Fantasyland & Avatar "blown" / compared to WWOHP (Really)? + Star Wars Land thoughts

[twebber55]

Star Wars franchise: 27 billion in total sales with around 17 of that associated with merchandise (not adjusted for inflation).

Harry Potter franchise: 21 billion on total sales with about 7 billion in merchandise sales thus far. No telling what the end result will be with the goings on at Universal.

The Walt Disney company: 37 billion in merchandising sales just in 2011. I've purposely left off the last couple of years to keep a distinction between legacy Disney and the acquisition of LucasArts.

Avatar: 2.8 billion in ticket sales with 356 million in DVD/Blu-ray sales.

I personally liked Avatar, but the inflated cost of an IMAX/3D ticket helped propel the film into the stratosphere. Not that that's a bad thing. In fact, more power to Fox and Cameron. However not every film made has the benefit of those inflated costs. Personally I prefer to look at the total number of tickets sold to determine the true popularity of a film.

That said, there's no way I'd even consider Avatar close in comparison to the other two in terms of staying power and the ability to make a theme park money. So why would Disney seek out a single film with, at best, three more films coming down the line? Why not tap into their own material that has so much more merchandising potential? There is no logic in this approach other than Fox and Cameron did something financially related for Disney.

http://mrob.com/pub/film-video/topadj.html
should do the trick for you...now keep in mind this is only domestic, if world wide was added in it would be around 2 or 3
also note no movie after 2000 is on the list which lends to my point that netflix and red box have changed movie goers, not as many people go to movies as they used to..also anti-avatar folks always bring up inflation and 3d but i ve never heard anyone say the same thing in regards to frozen, avengers, or GOTG even though they had similar %'s of people seeing them in 3 D
i dont know why star wars always gets brought up to me on this subject i never said it was bigger than star wars....im totally for a star wars expansion and loved the WWOHP but this has nothing to do with those

they wanted to extend hours in DAK and i think picked the perfect IP to do just that...a night time land visually stunning

all movies go up and then back down when nothing new comes out....check out google trends for this

when the next avatar films come out they be huge again make over a billion each right in time for the DAK opening

 

[ahoyle]

I'm really confused about this now...when did this turn into an Avatar vs HP or Star Wars situation. And the continual dismissal of Avatars box office receipt due to inflation...its still top all time. Avengers had higher ticket prices, Frozen had higher ticket prices, they still didn't top it.

Anyways, comparing a property with one film, and nothing else, to IPs that are decades old with books, movies, toys, etc, makes no sense whatsoever. Again I want to know who is drawn to Splash Mountain because of their love for that cartoon? To my knowledge hardly any kids know anything about it, yet love the ride. My son's favorite ride is Ripsaw Falls at US. Do you think he knows who Dudley Do-Right is?

 

[clsteve]

I'm really confused about this now...when did this turn into an Avatar vs HP or Star Wars situation. And the continual dismissal of Avatars box office receipt due to inflation...its still top all time. Avengers had higher ticket prices, Frozen had higher ticket prices, they still didn't top it.

Anyways, comparing a property with one film, and nothing else, to IPs that are decades old with books, movies, toys, etc, makes no sense whatsoever. Again I want to know who is drawn to Splash Mountain because of their love for that cartoon? To my knowledge hardly any kids know anything about it, yet love the ride. My son's favorite ride is Ripsaw Falls at US. Do you think he knows who Dudley Do-Right is?

But they didn't build a "Song of the South" Land, just one well-themed ride.

It is a valid comparison, Avatar to Star Wars or HP. This level of investment is risky in an un-tested franchise, with no established, die-hard, borderline fanatical fan-base or merchandise opportunities.

I'm not saying that it can't work or that the Land will be unimpressive. But, that level of investment off of one movie is still a risk.

The huge cadre of Star Wars and Potter fanatics can carry a franchise through years of down-time or a bad movie here or there. They have decades of IP and content to fall back on to get them through that. And, they've brought their children (and children's children) right along with them.

Avatar has established none of that

That Disney would solely bear that risk would be surprising just based on their decades long track record - especially when it's not their IP

 

[twebber55]

But they didn't build a "Song of the South" Land, just one well-themed ride.

It is a valid comparison, Avatar to Star Wars or HP. This level of investment is risky in an un-tested franchise, with no established, die-hard, borderline fanatical fan-base or merchandise opportunities.

I'm not saying that it can't work or that the Land will be unimpressive. But, that level of investment off of one movie is still a risk.

The huge cadre of Star Wars and Potter fanatics can carry a franchise through years of down-time or a bad movie here or there. They have decades of IP and content to fall back on to get them through that. And, they've brought their children (and children's children) right along with them.

Avatar has established none of that

That Disney would solely bear that risk would be surprising just based on their decades long track record - especially when it's not their IP

well harry potter is at Universal
and star wars is at DHS and will contnue to be there so neither of those help DAK in comes Avatar with its message fits incredibly well at DAK

once again the amount of money and effort will determine its success not the IP theres too many examples of this already in the parks

the art work and model so far is quite impressive

 

[DanBoris]

Star Wars franchise: 27 billion in total sales with around 17 of that associated with merchandise (not adjusted for inflation).

Harry Potter franchise: 21 billion on total sales with about 7 billion in merchandise sales thus far. No telling what the end result will be with the goings on at Universal.

The Walt Disney company: 37 billion in merchandising sales just in 2011. I've purposely left off the last couple of years to keep a distinction between legacy Disney and the acquisition of LucasArts.

Avatar: 2.8 billion in ticket sales with 356 million in DVD/Blu-ray sales.

I personally liked Avatar, but the inflated cost of an IMAX/3D ticket helped propel the film into the stratosphere. Not that that's a bad thing. In fact, more power to Fox and Cameron. However not every film made has the benefit of those inflated costs. Personally I prefer to look at the total number of tickets sold to determine the true popularity of a film.

That said, there's no way I'd even consider Avatar close in comparison to the other two in terms of staying power and the ability to make a theme park money. So why would Disney seek out a single film with, at best, three more films coming down the line? Why not tap into their own material that has so much more merchandising potential? There is no logic in this approach other than Fox and Cameron did something financially related for Disney.

Your argument is based on the false assumption that large corporations always act logically. Having worked for one, I know this is not the case. The allure of the highest grossing movie of all time can be very powerful, especially when it did $1.7 billion dollars more at the box office then Disney's highest grossing movie at that time, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Disney's current highest gross (Avengers in the number three spot) is still $1.27 Billion behind Avatar.

The higher IMAX/3D prices account for some of the high box office numbers, but those tickets were only 20%-30% more then a normal ticket, and plenty of movies have been released since then in 3D and IMAX. The bottom line is, a LOT of people saw this movie.

With all that said, I will agree that Avatar has not maintained much cultural significance, but I can see a number of reason why Avatar would have looked attractive to them...

- It was a big event movie that lot of people saw
- It had a massive box office, even today dwarfing the box office of Disney's top grossing film
- Teaming up with Cameron is a very marketable idea
- Belief that Avatar might help attract a non-Disney crowd. Harry Potter did wonders for Uni because it brought a lot of people to the parks that had never been there before.

I am not saying that these points are necessarily valid but I could understand Disney believing these. From the things I have read it also sounds like this is Iger's baby, and it's not unusual to see big executive latch onto potentially bad idea and not be willing to let them go.

 

[twebber55]

Your argument is based on the false assumption that large corporations always act logically. Having worked for one, I know this is not the case. The allure of the highest grossing movie of all time can be very powerful, especially when it did $1.7 billion dollars more at the box office then Disney's highest grossing movie at that time, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Disney's current highest gross (Avengers in the number three spot) is still $1.27 Billion behind Avatar.

The higher IMAX/3D prices account for some of the high box office numbers, but those tickets were only 20%-30% more then a normal ticket, and plenty of movies have been released since then in 3D and IMAX. The bottom line is, a LOT of people saw this movie.

With all that said, I will agree that Avatar has not maintained much cultural significance, but I can see a number of reason why Avatar would have looked attractive to them...

- It was a big event movie that lot of people saw
- It had a massive box office, even today dwarfing the box office of Disney's top grossing film
- Teaming up with Cameron is a very marketable idea
- Belief that Avatar might help attract a non-Disney crowd. Harry Potter did wonders for Uni because it brought a lot of people to the parks that had never been there before.

I am not saying that these points are necessarily valid but I could understand Disney believing these. From the things I have read it also sounds like this is Iger's baby, and it's not unusual to see big executive latch onto potentially bad idea and not be willing to let them go.

all great points Dan
i think the bottom line is they saw an incredibly successful movie and recognized the theme park applications from the movie (ala cars land) and knew DAK needed help extending the hours of the day there
just my simple POV

 

[wallrock]

Your argument is based on the false assumption that large corporations always act logically. Having worked for one, I know this is not the case. The allure of the highest grossing movie of all time can be very powerful, especially when it did $1.7 billion dollars more at the box office then Disney's highest grossing movie at that time, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Disney's current highest gross (Avengers in the number three spot) is still $1.27 Billion behind Avatar.

The higher IMAX/3D prices account for some of the high box office numbers, but those tickets were only 20%-30% more then a normal ticket, and plenty of movies have been released since then in 3D and IMAX. The bottom line is, a LOT of people saw this movie.

With all that said, I will agree that Avatar has not maintained much cultural significance, but I can see a number of reason why Avatar would have looked attractive to them...

- It was a big event movie that lot of people saw
- It had a massive box office, even today dwarfing the box office of Disney's top grossing film
- Teaming up with Cameron is a very marketable idea
- Belief that Avatar might help attract a non-Disney crowd. Harry Potter did wonders for Uni because it brought a lot of people to the parks that had never been there before.

I am not saying that these points are necessarily valid but I could understand Disney believing these. From the things I have read it also sounds like this is Iger's baby, and it's not unusual to see big executive latch onto potentially bad idea and not be willing to let them go.

My argument hasn't been on whether or not Avatar should be a theme park attraction, or the logic of creating a land around the concept. If Disney chooses to do so that's fine with me. However one constant with large corporations is that they don't spend money unless it can generate profit.

The point I continuously make is that the reason Avatar came into the parks is because Cameron and company either partially or fully funded the effort - basically minimizing Disney's financial exposure. Others feel that isn't the case and they're certainly entitled to their opinion, however given that Disney's principal desire with any new theme park addition nowadays is to maximize the merchandising revenue the addition of Avatar seems counter to that principal. Disney doesn't have complete control over the property and there are no cute cuddly plush toys/t-shirts/costumes that can be sold around the concept of a military machine decimating a rainforest. Further, unless Disney goes over the deep end and decides to form some sort of hard ticket event around Avatar there's very little direct revenue that can be gathered. So if they can't milk the property for it's retail value then what other financial incentive did Disney get (or in the counter-argument's case, what does Disney plan to get since they wrote the check?) to include it in the park? The argument of "it's the highest grossing movie of all time so let's build a land" doesn't hold water in that regard. Will it increase the number of tickets sold to enter the park? I doubt it, especially since most customers either have annual passes or purchase multi-day tickets. All this does is perhaps keep guests in the park for additional hours. That means cast members will need to be paid and the utility bills will be higher. If Disney funded this how will they recoup the cost of construction and the ancillary costs of keeping the park open longer?

Unless of course there's a plan to increase the cost of park admittance again by a few bucks....

 

[Tink2Day]

Avatar is visually stunning...for about 15 minutes. (that's why everyone stops to look at the Avatar games they have in Casinos and then move on without playing them...)

Star Wars....the first couple of movies were great! Why? They were something unique.
Many of the classics at Disney have stories, tales, classic books or book series to back them up and that's why they are timeless.
That's the same premise WWoHP has going for it.

 

[mvk]

there are no cute cuddly plush toys/t-shirts/costumes that can be sold around the concept of a military machine decimating a rainforest.

You probably could've said the same thing about....

there are no cute cuddly plush toys/t-shirts/costumes that can be sold around the concept of a military machine decimating a planet (Alderaan) in attempts to control a galaxy.

Star Wars seems to do pretty well.

If it's Cameron's (and perhaps by extension Disney's) intention to create items that are about to be sold as merchandise, then there will be characters created in the sequels.

As it stands, there will be plenty of opportunities to sell blue Mickey's, Minnie's, Donald's, Goofy's, etc. There will be Avatar masks, much like the lion/zebra/giraffe/etc masks sold. There will be character playsets (Sully, Netiri, Banshee's, etc.), t-shirts, and more.

There really isn't all that much non-park branded merchandise in Animal Kingdom anyway, so its not like there has to be a ton of stuff. I expect much of the merchandise will include the Tree of Life with a bit of a blue glow around it.

Nevermind, I forgot what board I was on.

 

[wallrock]

You probably could've said the same thing about....

there are no cute cuddly plush toys/t-shirts/costumes that can be sold around the concept of a military machine decimating a planet (Alderaan) in attempts to control a galaxy.

Star Wars seems to do pretty well.

Then why hasn't Fox or Cameron capitalized? Why wait for a theme park attraction to showcase their vast juggernaut of marketing potential? After all, Star Wars did it for decades before entering into a theme park. Perhaps it's because the opportunity doesn't really exist?

If it's Cameron's (and perhaps by extension Disney's) intention to create items that are about to be sold as merchandise, then there will be characters created in the sequels.

As it stands, there will be plenty of opportunities to sell blue Mickey's, Minnie's, Donald's, Goofy's, etc. There will be Avatar masks, much like the lion/zebra/giraffe/etc masks sold. There will be character playsets (Sully, Netiri, Banshee's, etc.), t-shirts, and more.

If the argument is that Disney and Cameron are waiting for the marketing capability to show up in a movie coming down in a few years that's an awful big risk to take by spending who knows how much right now. There's no guarantee that the future films will bring a tidy profit enough to warrant said merchandise. And I think it's a pretty solid 'yes' that merchandising is in the eyes of the creators of any new theme park attraction - and it's usually around something that already exists, not what may be coming.

There really isn't all that much non-park branded merchandise in Animal Kingdom anyway, so its not like there has to be a ton of stuff. I expect much of the merchandise will include the Tree of Life with a bit of a blue glow around it.

Nevermind, I forgot what board I was on.

I think a ton of merchandise plus a lot more is what will be needed to recoup the investment.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Star Wars franchise: 27 billion in total sales with around 17 of that associated with merchandise (not adjusted for inflation).

Harry Potter franchise: 21 billion on total sales with about 7 billion in merchandise sales thus far. No telling what the end result will be with the goings on at Universal.

The Walt Disney company: 37 billion in merchandising sales just in 2011. I've purposely left off the last couple of years to keep a distinction between legacy Disney and the acquisition of LucasArts.

Avatar: 2.8 billion in ticket sales with 356 million in DVD/Blu-ray sales.

I personally liked Avatar, but the inflated cost of an IMAX/3D ticket helped propel the film into the stratosphere. Not that that's a bad thing. In fact, more power to Fox and Cameron. However not every film made has the benefit of those inflated costs. Personally I prefer to look at the total number of tickets sold to determine the true popularity of a film.

That said, there's no way I'd even consider Avatar close in comparison to the other two in terms of staying power and the ability to make a theme park money. So why would Disney seek out a single film with, at best, three more films coming down the line? Why not tap into their own material that has so much more merchandising potential? There is no logic in this approach other than Fox and Cameron did something financially related for Disney.

Thank you for stating it succinctly (as obvious...I can't )

As Master Yogurt told us years ago...it's All About the merchandise. That's where the profit in Disney parks is and has been for decades...this is high yield mass produced, tax free Chinese crap we're talking about...it is the gravy.

Common sense points to a cooperative arrangement. That could be a variety of things...not necessarily cash.

Maybe Cameron gives up a portion of the licensing fees to pay for staffing and operation?
That alone would bring Disney to the table with perked ears...

It could be a maintenance agreement with his production company. It could be he services the debt that is financed through Disney with their deep pockets. Whatever

But the motivations are clear:

Disney wants an attendance bump, but In this case is YIELDING the profit formula they invented...there's no merchandise or upsell
Potential here.

Cameron is egomaniac...no need to doubt what's been said for 30 years. He wants his "vision" in lights (no pun intended)...and he wants the exposure to wdw foot traffic. He also wants the ability to go back to Disney for more across the globe (which they talked about in the first announcements) and get more exposure.

Avatar is nowhere near as successful from a licensing standpoint as two other Cameron movies - aliens and terminator. Obviously, he could retain the IP in his early career... So he's
Trying to build his brick and mortar monument with this.

It could come off fantastic. But the IP itself is a reach...even in a thematic area that animal kingdom could take.
But...big but...alot of the potential would have to Involve that Disney can build something awesome again in Orlando...and to be honest, they have done little to garner faith there. For me that's a big part of this issue and probably the "heart" of my overall skepticism in management.

So they're using each other...as we all could agree. But I have a hard time believing that they big Playballl hardball and Cameron one that poker game. He's a good movie man, but not capable of pulling a con job with no money Invested on Disney.

Unless they let Rasulo do the talking...ok then, maybe

I personally would rather have a True Lies ride in studios (one of my favorites)
Or wicket the ewok's "Nub Nub World" in camp Minnie Mickey.

 

[Spacedog1975]

There were 10 years between the first Star Wars film and the arrival of Star Tours. That's all.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

As it stands, there will be plenty of opportunities to sell blue Mickey's, Minnie's, Donald's, Goofy's, etc. There will be Avatar masks, much like the lion/zebra/giraffe/etc masks sold. There will be character playsets (Sully, Netiri, Banshee's, etc.), t-shirts, and more.

There really isn't all that much non-park branded merchandise in Animal Kingdom anyway, so its not like there has to be a ton of stuff. I expect much of the merchandise will include the Tree of Life with a bit of a blue glow around it.

Nevermind, I forgot what board I was on.

I submit that none of that is gonna sell.

And how do I know?
Because little was manufactured when avatar was made and little of that sold.

Avatar sold tickets and DVDs for being "visually stunning in 3D"...if you recall. It's sales figures
Do support that.

But what I know about business is this:
1. They're smarter than me
2. They're MUCH more greedy than me

What's that mean? It means that the merchandise potential for avatar was never there based on analysts. And since it was quickly forgotten (until literally joe rhode brought it up at a head scratching press conference)...the analysts are right.

It's not like Mattel and target just "didnt notice" avatar and that's why there were no toys.

Like Disney, they know what they're doing and usually are pretty close to market.

So assume no merchandise - not a stretch - and then think about why Disney would foot all
The cost?
Because if true, that question has to be answered and it's not gonna by merchandise

Unlike the "UNITED NATIONS OF FROZEN" over in EPCOT.

I would say that avatar merchandise has as much potential as the small world gift cart they used to have about 10 years ago over by pinnochios in mk that had ornaments and coffee
Mugs...
But I was fond of/ miss that cart and I don't want to insult it.

(P.s.
And this is the most well thought board on this million post site...just to confirm where you are...

Respectfully, if anyone wants directions to the "how magical is POR?" Thread over in hotels...I can give directions )

 

[lockedoutlogic]

There were 10 years between the first Star Wars film and the arrival of Star Tours. That's all.

Lucas practically invented modern merchandising with Star Wars and he sold a fortune of product form 77-85.

His empire and the near mythical reputation of the first three movies was built on the merchandise.

That's my childhood and I was a star wars fanatic until he insulted us all and proved he couldn't write a screenplay or direct. (It also makes me think that Spielberg was the shadow writer
For the Indy films...no doubt). I know of which what I speak.

That's why Star Wars is a juggernaut and Lucas sold his life's work at what business analysts described as a "2 billion dollar discount" for 4,000,000,000 and then promptly gave nearly every penny away.

It's also why any avatar comparisons are laughable and Harry potter comparisons are a stretch.

People make their arguments based on their recollections/ perceptions...but fail to research the history and the financials.

 

[ahoyle]

In the late 80s there wasn't much in the way of star wars. Only when the Zahn books came out did Star Wars start to gain more relevance again, leading all the way up to Phantom Menace.

Also, I agree with everyone saying Avatar doesn't have much cultural significance now, but they entered into this agreement, 4 years ago or so. It was much more recent then. Plus, I'm sure Disney got an outline of the next 2-3 movies, so maybe that is motivating. Regardless, like others said, its theme fits in well with AK. The only big IP out there is Lord Of The Rings. That wouldn't fit well obviously.

 

[twebber55]

still don't understand why star wars is brought up no one once said it was as large as star wars...star wars=DHS Avatar=DAK
Avatar will grow DAK by at least 2 million people and those people will come with their wallets open to buy stuff...when this opens the new movie will be out, the new books will be out, and the new cirque show will be out...lots of synergy
still think avatar is way undersold on some Disney forums....the question should be is it a fun immersive place to visit? not what is it going to sell?
anyways we agree to disagree
good debate

 

[clsteve]

still don't understand why star wars is brought up no one once said it was as large as star wars...star wars=DHS Avatar=DAK
Avatar will grow DAK by at least 2 million people and those people will come with their wallets open to buy stuff...when this opens the new movie will be out, the new books will be out, and the new cirque show will be out...lots of synergy
still think avatar is way undersold on some Disney forums....the question should be is it a fun immersive place to visit? not what is it going to sell?
anyways we agree to disagree
good debate

SW was brought up in the OP. It's also in the title of the thread.

The why Disney is branching out with this IP is always going to go to the financials on this part of the Dis Forums - like it should

What it's going to sell has direct impact on it's success. That's the way the Theme Park business works

Declaring absolutes like 2 mil more will come to DAK with their "wallets open to buy stuff" --- --buy what...?

Hence, the merchandise discussion.

 

[DanBoris]

My argument hasn't been on whether or not Avatar should be a theme park attraction, or the logic of creating a land around the concept. If Disney chooses to do so that's fine with me. However one constant with large corporations is that they don't spend money unless it can generate profit.

The point I continuously make is that the reason Avatar came into the parks is because Cameron and company either partially or fully funded the effort - basically minimizing Disney's financial exposure. Others feel that isn't the case and they're certainly entitled to their opinion, however given that Disney's principal desire with any new theme park addition nowadays is to maximize the merchandising revenue the addition of Avatar seems counter to that principal. Disney doesn't have complete control over the property and there are no cute cuddly plush toys/t-shirts/costumes that can be sold around the concept of a military machine decimating a rainforest. Further, unless Disney goes over the deep end and decides to form some sort of hard ticket event around Avatar there's very little direct revenue that can be gathered. So if they can't milk the property for it's retail value then what other financial incentive did Disney get (or in the counter-argument's case, what does Disney plan to get since they wrote the check?) to include it in the park? The argument of "it's the highest grossing movie of all time so let's build a land" doesn't hold water in that regard. Will it increase the number of tickets sold to enter the park? I doubt it, especially since most customers either have annual passes or purchase multi-day tickets. All this does is perhaps keep guests in the park for additional hours. That means cast members will need to be paid and the utility bills will be higher. If Disney funded this how will they recoup the cost of construction and the ancillary costs of keeping the park open longer?

Unless of course there's a plan to increase the cost of park admittance again by a few bucks....

You were arguing that this decision was illogical if there was no money kicked in by Cameron, I was making a point that there are other reasons they could have made this decision. I personally don't think Cameron is funding any of this.

I never really understood the merchandise argument, does anyone doubt Disney's ability to merchandise anything they get their hands on to within an inch of it's life?

 

[lockedoutlogic]

still don't understand why star wars is brought up no one once said it was as large as star wars...star wars=DHS Avatar=DAK
Avatar will grow DAK by at least 2 million people and those people will come with their wallets open to buy stuff...when this opens the new movie will be out, the new books will be out, and the new cirque show will be out...lots of synergy
still think avatar is way undersold on some Disney forums....the question should be is it a fun immersive place to visit? not what is it going to sell?
anyways we agree to disagree
good debate

That's a huge estimate of increases in attendance on your part. Are you saying that you think animal kingdom will get what amounts to a 20% increase in attendance firmly putting it into #2 position in wdw in 2018?
That's a lot to ask... If this were a casino, you'd be the guy with $10 in your pocket and the under would be the House.

And I get your (and others) comments about immersion and quality being the key to avatarland...I really do. But that's an oversimplification...
First, if true then IP wouldn't matter at all... Imagineering could invent a story and a new cast of characters and just do excellent theming to it. So why pay for licensing?
Second...the IP tie is much bigger deal than you think. If I built a themepark that was excellently done and themed to looney tunes (.disney's longest and most direct comparison/rival)...it would NEVER get close to the draw of magic kingdom. Even if it was better done.

Because people are buying the build up of the brand over time just as much as the rides or show quality.
That's why Star Wars is a much better investment...built up for 35 years.
Or Harry potter - 20
Years and 8 movies spread over 11 years.

Again, big warning sign with avatarland that has only been countered with DVD sales and Facebook likes ( the ultimate false indicator) is they made a bunch of money for a year and then disappeared into the Bermuda Triangle.

All due respect to sigourney weaver.

I'm only using Star Wars for comparisons sake as a franchise... Not comparing the two as a "choice".

Avatar is not a marketable franchise... I think Disney fully knows that...and i think Cameron knows that...and I think they're splitting the check for champagne and caviar when it comes.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I never really understood the merchandise argument, does anyone doubt Disney's ability to merchandise anything they get their hands on to within an inch of it's life?

Do you read the annual reports?

I'm not being sarcastic...it's just that anytime any dismissal or blasé take on merchandising is made - I think the annual report is almost standard reading here.

The merchandise IS the profit at parks. That's it. It's in the numbers.
Nobody ever believes it - but your dining plan, annual passes, overpriced rooms at carribean - mean nothing... They are flushed down the operational toilet.

The lack of merchandising potential with avatar would never be underestimated by Disney. Never ever ever. It's the "hill they'll die on".

Which means something else is up. I fully believe we'll never find out - because it would serve neither side - but I'm more convinced than ever that it's there.