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

[DanBoris]

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.

I am not dismissing the value of merchandise, I am saying that Disney has proven to be a master of merchandising and could find a way to sell anything if they wanted to. How much merchandising potential is there in a mouse?

I would think that if Cameron were footing a large part of the bill they would be mentioning this in the investor calls when the project is discussed.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

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.

Very good points...

My brother in law and I went to see avatar to "see what it was like"

I honestly couldn't remember anything about the characters and plot a day later.

And that is unbiased in this discussion because it was LONG before Disney came up with this scheme.

I certainly remember the good ones...star wars (not I - III), close encounters, ET, ghostbusters, top gun, batman (all except forever and batman and robin...horrid little man), xmen, matrix, harry potters, lord of the rings, Indiana jones...
And alot of lesser movies...

Avatar...flatlined. That may not kill this developments chances for success. But it's not a secret and can't be ignored.

This new wrinkle that Disney might have been "fooled" in this is ridiculous.
They may have been a tad desperate...which I'm sure was reevaluated heavily after the Star Wars deal was in place.
But...the idea they were stupid about this is not even possible.

I know corporations make stupid decisions... Disney does as well...but not in this case because to do nothing would have been no risk. In that scenario...the money works out or it's status quo.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I am not dismissing the value of merchandise, I am saying that Disney has proven to be a master of merchandising and could find a way to sell anything if they wanted to. How much merchandising potential is there in a mouse?

I would think that if Cameron were footing a large part of the bill they would be mentioning this in the investor calls when the project is discussed.

In 1928? Lots of merchandising potential... Because it hasn't been invented yet and the most popular forms of travel were still rail and horse.

As far as financials...that's a good question. They have to publicallly account/disclose/and certify their books.
But...does that mean there can be no confidentiality in contracts? I don't know...I'm neither accountant nor attorney.

Better yet...wouldn't those figures hit when the dollars are spent? Potentially not showing up for several more years?

That could be an out clause for both parties...if its a hit - they both claim victory. If not, as suggested, "limited exposure" and dead money investment.

Here's my best guess:
Disney financing the majority of the project... Cameron offsetting it with concessions or operational arrangements. Don't discount maintenance and staffing agreements... That wouldn't be disclosed as up front investments...Disney loves third party staffing on controlled land.
And for PR, Disney claims "look what we're spending for you!" (As they rollout some hard events and another 9% ticket bump across the board)...while not actually fully funding it and keeping some free Money in the bin.
Of course they want to "claim" the bill...then they don't get pressure to lift fingers in other places. But they don't want to pay... You have management on the way out and it's all about the parachute.

That is there favorite trick...like lumping cruiseship building with park investment...

The old "baffle them with BS" routine.

 

[twebber55]

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.

i believe it was brought up in terms of being an addition to the parks with avatar not a comparison of the two

my 2 million was a little tongue and cheek but i do think it will grow by double digits percentage wise, gotta remember Rivers of light and a nighttime safari is being added, this is not just about avatar

 

[clsteve]

In 1928? Lots of merchandising potential... Because it hasn't been invented yet and the most popular forms of travel were still rail and horse.

As far as financials...that's a good question. They have to publicallly account/disclose/and certify their books.
But...does that mean there can be no confidentiality in contracts? I don't know...I'm neither accountant nor attorney.

Better yet...wouldn't those figures hit when the dollars are spent? Potentially not showing up for several more years?

That could be an out clause for both parties...if its a hit - they both claim victory. If not, as suggested, "limited exposure" and dead money investment.

Here's my best guess:
Disney financing the majority of the project... Cameron offsetting it with concessions or operational arrangements. Don't discount maintenance and staffing agreements... That wouldn't be disclosed as up front investments...Disney loves third party staffing on controlled land.
And for PR, Disney claims "look what we're spending for you!" (As they rollout some hard events and another 9% ticket bump across the board)...while not actually fully funding it and keeping some free Money in the bin.
Of course they want to "claim" the bill...then they don't get pressure to lift fingers in other places. But they don't want to pay... You have management on the way out and it's all about the parachute.

That is there favorite trick...like lumping cruiseship building with park investment...

The old "baffle them with BS" routine.

This

Cameron buying in could just as easily be what he's giving up.

If my memory serves me, Lucas steadfastly resisted giving up merchandising to the backers/studio. Smart move since that's really where his billions came from.

Cameron seemed to be the most desperate to get this done, if the scuttlebutt is correct. His buy in would make sense as a futures buy in - i.e. what he gave up to get the deal done.

For example, it could have been as simple as contractually giving up x-large percent of merchandising along with some oversight or guarantees in character development (getting those cuddly characters in the script to merchandise or scene sets that lend themselves to Lego).

None of that would show up in the financials until dollars are spent. Especially if it's coming from Cameron's side - he's not a publicly traded entity anyway, I don't believe.

Just look at what SW and even Potter bring in just on licensed Lego sets - that alone could finance this whole project.

Of course, the public has to want to buy what they'll be selling - still a risk...

 

[twebber55]

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.

yes in my book IP doesnt really matter that much and there are lots of examples of this
like Toy Story land vs Cars land
Star tours vs Tower of Terror
execution of the land does...i dont doubt star wars will do well but it has nothing to do with DAK...DAK needed night time entertainment to extend hours this will do so....

remember disney actually sells magic band t shirts!

butter beer is rarely mentioned in the books of HP yet they are the big seller so i wouldnt be shocked for disney to come up with a big seller

also dont underestimate Cameron and his team (ie Dylan Cole) for the work they will do on this

i dont know whos paying for it but as ive said in other threads i have not read anything from any other disney insider who have said this..in fact most of those guys have scoffed at the idea that Cameron is paying for this at all

it seems to me you think this is a terrible idea so Cameron must be paying for it with really no evidence to back up the claim other than its common sense to you

the fact is we ll never know other than the financial reports disney does every quarter...seems like this information would get out though

 

[twebber55]

This

Cameron buying in could just as easily be what he's giving up.

If my memory serves me, Lucas steadfastly resisted giving up merchandising to the backers/studio. Smart move since that's really where his billions came from.

Cameron seemed to be the most desperate to get this done, if the scuttlebutt is correct. His buy in would make sense as a futures buy in - i.e. what he gave up to get the deal done.

For example, it could have been as simple as contractually giving up x-large percent of merchandising along with some oversight or guarantees in character development (getting those cuddly characters in the script to merchandise or scene sets that lend themselves to Lego).

None of that would show up in the financials until dollars are spent. Especially if it's coming from Cameron's side - he's not a publicly traded entity anyway, I don't believe.

Just look at what SW and even Potter bring in just on licensed Lego sets - that alone could finance this whole project.

Of course, the public has to want to buy what they'll be selling - still a risk...

so disney approaches Cameron and ask him "do want to pay us to put avatar in the parks?"

 

[wallrock]

so disney approaches Cameron and ask him "do want to pay us to put avatar in the parks?"

I'm thinking that Cameron approached Disney.

 

[clsteve]

so disney approaches Cameron and ask him "do want to pay us to put avatar in the parks?"

Just think about what you're saying. Do you really think that Iger just made a call and said:

"Hey, Jimmy congrats on making a boatload of money on that Avatar flick!"

"We liked it so much that, get this, even though it has no current product marketing potential, or a huge hardcore fan base, and we don't know if the next movie is going to bomb, or just be meh, we want to put 500 mil into building AvatarLand....!"

"That's right, we'll assume all of the risk..."

"Yep, we'll pay to license the IP, as well..."

"Nope, you don't have to give us anything....keep the merchandising, keep full control of the project and movies....yep we'll cover all current and future operating expenses...."

"Hey, we're just happy to have the opportunity after what happened with JK Rowling..."

I have a much harder time believing that. It's way, way outside of their standard operating procedures.....

 

[twebber55]

I'm thinking that Cameron approached Disney.

everything published in print and online says Disney approached Cameron..back in April of 2011 i want to say

 

[twebber55]

Just think about what you're saying. Do you really think that Iger just made a call and said:

"Hey, Jimmy congrats on making a boatload of money on that Avatar flick!"

"We liked it so much that, get this, even though it has no current product marketing potential, or a huge hardcore fan base, and we don't know if the next movie is going to bomb, or just be meh, we want to put 500 mil into building AvatarLand....!"

"That's right, we'll assume all of the risk..."

"Yep, we'll pay to license the IP, as well..."

"Nope, you don't have to give us anything....keep the merchandising, keep full control of the project and movies....yep we'll cover all current and future operating expenses...."

"Hey, we're just happy to have the opportunity after what happened with JK Rowling..."

I have a much harder time believing that. It's way, way outside of their standard operating procedures.....

No i m thinking it was more
Tom and Bob saying " Hey Jim Avatar is one of the most successful films of all time and we think it fits perfectly with the theme of DAK and we really want to add a new segment of fans to our parks"

 

[lockedoutlogic]

No i m thinking it was more
Tom and Bob saying " Hey Jim Avatar is one of the most successful films of all time and we think it fits perfectly with the theme of DAK and we really want to add a new segment of fans to our parks"

Bob, Tom, and Jim only talked about money.

I'll bet the farm.

Ok...maybe Jim cared about the product...but bob and Tom don't.

One is an accountant and the other gave us Americas funniest home videos and full house

 

[lockedoutlogic]

so disney approaches Cameron and ask him "do want to pay us to put avatar in the parks?"

Bingo...and for anyone else than JAMES CAMERON...that would be a non starter.

Remember...this is the guy who made a movie or two about underwater exploration and tragedy and has personally financed tens if not hundreds of millions or dollars in actual deep sea exploration...

He has made alot of money in the box office
And can do this...he thinks of his movies as
An extension of himself. He reminds me more of Richard Branson than warren buffet.

In a way, he's admirable...unlike the clown Lucas. Because he goes into the real world and puts his money where his mouth is (obvious parlay to the avatar project there)...
But it's also his world famous ego. He says "I want it built...damn the torpedos"
Kinda reminds me of an old cartoonist from Missouri.

But that's why I don't trust that he's not contributing.

Supposedly...he paid a significant amount of production cost out of pocket for titanic. It was an incredible cleopatra esque risk at the time. I'm sure his accountant quit in protest.

But bet big, win big.

 

[surferdave]

so disney approaches Cameron and ask him "do want to pay us to put avatar in the parks?"

Is that remarkably different from the way they built Epcot? Is approaching Cameron that different from approaching Kraft and Morocco?

 

[lockedoutlogic]

i'm thinking that cameron approached disney.

x2

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Just think about what you're saying. Do you really think that Iger just made a call and said:

"Hey, Jimmy congrats on making a boatload of money on that Avatar flick!"

"We liked it so much that, get this, even though it has no current product marketing potential, or a huge hardcore fan base, and we don't know if the next movie is going to bomb, or just be meh, we want to put 500 mil into building AvatarLand....!"

"That's right, we'll assume all of the risk..."

"Yep, we'll pay to license the IP, as well..."

"Nope, you don't have to give us anything....keep the merchandising, keep full control of the project and movies....yep we'll cover all current and future operating expenses...."

"Hey, we're just happy to have the opportunity after what happened with JK Rowling..."

I have a much harder time believing that. It's way, way outside of their standard operating procedures.....

Lol...

Great post...and I love this debate...

But I have to say to my right honorable colleagues across the isle...you do realize that the narrative above is - in essence - what your proposing happened?

Is that Disney?
Nope.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

everything published in print and online says Disney approached Cameron..back in April of 2011 i want to say

The fact is the Hollywood reporter or business financial times will NEVER know what the truth there is.

And Disney/Cameron will fit the truth to what they want the public and press to think. We have covered the angles to that here as well.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Is that remarkably different from the way they built Epcot? Is approaching Cameron that different from approaching Kraft and Morocco?

No... And that's exactly how Disney would conduct all it's business...

"We got the brains...you got the money"

How about Disney in Japan? Pretty much the same thing...
China...not as advantageous but again similar tack...

Euro? Similar as well...but one of the things that Eisner got beat up on and expended large amounts of banked credit and rep is that they didnt execute the plan more there...

 

[twebber55]

The fact is the Hollywood reporter or business financial times will NEVER know what the truth there is.

And Disney/Cameron will fit the truth to what they want the public and press to think. We have covered the angles to that here as well.

i hope Cameron financed this...then it will get the full imagineer treatment and not value engineered

 

[surferdave]

i hope Cameron financed this...then it will get the full imagineer treatment and not value engineered

That's the positive side of Disney's Other People's Money model. The negative side comes when the Other People lose interest after so many years and the attraction isn't maintained, and then Disney either closes the attraction, runs it into the ground or sticks a princess or mouse over it.