Does Avatar land excite anyone?

[Crystal824]

Alright, but other than Everest and the Rapids, What else does AK have worth going to? They may be trying to make a half-day park, to a all day thing, so people spend more time in the parks, and longer stays. Disney is a business, and at the end of the day it is about the bottom line.

I personally love Animal Kingdom although I know many people do not and consider it a half day park. I an easily fill a day there open to close granted they close between 5-7 most nights. I love the trails and the shows too. Perhaps I'm biased because I did my first CP there though.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to adding new attractions or areas to AK. I just wish Disney would use its own property or even create something new rather than licensing property from another company. Due to that, Avatarland just doesn't fit for me. I do understand Disney is at the end of the day a business, but no matter what you put in the "new" land, it will be new and exciting and draw crowds. I don't think having Avatarland is going to draw crazy crowds from fans of Avatar like SW will or HP did. It was an ok movie, but it doesn't have the fan base that those movies do.

 

[Bullseye]

I thought the movie was great and am looking forward to the new area in AK. I think there is a lot of potential for some really cool attractions!

 

[RogueKnits]

I have my reservations about it, but I won't make up my mind for sure until I see it.

I do wish they had done a more generic mythic/fantasy creatures land (something like The Moors from Maleficent) instead of linking it to Avatar. It could have a lot of the same elements (floating islands, glowing flowers, etc.) but they could have incorporated dragons, unicorns, etc. With Avatar they're kind of stuck with what the films depict.

 

[JoshuaShaw]

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".

While it pulled in a larger revenue at the box office, it left virtually no pop cultural footprint, whereas Star Wars and Harry Potter are two of the largest franchises in the world. Star Wars and Harry Potter merchandising completely eclipses Avatar's. Everyone in the world may have paid for a ticket to see Avatar, but within a month no one was talking about it.

The appeal of the new land is still up in the air, but beyond its initial box office success, the impact of Avatar on pop culture is still minimal at best.

 

[Mousefanmike]

I do wish they had done a more generic mythic/fantasy creatures land (something like The Moors from Maleficent) instead of linking it to Avatar

Hence the reason for the dragon on the logo. If I recall, where Avatarland is being build now, formally Camp Minnie Mickey, originally was set aside for Fantasy-type land. Just took them this long to but that there.

 

[perditax]

While it pulled in a larger revenue at the box office, it left virtually no pop cultural footprint, whereas Star Wars and Harry Potter are two of the largest franchises in the world. Star Wars and Harry Potter merchandising completely eclipses Avatar's. Everyone in the world may have paid for a ticket to see Avatar, but within a month no one was talking about it.

The appeal of the new land is still up in the air, but beyond its initial box office success, the impact of Avatar on pop culture is still minimal at best.

New to this thread, but I agree. Even before I clicked the thread my thought was "Hmm, Avatar already seems pretty dated and I can't really remember much about it". I think it was more the technical wizardry that engaged everyone rather than memorable characters or mythology. And it's already been so long between movies.

 

[riverbend]

I'm excited to see what Disney has up their sleeve for Avatar Land, especially knowing that James Cameron is a perfectionist who is notoriously difficult to work with. However, I'm not excited that Disney has chosen to associate itself with the movies. Please don't get me wrong -- I enjoyed the first movie and will probably be seeing the next one. I understand that the argument could be made that Avatar Land is meant to be stand-alone and should be/will be so spectacular by itself that it doesn't need the movies. Then why use the movie tie-in at all? Why not dream up a mythical land of their own? Isn't that what differentiates Imagineers from Engineers? Another issue I'm having trouble with is that the movie wasn't really (what I would consider) family-appropriate. At least not in the sense that this is Disney we're talking about. Many of you may disagree and I totally respect that. I just thought it had a lot of adult language and could be kind of graphic at times. Yes, the message of conservation is important. Yes, the visuals were amazing. The story didn't even bother me even though it's kind of a mash-up of Fern Gully and Titanic. But what do you tell your kids when you come home from AK and they're begging to see the movies?

I know this is probably an unpopular opinion on this thread. Please don't flame me too much.

 

[ArwenMarie]

I don't like the movie, but I think that Avatar land will be very cool. I love AK so any additions there will be welcome. AK at night even better.

Now if they would just hurry up with it!

 

[Raetz]

Now I also read that they will have the floating mountains that are seen in the movie. I am not sure how they are gonna make that work, but if they do it will be incredible just to look at.

My best guess is that waterfalls will hide the supports that hold up the mountains, giving the illusion that the mountains are floating.

 

[tweak89]

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".

Actually, adjusted for inflation...not yet (at least for Star Wars and Empire). That it was a monetarily successful movie does't mean much (especially if you subtract the 3D surcharge per ticket). Star Wars (despite the below average prequels) has never really left the consciousness of the general public for 4 decades. While I agree the world of Avatar was interesting to look at the movie/characters were average. From a marketing standpoint I think Disney will ultimately get more form it's Star Wars properties. I don't know may kids that are clamoring for the latest Avatar merchandise.

That being said, I hope the new area is more than just window dressing and provides a meaningful attraction upgrade to that park (similar to how Potter has transformed both Universal parks).


Rank Title (click to view) Studio Adjusted Gross Unadjusted Gross Year^
1 Gone with the Wind MGM $1,676,970,400 $198,676,459 1939^
2 Star Wars Fox $1,478,392,600 $460,998,007 1977^
3 The Sound of Music Fox $1,182,047,600 $158,671,368 1965
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $1,177,391,000 $435,110,554 1982^
5 Titanic Par. $1,124,438,100 $658,672,302 1997^
6 The Ten Commandments Par. $1,087,300,000 $65,500,000 1956
7 Jaws Uni. $1,063,054,200 $260,000,000 1975
8 Doctor Zhivago MGM $1,030,324,300 $111,721,910 1965
9 The Exorcist WB $917,973,100 $232,906,145 1973^
10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Dis. $904,700,000 $184,925,486 1937^
11 101 Dalmatians Dis. $829,313,200 $144,880,014 1961^
12 The Empire Strikes Back Fox $814,899,300 $290,475,067 1980^
13 Ben-Hur MGM $813,400,000 $74,000,000 1959
14 Avatar Fox $807,218,700 $760,507,625 2009^
15 Return of the Jedi Fox $780,693,100 $309,306,177 1983^

 

[JimmyV]

While it pulled in a larger revenue at the box office, it left virtually no pop cultural footprint,

Star Wars (despite the below average prequels) has never really left the consciousness of the general public for 4 decades.

Again....6 movies vs. 1. To think that one Avatar movie was going to leave the footprint of six is ridiculous. But this has to play out. The first Avatar movie might end up being the equivalent of the first Star Trek movie (or the last 4 Star Wars movies). Fun to look at, but the worst of the bunch.

 

[PeasandCarrots]

I voted yes because I'm happy to see any new entertainment in AK. However, I'm not thrilled specifically with the Avatar theme. It was a decent movie but nothing to build an entire land over. Why couldn't they use Disney IPs to make a land - Bambi land, Lion King land, Bug land, etc.?

 

[tweak89]

Again....6 movies vs. 1. To think that one Avatar movie was going to leave the footprint of six is ridiculous. But this has to play out. The first Avatar movie might end up being the equivalent of the first Star Trek movie (or the last 4 Star Wars movies). Fun to look at, but the worst of the bunch.

Well, you did say that "success" wise Avatar blows Star Wars out of the water. I merely showed the chart to show that when the money is equalized, it doesn't surpass the success of Star Wars as a singular movie (much less an entire franchise).

By the time Avatar and all it's sequels comes out, the Star Wars franchise will be at least 9 movies strong, so in that sense it will never catch up. My main point, was that Avatars financial success does not coincide with success in popular culture which ties in to it's long term popularity. I also think the broad appeal of both Star Wars and Potter franchises will keep them more viable as marketable properties than Avatar and it's more narrow scope of appeal.

I mean look at Cars Land and how it has transformed DLR. It wasn't a super financial success (compared to the franchises we are comparing), but it appeals to the right demographic.

 

[mesaboy2]

Again....6 movies vs. 1. To think that one Avatar movie was going to leave the footprint of six is ridiculous. But this has to play out. The first Avatar movie might end up being the equivalent of the first Star Trek movie (or the last 4 Star Wars movies). Fun to look at, but the worst of the bunch.

Or, it could go the way of the Matrix Trilogy.

 

[MrInfinity]

Alright, but other than Everest and the Rapids, What else does AK have worth going to?

Tons.

The Safari.
Dinosaur. Similar to Indiana Jones in DL, one of my fav rides.

Those are just the headliners. I consider Kali to be only like the typical water rides at Great America, so I find it interesting that you note it as worth going to but not Dinosaur or the Safari. Moving on..

If you want to ask "What does AK have worth going to?" you have to ask why people are on vacation. They want to get away from home and do things that they cant do around home. AK happens to be a beautifully landscaped lush, tree-covered park. I would say it is the most pleasant theme park to be in, of all theme parks I've ever been to. And believe me I've been to quite a lot.

Their depiction of the continents are awesome. I love walking around Africa and Asia. I like sitting at a table there with little ones and just being there. It is so comfortable. The little areas feel like you're in an African Bazaar. It is really neat.

There are the animal overlooks.

The trails.

The shows.

And Oh... The Wilderness Explorer kits! We spent so much time on this. These are amazing for getting kids to look around at their surroundings and learn something... like not just run thru the trails... birds? Yep those are birds - let's go! But instead you have to focus w your card and try to actually find the birds that match the pictures in the "wild". It is quite rewarding when you do identify them. This is just one of the 20 or so activities!

The food is some of the best. Between Tusker House and Yak & Yeti, we have a hard time picking just one. And then we love to mix in the place where you get the 1/2 chicken and ribs... such a great deal and good food (for fast food).

To us, the AK is a nice break day in the middle of an otherwise hot and busy trip. Between being super busy at the MK, to being hot and less comfortable at EC and HS, the AK is such a wonderful blend of theme park with nature.

For kids, there is the Conservation Station. Meeting Chip & Dale, and Rafiki.

If you only want to ride EE and the Rapids? Sure AK is a 2 hour park for you. Everyone will appreciate different things.

For me it's hard to reduce a park to "what there is to do there" because it's more of "why do we vacation" thing, and AK fits so perfectly into that for us. Ride a few [really good] rides, see some animals, walk around the bazaars, feel like you're in another country, see a parade (sadly, cancelled, but presumably something new will come when the nighttime entertainment opens up with Pandora).

And now? Pandora? Yeah not a HUGE fan of the movie, and of course despite pulling tons of cash at the box office, everyone knows Avatar is not a bigger concept than Star Wars. Star Wars was a generation changer -- it inspired 40 years of Sci-Fi. But, Avatar is still cool in the world they built in the movie. To see this rendered in real life should be awesome. All the iridescent plant life and strange new creatures, this will play perfectly in to a boat ride... and the dragon riding ride too.

 

[JoshuaShaw]

Again....6 movies vs. 1. To think that one Avatar movie was going to leave the footprint of six is ridiculous. But this has to play out. The first Avatar movie might end up being the equivalent of the first Star Trek movie (or the last 4 Star Wars movies). Fun to look at, but the worst of the bunch.

Even before the release of Empire Strikes Back, Star Wars had firmly planted itself in the pop culture zeitgeist in a way that Avatar has not. I'm certainly not saying the sequels can't dig their heels into public consciousness a little deeper, but Avatar has yet to become the phenomenon that Star Wars was, even when it was only a single movie.

 

[ConnieB]

Wow...that's a loaded poll. So if I say yes or no I'm not an adult? Really?

I thought the movie was worth watching.....once. Haven't watched it again, don't really plan to....so, no...I am not excited at the amount of time and money being used for this new "land". There are so many other more appropriate and interesting possibilities. But, during the planning process no one asked me, lol......so it's going to happen regardless of my opinion.

What does excite me a little about it is that as a new land many people are going to flock there.....and I'll be elsewhere enjoying the hopefully lower crowds in other parks, lol. Frankly, AK is our least favorite park.....we typically visit WDW for 3 or 4 weeks at a time and we'll go to AK once, maybe twice....and a few times we haven't gone there at all during our visit. So...I don't see this "land" as impacting me much at all. If it has a really great ride then maybe it will give us one more thing to do during our short day at AK....usually we do the Safari, Kali, Lion King, Nemo, Everest, photos at the Tree and then we wander looking for DeVine or just enjoying the beauty of the green park (we're from Arizona, green is foreign to us).

 

[ConnieB]

Reddog...congrats on the impending birth of your twins.....mine turned 18 a short time ago. It's a wonderful thing watching two of them grow up together![/QUOTE]

 

[ConnieB]

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.

Except you are citing single rides.....Avatarland appears to be an entire land, i.e. Tomorrowland or Fantasyland......and many of us don't think the movie it is based on is enough for an entire land. Toy Story has been an very popular franchise and the ride has also been extremely popular.....but some are hoping for an expansion "Pixarland" and that might do well....just as Star Wars "land" will do well.....but if you ask many people younger than teens....they don't even know what the movie is, let alone whether they like it or not. Obviously Disney knows something we don't......but then I also question the wisdom of Frozenland taking over Norway.....I love the music (not so much the movie) and it is popular right NOW.....but does it rate the take over of a country pavillion? I think Disney is banking on the popularity maintaining the new area and the momentum keeping it going for a while. Only time will tell.....but I personally think 10 years after opening Avatarland and Frozen land will be quite different from what it will be when it opens. And not in an expanded way.

 

[JimmyV]

Tons.

The Safari.
Dinosaur. Similar to Indiana Jones in DL, one of my fav rides.

Those are just the headliners. I consider Kali to be only like the typical water rides at Great America, so I find it interesting that you note it as worth going to but not Dinosaur or the Safari. Moving on..

If you want to ask "What does AK have worth going to?" you have to ask why people are on vacation. They want to get away from home and do things that they cant do around home. AK happens to be a beautifully landscaped lush, tree-covered park. I would say it is the most pleasant theme park to be in, of all theme parks I've ever been to. And believe me I've been to quite a lot.

Their depiction of the continents are awesome. I love walking around Africa and Asia. I like sitting at a table there with little ones and just being there. It is so comfortable. The little areas feel like you're in an African Bazaar. It is really neat.

There are the animal overlooks.

The trails.

The shows.

With the exception of Dinosaur, I agree with all of this. AK does not occupy our time, from 8:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. the way other parks do. But it keeps us plenty entertained from 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.. Besides, the parks should have a different feel about them, otherwise you'd feel like you were doing the same thing day after day. We really enjoy watching gorillas and tigers for long stretches of time. So very different than the other parks.