Avatarland

[beer dave]

And apparently it is a film that Disney wishes they would have made.

 

[princessluna14]

This completely confuses me. Why would it be put in a Disney park if it's not a Disney movie? Is Disney planning on acquiring it (isn't that what happened with Star Wars)?

Avatar was just a special-effect loaded live action copy of Fern Gully...

 

[twebber55]

This completely confuses me. Why would it be put in a Disney park if it's not a Disney movie? Is Disney planning on acquiring it (isn't that what happened with Star Wars)?

Avatar was just a special-effect loaded live action copy of Fern Gully...

there are several non disney attractions at wdw

 

[conandrob240]

My thought on this is that it less about the movie itself and more about the effects and what a land based on those effects could look like.

 

[twebber55]

My thought on this is that it less about the movie itself and more about the effects and what a land based on those effects could look like.

I agree

 

[princessluna14]

there are several non disney attractions at wdw

Yeah, but it's generally limited to an attraction right? Not an entire land? I mean, I know obviously something like Rock n' Roller Coaster is not Disney themed but they didn't make an entire "land" themed around Aerosmith, they just used it as an inspiration for a ride. I could accept an Avatar-themed ride in Hollywood Studios but I don't know about an Avatarland.

 

[KristenRB]

Yeah, but it's generally limited to an attraction right? Not an entire land? I mean, I know obviously something like Rock n' Roller Coaster is not Disney themed but they didn't make an entire "land" themed around Aerosmith, they just used it as an inspiration for a ride. I could accept an Avatar-themed ride in Hollywood Studios but I don't know about an Avatarland.

Exactly.

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[twebber55]

Yeah, but it's generally limited to an attraction right? Not an entire land? I mean, I know obviously something like Rock n' Roller Coaster is not Disney themed but they didn't make an entire "land" themed around Aerosmith, they just used it as an inspiration for a ride. I could accept an Avatar-themed ride in Hollywood Studios but I don't know about an Avatarland.

I would agree for the most part but in this case the pandoran nights with bioluminescent flora and fauna and floating mountains could be better than any e ticket ride.
Just my opinion

 

[billybob069]

Yeah, but it's generally limited to an attraction right? Not an entire land? I mean, I know obviously something like Rock n' Roller Coaster is not Disney themed but they didn't make an entire "land" themed around Aerosmith, they just used it as an inspiration for a ride. I could accept an Avatar-themed ride in Hollywood Studios but I don't know about an Avatarland.

Harry Potter was released by Warner Bros., not Universal.....certainly didn't stop them. Obviously Avatar doesn't have the same pull as HP, but it was still extremely popular.

 

[Cafeen]

Yeah, but it's generally limited to an attraction right? Not an entire land? I mean, I know obviously something like Rock n' Roller Coaster is not Disney themed but they didn't make an entire "land" themed around Aerosmith, they just used it as an inspiration for a ride. I could accept an Avatar-themed ride in Hollywood Studios but I don't know about an Avatarland.

The land is supposedly focused on the primary message of the movie, which jives with the primary theme of Animal Kingdom (I'm reserving my judgement personally). So, in that sense, it fits with AK more than elsewhere. It will depend on how it's actually done though and if it'll allow AK to stay open at night after they bring the animals in.

As far as the Disney movie thing... there has been a push for "Star Wars Land" for far, far longer than Disney's owned Lucas Films, and there was a sizable Muppet presence in DHS before Disney acquired them as well. Of course, those are both in DHS, which supports your line of thought that since it's based on a movie, it should be over there (I'm guessing?) and it does make sense. (And, of course, neither of these are full on lands, but roughly equivalent to what the latest rumors are saying... attraction + gift shop + maybe food + theming)

It's all about how they go about it... based around the movie? I'd strongly agree. Based around the world the movie is set in? May work over at AK.

 

[dwheaton]

IMO, Animal Kingdom needs something new more than Hollywood Studios and Epcot. When it comes to popular rides, AK has 1, IMO. The Safari is nice, Dinosaur is decent, Tough to be a Bug and Festival of the Lion King are great shows, but really Everest is their key draw. I remember doing extra magic hours at AK one year. We hit up every ride at AK, and when we hit Extra Magic hours that evening, it was basically just repeatedly riding Expedition Everest until we decided we were done, and went back to the resort.

With that said, we'll see if Avatar Land is the expansion that helps the park in that regard. It needs something pretty badly, I think. A new show, and couple solid rides would do wonders, I think.

I have mixed feelings about it. At first, I was really annoyed that Disney was focusing on Avatar. However, I agree with your points that Animal Kingdom needs more of a draw. Like you say, the big question is whether this accomplishes that feat. If Disney combines this expansion with additions to DHS and rehabs in EPCOT, I'll be okay with it. If this is the only major upgrade for DW in the next five years, I won't be happy even if it's great.

 

[bedogged]

Harry Potter was released by Warner Bros., not Universal.....certainly didn't stop them. Obviously Avatar doesn't have the same pull as HP, but it was still extremely popular.

Keep in mind that there are two more Avatar moves planned. That should generate a lot of interest in the next few years.

 

[twebber55]

Keep in mind that there are two more Avatar moves planned. That should generate a lot of interest in the next few years.

Agree
I would expect huge box office numbers for them

 

[Just Believe]

Disney has not given up Avatar because Cameron has really pushed it because it will act as promotion for the sequels (which are expected to come out 2015). I have a feeling we'll be getting an announcement in greater detail of Avatar at D23 this year (hopefully the idea won't be booed off the stage... but how great would that be? DISNEY FANS BOOING OFF THE AVATAR PROPOSED IDEA.... that video would go viral quickly.

The Imagineers like Joe Rhode, who probably hates this project because it dismantles the core of Animal Kingdom in a convoluted way, will do an incredible job creating the world of Pandora. I'm not a fan of the Cars franchise but found myself falling in love with Carsland in DCA. The Imagineers are THE BEST at what they do. Mystic Point in Hong Kong proves that the Imagineers are more then capable of telling original stories not connected to franchises that are equally compelling, thrilling, and imaginative. They are THE MASTERS of storytelling in the company. Even when Disney release a "dud" film, their saving grace, in my opinion IS the theme parks and the Imagineers.

With that said, Avatar seems like a step backwards because it's not a story that is strong enough to exist in a theme park. Stories like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Twilight Zone, and Harry Potter work as outside franchises of their respected parks because there is a strong enough fan base outside of the Disney/Universal bubble. They exist as strong franchises regardless if they had theme park attractions or not.

Avatar.... not so much. There isn't Avatar conventions being held with thousands of people circling city blocks. The way I describe Avatar is like lightning. It strikes once, makes everyone stop to look, causes short term amazement and is quickly forgotten.


Avatar, however, does prove to be popular OUTSIDE OF THE DOMESTIC MARKET. According to boxofficemojo, the international market apparently LOVES Avatar. The foreign market made over 70% of it's total box office. Maybe Disney should move it's plans for Avatar to one of the Disney parks outside of the states, like the Marvel park in Dubai.

Sorry for this long post, but Disney needs to reevaluate it's strategy because Walt Disney always paid attention to what the public wanted. If he was alive with the internet, he would've used it to his advantage to see exactly what people want (maybe would've developed apps ten years ahead of where we are now... cause Walt is awesome like that). The majority of people are not super enthusiastic about the World of Pandora coming to WDW and even those not opposed to it are not squirming with excitement. They're more like, "Oh, I guess they'll do a good job" which is true. But why not give the Imagineers a chance to do a good job and tell compelling stories without the aid of a franchise which has as much reliability as lightning striking the same place twice.

 

[twebber55]

Disney has not given up Avatar because Cameron has really pushed it because it will act as promotion for the sequels (which are expected to come out 2015). I have a feeling we'll be getting an announcement in greater detail of Avatar at D23 this year (hopefully the idea won't be booed off the stage... but how great would that be? DISNEY FANS BOOING OFF THE AVATAR PROPOSED IDEA.... that video would go viral quickly.

The Imagineers like Joe Rhode, who probably hates this project because it dismantles the core of Animal Kingdom in a convoluted way, will do an incredible job creating the world of Pandora. I'm not a fan of the Cars franchise but found myself falling in love with Carsland in DCA. The Imagineers are THE BEST at what they do. Mystic Point in Hong Kong proves that the Imagineers are more then capable of telling original stories not connected to franchises that are equally compelling, thrilling, and imaginative. They are THE MASTERS of storytelling in the company. Even when Disney release a "dud" film, their saving grace, in my opinion IS the theme parks and the Imagineers.

With that said, Avatar seems like a step backwards because it's not a story that is strong enough to exist in a theme park. Stories like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Twilight Zone, and Harry Potter work as outside franchises of their respected parks because there is a strong enough fan base outside of the Disney/Universal bubble. They exist as strong franchises regardless if they had theme park attractions or not.

Avatar.... not so much. There isn't Avatar conventions being held with thousands of people circling city blocks. The way I describe Avatar is like lightning. It strikes once, makes everyone stop to look, causes short term amazement and is quickly forgotten.


Avatar, however, does prove to be popular OUTSIDE OF THE DOMESTIC MARKET. According to boxofficemojo, the international market apparently LOVES Avatar. The foreign market made over 70% of it's total box office. Maybe Disney should move it's plans for Avatar to one of the Disney parks outside of the states, like the Marvel park in Dubai.

Sorry for this long post, but Disney needs to reevaluate it's strategy because Walt Disney always paid attention to what the public wanted. If he was alive with the internet, he would've used it to his advantage to see exactly what people want (maybe would've developed apps ten years ahead of where we are now... cause Walt is awesome like that). The majority of people are not super enthusiastic about the World of Pandora coming to WDW and even those not opposed to it are not squirming with excitement. They're more like, "Oh, I guess they'll do a good job" which is true. But why not give the Imagineers a chance to do a good job and tell compelling stories without the aid of a franchise which has as much reliability as lightning striking the same place twice.

even though i completely disagree with a lot of your opinions i did want to point out one thing..avatars box office numbers were made up of 30% domestic which seems low until you realize its still 100 million more than what the avengers (760 to 660 million) made...thats right, 100 million more than the wildly popular avengers movie
heres how i see it..both new avatar movies come out in 2015 and 2016 with the new land coming out in 2017 (quotes from George K in Orlando Biz Journal)

the only place you see something negative about this project is on disney boards on the net

anyways im like Michael Corleone i try to get out of this debate but i keep getting pulled back in

the best thing for everyone to do is wait until d23 to get an idea about what they are doing before they decide whether they love or hate the idea

 

[beer dave]

even though i completely disagree with a lot of your opinions i did want to point out one thing..avatars box office numbers were made up of 30% domestic which seems low until you realize its still 100 million more than what the avengers (760 to 660 million) made...thats right, 100 million more than the wildly popular avengers movie
heres how i see it..both new avatar movies come out in 2015 and 2016 with the new land coming out in 2017 (quotes from George K in Orlando Biz Journal)

the only place you see something negative about this project is on disney boards on the net

anyways im like Michael Corleone i try to get out of this debate but i keep getting pulled back in

the best thing for everyone to do is wait until d23 to get an idea about what they are doing before they decide whether they love or hate the idea

I'm with ya buddy-- I don't have the energy to go over the same points again and again.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

Avatar was just a special-effect loaded live action copy of Fern Gully...

Yep. I am 100% against the addition if Avatar in AK. I have several reasons but the biggest one right now is that it is not appropriate for kids. Call me a prude or whatever, I don't care, but that movie was way too foul for kids and now we are sticking in the middle of a family park????

 

[skellinton]

"the only place you see something negative about this project is on disney boards on the net"

Where else is it being discussed?
And I completely agree with the lightening comment above.

Of course it will be great because the imagineers will do their job, and they are amazing, but imagine how fantastic a new land would be if they were given a better concept to begin with. It could not only be great, it could be AMAZING.

 

[twebber55]

"the only place you see something negative about this project is on disney boards on the net"

Where else is it being discussed?
And I completely agree with the lightening comment above.

Of course it will be great because the imagineers will do their job, and they are amazing, but imagine how fantastic a new land would be if they were given a better concept to begin with. It could not only be great, it could be AMAZING.

There have been several positive articles both in print and social media

How about giving it a chance and not pre judge what we dont know

 

[beer dave]

"the only place you see something negative about this project is on disney boards on the net"

Where else is it being discussed?
And I completely agree with the lightening comment above.

Of course it will be great because the imagineers will do their job, and they are amazing, but imagine how fantastic a new land would be if they were given a better concept to begin with. It could not only be great, it could be AMAZING.

Oh now I see-- a better concept-- your right. Its a bad idea.