Avatarland is being delayed

[DisneyDan73]

Both Disney and Universal are also in talks with Peter Jackson to bring LOTR into their park. Perhaps they are holding off on Avatarland to see if they can keep Universal from stealing another huge franchise from them?? I know, universal didn't really steal Potter from Disney, they walked away from it and it is having a backlash. Maybe they don't want the same thing to happen again

 

[coco392]

Australia

Eucalyptus Forest with koalas and tree kangaroos

Crocodile Falls log flume

Nemo Stage show

hopefully they include drop bears

 

[ASteelersMidget]

Both Disney and Universal are also in talks with Peter Jackson to bring LOTR into their park. Perhaps they are holding off on Avatarland to see if they can keep Universal from stealing another huge franchise from them?? I know, universal didn't really steal Potter from Disney, they walked away from it and it is having a backlash. Maybe they don't want the same thing to happen again

No source from a new member with a franchise that was said to never want to work with Disney.

Sorry if I'm extremely skeptical.

 

[DisneyDan73]

2013 unofficial guide states that both WDI and Universal are in talks with Peter Jackson, there is my source and now yours as well.

 

[DisneyDan73]

It also states that universal is considering for a new land, whereas Disney is considering using it to update the Great Movie Ride, to provide some more specifics.

 

[MJMcBride]

Seems to me it would be a waste just to have a scene at the GMR.

Plus Jackson would never go for that

 

[pilferk]

It also states that universal is considering for a new land, whereas Disney is considering using it to update the Great Movie Ride, to provide some more specifics.

Let me guess:

One of the "Jim Hill" sidebars in the guide?

 

[MJMcBride]

He has said it on his podcast as well

 

[super mike b]

Both Disney and Universal are also in talks with Peter Jackson to bring LOTR into their park.

We can only hope that Universal has the winning bid!

 

[mjc2003]

I really don't see that as a fact. I lot of people really didn't think much of this movie. To them it would have zero draw.

I really don't understand why Disney doesn't do something more with the Lion King in AK.

I think this sort of misses the point. Do the people that queue up for Splash Mountain do so b/c they are all huge Song of the South fans? It's a fact that AvatarLand would draw for 2 reasons: 1) It would be new and would undoubtedly be impressive, and 2) 50 million people a year visit WDW and would swarm to something different.
Just b/c you are not a huge fan of the movie, if you went to AK you wouldn't be intrigued? And if you visited Avatarland and it was really cool, you wouldn't keep going back? Based on what, principle?

As for the notion that a lot of people didn't think much of the movie, well we have friends who visit Universal every year and love the Harry Potter section but never saw the movie or read the books. So it's about tangible interpretation, not supposition. People are not going to ignore a new attraction simply b/c it's tied to a movie they may not have loved. That's missing the forest for the trees.

And this notion that so many people hated or didn't care for Avatar sort of belies the reality, which is that it's the highest grossing movie of all time. There are Avatar conventions. There are Avatar "groupies", and message boards, and Pandora role playing . Don't sell the concept short b/c the movie might not have struck your fancy.

I do agree with your thought about the Lion King. They certainly have enough nature theming in several of their films for more tie-ins. But I think this is the point; they are not looking to rehash an old theme, b/c they are losing business to Universal. They want something new and different, something that appeals to a larger audience. More rides based on 20+ year old movies are always welcome, but they are looking to capture market share.

 

[pilferk]

He has said it on his podcast as well

Everything you hear/read from Jim Hill (Unofficial Guide, jimhillmedia.com, on his podcast, wherever) should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Because, as history has proven, not nearly everything he hears about ("Night Kingdom" anyone?) actually happens. There is a considerable amount of..."blue sky"....in much of what Jim reports.

FYI: The rumor has been around for a couple years. I can find reports dating back to August of 2010.

I'm not even 100% sure that Jackson, even as the adapter, could make a case that he has the rights to commission the use of the adaptation in a theme park setting. Given there is significant lore involved (and not just imagery)..I'm not sure they wouldn't need the approval of the Tolkien estate.

 

[DCTooTall]

Both Disney and Universal are also in talks with Peter Jackson to bring LOTR into their park. Perhaps they are holding off on Avatarland to see if they can keep Universal from stealing another huge franchise from them?? I know, universal didn't really steal Potter from Disney, they walked away from it and it is having a backlash. Maybe they don't want the same thing to happen again

2013 unofficial guide states that both WDI and Universal are in talks with Peter Jackson, there is my source and now yours as well.

As Pilferk mentioned above..... Even if this rumor had any basis in fact, It doesn't pass the sniff test.

Peter Jackson was behind the film adaptations of the LoTR series, but he was only able to do that based of his managing to get ahold of the FILM rights for the series from the Tolkien estate.

Peter Jackson would have absolutely no influence whatsoever or basis for granting of the THEMEPARK rights to the property. Those Themepark rights are entirely separate from the film rights, and therefor can only be negotiated and granted from the people who own the property.....the Tolkien estate.

Tolkien himself had gone on record that he did not want the Walt Disney Company to ever have any control or say over his works. This wish has been maintained by the current controllers over the Estate..... so the odds are much higher that Disney will decided to completely bulldoze everything they've built over the past 40 years at the Florida project to start fresh, than them building a LoTR land or attraction within their parks.


The ONLY legitimate connection that Peter Jackson might have to a themepark project based off the LoTR properties, is that he might be retained as a consultant within the project due to his extensive knowledge of the lore, and the visuals he helped to create. Even in this regard, Peter Jackson has experience and a connection from working with Universal on the Kong 360 attraction at Universal Hollywood.... so it's much more likely of a Universal connection there than there would be a Disney Connection.

 

[MJMcBride]

Everything you hear/read from Jim Hill (Unofficial Guide, jimhillmedia.com, on his podcast, wherever) should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Because, as history has proven, not nearly everything he hears about ("Night Kingdom" anyone?) actually happens. There is a considerable amount of..."blue sky"....in much of what Jim reports.

FYI: The rumor has been around for a couple years. I can find reports dating back to August of 2010.

I'm not even 100% sure that Jackson, even as the adapter, could make a case that he has the rights to commission the use of the adaptation in a theme park setting. Given there is significant lore involved (and not just imagery)..I'm not sure they wouldn't need the approval of the Tolkien estate.

frankly I dont believe a word he says

 

[Max Rebo]

Suppose Disney had instead announced plans to build a new land at AK based on fantastical creatures from a fictional foreign world. It would be a planet invented by Disney, with creatures nobody had ever heard of, born from the creative minds of Disney Imagineers.

Would Disney fans get behind the idea? I think they would, especially if Disney pledged to invest heavily in the new area. While some would no doubt still long for the unicorns and dragons of Beastly Kingdomme, I think most would support the idea of a portion of the AK park dedicated to fictional, otherworldy creatures.

Enter Pandora, the fictional world created for the "Avatar" movie(s). It's basically the same thing described above, with the exception that Pandora was conceived by James Cameron, whereas the above idea would be solely from Disney. Just because the original idea came from outside Disney, does not make it a bad idea.

And just because the movie was mediocre, does not make it a bad idea. Splash Mountain is a fantastic ride, but it is based on a racist movie nobody has ever seen. The Jungle Cruise is a Disney Classic, but few even realize the ride was inspired by "The African Queen." Other well-loved attractions, such as Space Mountain and Pirates of the Caribbean were not tied to movies at all.

So my point is that the quality of the movie has very little to do with the quality of a theme park attraction. An interesting idea, with the right creativity, along with the right financial commitment, can make for a great attraction. The Disney parks have demonstrated this time and time again.

A Pandora-based land might not have been my first choice either. But I'm willing to give it a chance.

 

[ASteelersMidget]

Suppose Disney had instead announced plans to build a new land at AK based on fantastical creatures from a fictional foreign world. It would be a planet invented by Disney, with creatures nobody had ever heard of, born from the creative minds of Disney Imagineers.

Would Disney fans get behind the idea? I think they would, especially if Disney pledged to invest heavily in the new area. While some would no doubt still long for the unicorns and dragons of Beastly Kingdomme, I think most would support the idea of a portion of the AK park dedicated to fictional, otherworldy creatures.

Enter Pandora, the fictional world created for the "Avatar" movie(s). It's basically the same thing described above, with the exception that Pandora was conceived by James Cameron, whereas the above idea would be solely from Disney. Just because the original idea came from outside Disney, does not make it a bad idea.

And just because the movie was mediocre, does not make it a bad idea. Splash Mountain is a fantastic ride, but it is based on a racist movie nobody has ever seen. The Jungle Cruise is a Disney Classic, but few even realize the ride was inspired by "The African Queen." Other well-loved attractions, such as Space Mountain and Pirates of the Caribbean were not tied to movies at all.

So my point is that the quality of the movie has very little to do with the quality of a theme park attraction. An interesting idea, with the right creativity, along with the right financial commitment, can make for a great attraction. The Disney parks have demonstrated this time and time again.

A Pandora-based land might not have been my first choice either. But I'm willing to give it a chance.

You had me until the bolded statement. I for one have seen SotS and let me be frank there's beloved Disney movies that are FAR more racist than SotS.

However the rest of your point is true. It's based on something people dislike so they will dislike it without really knowing anything about it.

 

[DCTooTall]

Suppose Disney had instead announced plans to build a new land at AK based on fantastical creatures from a fictional foreign world. It would be a planet invented by Disney, with creatures nobody had ever heard of, born from the creative minds of Disney Imagineers.

Would Disney fans get behind the idea? I think they would, especially if Disney pledged to invest heavily in the new area. While some would no doubt still long for the unicorns and dragons of Beastly Kingdomme, I think most would support the idea of a portion of the AK park dedicated to fictional, otherworldy creatures.

Enter Pandora, the fictional world created for the "Avatar" movie(s). It's basically the same thing described above, with the exception that Pandora was conceived by James Cameron, whereas the above idea would be solely from Disney. Just because the original idea came from outside Disney, does not make it a bad idea.

And just because the movie was mediocre, does not make it a bad idea. Splash Mountain is a fantastic ride, but it is based on a racist movie nobody has ever seen. The Jungle Cruise is a Disney Classic, but few even realize the ride was inspired by "The African Queen." Other well-loved attractions, such as Space Mountain and Pirates of the Caribbean were not tied to movies at all.

So my point is that the quality of the movie has very little to do with the quality of a theme park attraction. An interesting idea, with the right creativity, along with the right financial commitment, can make for a great attraction. The Disney parks have demonstrated this time and time again.

A Pandora-based land might not have been my first choice either. But I'm willing to give it a chance.

Hmmm..... Thought it was just Walt's attempt to get his old "Nature" documentaries/episodes of the Disneyland show represented in the park?

 

[HappyThoughtsTina]

Maybe now they will make the Villains Land??

 

[FiggieFan]

Yeah. I hope Avatarland never comes to fruition. They have so many other things they can refurbish and I would rather see Cars Land, some updates in HS. I think the previous posts of adding other countries to AK is the best idea - starting with Australia or a rain forest.

 

[FiggieFan]

Maybe now they will make the Villains Land??

Never thought of it before, but Villains Land would be great! Great idea!

 

[ASteelersMidget]

Never thought of it before, but Villains Land would be great! Great idea!

Villain's land has been in the rumor mill for years. Not happening for at least another decade or 2