Does Avatar land excite anyone?

[Mousefanmike]

Because at first, I thought it would be really cool to bring Pandora to life. Then I sat and thought, will these parks last? Is James Cameron and Disney THAT certain Avatar 2-5? will be a success at the box office that they feel the need to expand AK with this multi-million dollar investment? I also understand that it will get more bodies into the park, hence more revenue and popularity, to, IMO, not a super popular park in the evening. Am I wrong?

 

[minnie mum]

Since no one knows what this new land will consist of yet, it seems pointless to get worked up one way or the other. And I don't see why success or failure of the sequels should have any direct impact on the success or failure of the attractions in Pandora. If they are a good attraction they will stand on their own merit. HM was a fan favourite for decades before the movie. Same with POTC. It remains popular even though the last sequel tanked.

 

[Flamingeaux]

The reason for my excitement is it will be something new in a park in need of more attractions. I thought the plot of movie was dumb bu the visuals were unique. Maybe it will translate better to attractions.

 

[Reddog1134]

The problem is that almost everyone is tying the success of the land to the success of the movie. The two CAN be mutually exclusive. People say "it's no Star Wars or Harry Potter" and they're right. A lot of the appeal of those movies were the characters and story. Avatar did so well because it was visually stunning. Hopefully the land will also be visually stunning.

 

[JimmyV]

I do not link my excitement (or disappointment) in an attraction to the media it is based on (if any). Let's look at Epcot. The best attractions there are not based on any movie franchise, new or old, (until Norzen/Froway opens up). I can get excited about Soarin' and Test Track irrespective of its lack of a movie tie-in. Let's look at the MK. Space Mountain? No movie franchise. Thunder Mountain? Ditto. Splash Mountain? Never saw Song of the South from start to finish. Dumbo? Awful movie. Peter Pan? Don't care for the movie. Under the Sea? Great movie. Awful ride. And on and on it goes. There are great movies that have spawned so-so rides, and awful movies that spawned great rides. I measure the ride based on the ride and nothing else. Avatarland should encompass some state of the art technology. That, in and of itself, gives me reason to be hopeful. I don't really care if the movie franchise ends up on a one way train to oblivion...just like Song of the South. Doesn't mean the attraction(s) can't be great.

 

[Queen2PrincessG]

The problem is that almost everyone is tying the success of the land to the success of the movie. The two CAN be mutually exclusive. People say "it's no Star Wars or Harry Potter" and they're right. A lot of the appeal of those movies were the characters and story. Avatar did so well because it was visually stunning. Hopefully the land will also be visually stunning.

THIS! ALL OF THIS! yeah the characters were ok but it was the atmosphere. The planet is beautiful!!!

 

[Mousefanmike]

I do not link my excitement (or disappointment) in an attraction to the media it is based on (if any). Let's look at Epcot. The best attractions there are not based on any movie franchise, new or old, (until Norzen/Froway opens up). I can get excited about Soarin' and Test Track irrespective of its lack of a movie tie-in. Let's look at the MK. Space Mountain? No movie franchise. Thunder Mountain? Ditto. Splash Mountain? Never saw Song of the South from start to finish? Dumbo? Awful movie. Peter Pan? Don't care for the movie. Under the Sea? Great movie. Awful ride. And on and on it goes. There are great movies that have spawned so-so rides, and awful movies that spawned great rides. I measure the ride based on the ride and nothing else. Avatarland should encompass some state of the art technology. That, in and of itself, gives me reason to be hopeful. I don't really care if the movie franchise ends up on a one way train to oblivion...just like Song of the South. Doesn't mean the attraction(s) can't be great.

Alright, good points. I will just have to believe in the imagineers to do this large task.

 

[JimmyV]

People say "it's no Star Wars or Harry Potter" and they're right.

Let's not jump the gun quite yet. For all the love that the SW franchise gets, let's not lose sight of the fact that the track record there is: one pretty good movie that was rather groundbreaking when in debuted, one great movie, and 4 movies, that, but for the other two, would have been among the biggest flops in cinematic history. Avatar, so far, has one movie under its belt that is at least the equal of the first SW movie. If the sequels are better than the 4th through 6th SW movies, Avatar can easily pass SW. That is not a very high bar to get over.

 

[Mikie]

I'm excited about the possibilities and I don't really think the success or failure of the movie will have a long term impact. Yes, possibly if he movies bomb, it will temper interest in the addition, but as JimmyV enumerated, many rides and movies have success or failure independent of their tie in. I'm excited about the potential. . . But will it live up? The concept art looks good to me so far.

 

[Reddog1134]

Let's not jump the gun quite yet. For all the love that the SW franchise gets, let's not lose sight of the fact that the track record there is: one pretty good movie that was rather groundbreaking when in debuted, one great movie, and 4 movies, that, but for the other two, would have been among the biggest flops in cinematic history. Avatar, so far, has one movie under its belt that is at least the equal of the first SW movie. If the sequels are better than the 4th through 6th SW movies, Avatar can easily pass SW. That is not a very high bar to get over.

My point was why the movies were successful. Not, the amount of success they achieved.

 

[Mikie]

Let's not jump the gun quite yet. For all the love that the SW franchise gets, let's not lose sight of the fact that the track record there is: one pretty good movie that was rather groundbreaking when in debuted, one great movie, and 4 movies, that, but for the other two, would have been among the biggest flops in cinematic history. Avatar, so far, has one movie under its belt that is at least the equal of the first SW movie. If the sequels are better than the 4th through 6th SW movies, Avatar can easily pass SW. That is not a very high bar to get over.

The appeal to Star Wars fans is not just the cinematic quality of any one film, but the immersive world created by the first 3 released (I won't stick up too terribly hard for the 2nd set!) in that aspect, avatar has the potential to be similar even if it doesn't spawn 40years' worth of conventions, toys, tv shows, etc.

 

[Mousefanmike]

Avatar can easily pass SW

yes, but most squeal, and franchise films, tend to do not as well as the original. Cameron really needs to bring a new technology to the visuals of Avatar to make it as special, and the reason why people saw Avatar in the first place. I never heard anyone say that the story is why they liked it, or it had great character development. Just, it look pretty, me like.

I now see how if the films may bomb, it will still stand alone. But good films never hurt attractions.

 

[JimmyV]

My point was why the movies were successful. Not, the amount of success they achieved.

Then I guess I don't understand your statement that Avatar is "no Star Wars or Harry Potter". Avatar blows every SW movie out of the water in terms of "success".

 

[BrianL]

Hey, I think Avatar was a great film and will make a great theme park land, so color me excited!

I never heard anyone say that the story is why they liked it, or it had great character development.

I say it all the time. Nobody cares, but I do say it.

 

[Reddog1134]

The appeal to Star Wars fans is not just the cinematic quality of any one film, but the immersive world created by the first 3 released (I won't stick up too terribly hard for the 2nd set!) in that aspect, avatar has the potential to be similar even if it doesn't spawn 40years' worth of conventions, toys, tv shows, etc.

Good point. Those 2 (or 3) films have tent-poled a multibillion dollar property for nearly 40 years. Even the prequels could not destroy that.

 

[Newsies]

Wasn't a fan of the movie, not excited for the park to open. But I'm a princess and fairy kind of gal- I wasn't a fan of Star Wars for a long time, and now it's growing on me. I'll probably be impressed by the Avatar park even if I hated the movie as long as there's a ton of WDW magic.

 

[Reddog1134]

Then I guess I don't understand your statement that Avatar is "no Star Wars or Harry Potter". Avatar blows every SW movie out of the water in terms of "success".

I'm saying that other people say that because they believe Avatar doesn't have the longevity or cultural impact that the other 2 have.

I'm saying the statement is correct, but not for that reason. It's correct because (I believe) the things that made SW and HP popular (the story and characters) and not the things that make Avatar popular (the visuals).

 

[Mousefanmike]

I say it all the time. Nobody cares, but I do say it.

Okay, but most of the awards are for best visual Effects.

 

[Mousefanmike]

I'm saying the statement is correct, but not for that reason. It's correct because (I believe) the things that made SW and HP popular (the story and characters) and not the things that make Avatar popular (the visuals).

exactly why I was questioning longevity.

 

[momof2n2]

I have no desire at all to see avatar land. I had no desire to see the movie either. I do hope however, that tens of thousands of other people every day are far more excited to see it than, say, expedition Everest or Kilimanjaro Safari. ;-)