looking forward to seeing what they do! I am a big sci-fi fan and I love James Cameron's movies though. I think he is a little full of himself, but I remember reading an article in Entertainment Weekley when Avatar was coming out. People were laughing at the previews saying it looked stupid so they asked him about that. He said hey-if it bombs at least we kept 2,000+ people working for 3 years. If it does well-well then great and you will see more movies. I though that was great! And now JC and Disney will be putting more people to work in this crappy economy. Good for them!

Here is the quote:

"If we announce Avatar 2, we made money. If we didn’t make money, we’re a bunch of dumb f—s. But we still made 2,000 jobs for three years, and that’s a good thing.”

 

[RichieTruxillo]

Ok, I am fine with them doing an Avatar land in Animal Kingdom (my least favorite park by far, it needs some new content!). But if you are going to build an entire land based on Avatar, where the heck are my Indiana Jones and Star Wars lands?

Spend money to license rights to build a Star Wars land and people will flock in thousands!

 

[nytimez]

Disney University employee training used to tell trainees that it was 80/20 first timers vs. repeats. Not sure if they still use that statistic. In reality, it is probably impossible to calculate. If parents who are repeat visiors bring their 3 kids who have never been, then within that family unit, you have 60% first timers. But the "family" may count as repeat visitors under some other analysis since the person who arranged for and paid for the trip was a repeat visitor. And who know about BTGs. I'll bet many of those folks are first timers. And if you listen to some here, they will tell you that BTGs make up 80% of the guests at certain times.

Sorry, but this is just not accurate. Disney Institute used to say it was 70/30 repeat/first time... you can see data from a 1990s presentation in Quality Digest. (link)

But in recent years, it seems to have edged up to 75 percent repeats, at least according to Lee Cockerell in the New York Times. (link)

 

[JimmyV]

Sorry, but this is just not accurate. Disney Institute used to say it was 70/30 repeat/first time... you can see data from a 1990s presentation in Quality Digest. (link)

But in recent years, it seems to have edged up to 75 percent repeats, at least according to Lee Cockerell in the New York Times. (link)

Hardly worth bickering over, but that is a secondary source and is hardly authoritative. Ultimately, if you go back far enough in time, I'll bet that the Disney Institute was using the other statistic and somehow it "stuck". I'm not saying it is accurate now. What it is now? I have no idea. I'm guessing that if you look at trip planners and trip payors, your numbers are close. If you add in the little kids who accompany them, then the number has to come down. There is simply no way that 75% of all kids under 7 and people from foreign countries are repeat visitors, and they are not an insignificant percentage of the crowd.

 

[nytimez]

Hardly worth bickering over, but that is a secondary source and is hardly authoritative. Ultimately, if you go back far enough in time, I'll bet that the Disney Institute was using the other statistic and somehow it "stuck". I'm not saying it is accurate now. What it is now? I have no idea. I'm guessing that if you look at trip planners and trip payors, your numbers are close. If you add in the little kids who accompany them, then the number has to come down. There is simply no way that 75% of all kids under 7 and people from foreign countries are repeat visitors, and they are not an insignificant percentage of the crowd.

Cute. You didn't give a source at all beyond your own recollection. The New York Times can certainly be wrong... but if you're going to attack it as a non-authoritative source, you should at least be able to back your own numbers up with something more authoritative. Fair?

And why can't kids under 7 be repeat visitors? I know more than a few families just from the UK who come every year (not to mention the fact that I don't believe they represent as significant a part of the whole as you suggest).

 

[JimmyV]

Cute. You didn't give a source at all beyond your own recollection. The New York Times can certainly be wrong... but if you're going to attack it as a non-authoritative source, you should at least be able to back your own numbers up with something more authoritative. Fair?

And why can't kids under 7 be repeat visitors? I know more than a few families just from the UK who come every year (not to mention the fact that I don't believe they represent as significant a part of the whole as you suggest).

I'm not quoting a source because:
a) I'm not taking the position that the 80/20 is currently correct; and

b) The numbers are always going to be fluid. On October 1, 1971, every guest was a first timer. Since that date, the numbers have shifted daily with the percentage of repeat visitors growing. At some point in time, the 80/20 figure had to have been accurate. I do not have a source for that conclusion other than logic. I am not saying that it is accurate now.

And I never said a kid under 7 couldn't be a repeat guest. I said that it is highly unlikely that 75% of all kids under 7 are. Again, I have no source for that. It is purely a logical deduction. I think that you are missing my point that repeat guest parents of one year old twins and a three year old, none of whom have been to WDW before can skew the statistics if they are all counted. If only the parents are counted, you get 100% repeats. If all members of the family are counted, then you have 40% repeats. I have no idea how the statistics are counted.

 

[Sean O]

I know more than a few families that have split up with the mom and girls going to the MK while the dad takes the boys to Universal. Don't bet this has gone unnoticed.

Perhaps the geniuses behind Disney, the people who have seen a massive loss in their stock value, should try to build something of quality instead of yet another awful cash-grab.

 

[nytimez]

I'm not quoting a source because:
a) I'm not taking the position that the 80/20 is currently correct; and

b) The numbers are always going to be fluid. On October 1, 1971, every guest was a first timer. Since that date, the numbers have shifted daily with the percentage of repeat visitors growing. At some point in time, the 80/20 figure had to have been accurate. I do not have a source for that conclusion other than logic. I am not saying that it is accurate now.

I won't dispute any of that.

And I never said a kid under 7 couldn't be a repeat guest. I said that it is highly unlikely that 75% of all kids under 7 are. Again, I have no source for that. It is purely a logical deduction. I think that you are missing my point that repeat guest parents of one year old twins and a three year old, none of whom have been to WDW before can skew the statistics if they are all counted. If only the parents are counted, you get 100% repeats. If all members of the family are counted, then you have 40% repeats. I have no idea how the statistics are counted.

I don't take the 75 percent to mean 75 percent of every guest in every demo so much as every guest, period. So even if 90 percent of all six-year-olds, for example, are first timers, they're not going to skew the overall numbers that much.

 

[DCTooTall]

And lets face it...prior to a remodel a few years back....POTC had some elements that were MUCH less "PC" and a could be taken by a whole lot more people as "offensive" than it does NOW.

Yet it was still as beloved BEFORE the remodel as it is now.

And the Version of the ride that predated the version immediately before the "Johnny Depp Refurb" was even more un-PC.... and arguably, even better than the PC version in the middle.



And for everyone who who's commented about why not a Star Wars Land... Maybe it's because of Lucas' infamous desire to keep a tight grip on all things Star Wars? It's one thing with Star Tours (which was developed in cooperation with Lucas back in the 80s), and Star Wars Weekends aren't really that big a deal as far as the legal side of it goes. But building out an entire land with more attractions and/or locations built upon George's universe, I can quite honestly see being a much more complicated negotiation process with George's OCD levels of perfectionism and desire to constantly "make it better" and not cede control of his baby. (You think JK's desires for WWoHP were strict, odds are George's would be much stricter)

 

[nytimez]

And the Version of the ride that predated the version immediately before the "Johnny Depp Refurb" was even more un-PC.... and arguably, even better than the PC version in the middle.



And for everyone who who's commented about why not a Star Wars Land... Maybe it's because of Lucas' infamous desire to keep a tight grip on all things Star Wars? It's one thing with Star Tours (which was developed in cooperation with Lucas back in the 80s), and Star Wars Weekends aren't really that big a deal as far as the legal side of it goes. But building out an entire land with more attractions and/or locations built upon George's universe, I can quite honestly see being a much more complicated negotiation process with George's OCD levels of perfectionism and desire to constantly "make it better" and not cede control of his baby. (You think JK's desires for WWoHP were strict, odds are George's would be much stricter)

I don't know if Cameron is any less of a control freak than Lucas... but yes, there could be any number of reasons why they can't/won't/don't build a Star Wars Land up to and including the simple inability to hammer out a bigger deal with Lucas.

In any case, it's almost certainly not as simple as "they should've just built Star Wars Land instead" as seem people seem to argue.

 

[Babbletrish]

My God, this thread. I may pretty this up later, but for now here's the quick-and-dirty three minutes in P-shop edition (he lost his tail in... um... The War.):

So... things that happened since last time:

Yeah, Disney should stick to the things it created, like Winnie the Pooh, Mary Poppins, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Davy Crockett, Br'er Rabbit and the Muppets!

I like you.

Yes, by all means, lets criticize a science fiction movie because it contains a ridiculous sounding word.

I like you too.

I am happy to see them do anything with that garbage park. I didn't even like Avatar but Animal Kingdom can't get much more lame. Its a zoo with a roller coaster and a dinosaur carnival.

I knew a comment like this was coming but... jeez. You know how I can tell you've never been inside AK? Or a zoo, for that matter?

Have you ever seen Dances With Wolves? If you have, then you have seen Avatar. Essentially the same movie, different time period.

Eh... I'd say watch "Ferngully" on one screen and "Final Fantasy: Spirits Within" on the other. Way more accurate.

I'm probably in the minority but if Disney really wanted to shoe horn in a film franchise with a truly "rabid fan base" in AK and still appease those of us who are still irate over the lack of a Beastly Kingdom they would have purchased the theme park rights to THE LORD OF THE RINGS.

Then we could have had dragons, hobbits, orcs, a forest of Ents and on and on.

The saddest thing about this is that Disney came oh so very close to making the LOTR films, but they done effed it up. (They wanted it as just one movie with a necessarily incredibly truncated version of the story.)

And cannibalist birds who try to steal your BBQ chicken at Flametree or your enormous Turkey Leg in Africa.

Ducks are not chickens. Why don't you freak out over the humans eating other mammals?

Avatar seriously? That's horrible. How about a Cars land at DHS then it will get interesting.

You know, that might be the only property Disney owns that would have been as polarizing as this.

I love AK, I can spend a long time there just watching the animals.... An attraction or two would always be nice (personally I'm looking for something along the lines of The Adventurer's Club)

Oh man, the Adventurer's Club! I never got to go there before Disney shut it down but I hear it's one of the best bizarre attractions.

Personally, I stand by everything I said earlier. This could be interesting, it could even be amazing, I'm just happy to get something new.

(Frankly, I'm more interested in this then the Princesses, Princesses Everywhere Fantasyland Expansion. So there.)

 

[eliza61]

I'm just amazed that there are so many people that think because they cannot visualize it, they cannot see it fitting in, they are better visionaries for Disney that the Disney imaginears are. Reminds me of suits, never having trained a day in art and design tell me how to do my job, how to make a design/painting/etc. balance and be eye-catching and what font looks best. Those people are geniuses and the brightest visionaries. I trust in them to make is feel like we've walked into an entirely new land/world. If anyone can do it, they can. They're exceptionally good at their jobs. I also think that the "land" will make people think about being surrounded by HUGE plants, beasts(?) etc. Story like a "shrunk the kids" thing but completely new and fantastic foliage. The next movie involves the world under Pandora's oceans. I wonder if that will come into play too. No other theme park has created an alien world have they? It's an ambitious undertaking but one I trust in them to be able to do. I see that as being the theme there, nor a fixation on the storyline other than being kind to your environment. None of us are the visionaries for Disney, so lets let THEM do what the do best.

You're right we are not visionaries or imagineers but we are PAYING guest who have dislikes and likes and when you are a customer based industry, you get customer who get to say what they think about your ideas.

And let's not act like disney has never laid an egg before. Can we say the godawful Captain EO or the equally as horrible "Stitch".

I don't understand why if we don't like a particular idea all of a sudden we're "haters". Why is it that if you don't partiuclar agree with evey thing disney does all of a sudden we're "complainers, negative, have no faith or uniformed".