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

[lockedoutlogic]

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

I don't think any of us disagree with that

 

[lockedoutlogic]

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.

I don't think any of us disagree with that

 

[beer dave]

Ok--- let me see if I got this right..... No one wants clone attractions, or Disney to continue to go with the safe additions, and the same old merchandise, and they should get off their butts and build some great new things.

Now they are taking a semi stale property ( in some opinions) and sinking a ton of money into it ( or Cameron is) and they shouldn't because Star Wars is a safer bet?

Real creators don't need to rely on safe and proven products to have success. Real gains come from taking risks.

I don't really care who is paying for it, and what their motives are. I am just happy we are getting some new ideas and new blood with the imagineering.

Of course everything is done for money-- but some times making more money involves improving the guest experience.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what would actually make some of you guys happy... I guess everything.

 

[wallrock]

Ok--- let me see if I got this right..... No one wants clone attractions, or Disney to continue to go with the safe additions, and the same old merchandise, and they should get off their butts and build some great new things.

Now they are taking a semi stale property ( in some opinions) and sinking a ton of money into it ( or Cameron is) and they shouldn't because Star Wars is a safer bet?

Real creators don't need to rely on safe and proven products to have success. Real gains come from taking risks.

I don't really care who is paying for it, and what their motives are. I am just happy we are getting some new ideas and new blood with the imagineering.

Of course everything is done for money-- but some times making more money involves improving the guest experience.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what would actually make some of you guys happy... I guess everything.

I don't recall anyone saying that Disney should opt for Star Wars over Avatar.

I don't recall anyone saying that Disney shouldn't put Avatar in the parks - in this thread some of us just want people to understand why we think it's coming into the parks instead of any of their other holdings.


What would make me happy is for Disney to take those leaps of faith, and put that faith into their imagineers. It was done with Epcot with good success.

Feel free to rely on other people's ideas.
Feel free to rely on some of their new ideas and put them in the right places (a.k.a Frozen).


Bottom line, just stop going cheap in Orlando while other parks around the world spend, spend, spend to the result of a huge applause from the customer base - all while they spend their money to give Disney the profit they desire.

Everyone goes home happy.

 

[beer dave]

I don't recall anyone saying that Disney should opt for Star Wars over Avatar.

Yeah, maybe not in this one... just an over all feel given any time this comes up.

I don't recall anyone saying that Disney shouldn't put Avatar in the parks - in this thread some of us just want people to understand why we think it's coming into the parks instead of any of their other holdings.

Again.. maybe not in this one... I don't want to re read. And I agree that some want to discuss why.


What would make me happy is for Disney to take those leaps of faith, and put that faith into their imagineers. It was done with Epcot with good success.

Feel free to rely on other people's ideas.
Feel free to rely on some of their new ideas and put them in the right places (a.k.a Frozen).

We agree completely

Bottom line, just stop going cheap in Orlando while other parks around the world spend, spend, spend to the result of a huge applause from the customer base - all while they spend their money to give Disney the profit they desire.

Everyone goes home happy.

The problem with this is that they have been spending... On tech needed to revolutionize the parks...And increase revenue... and because of that, maybe there has been a lag in attraction development, but with more revenue comes more possibilities for expansion. The next two billion (?) can be spent on attractions rather than next gen, and with higher revenue this will happen sooner. (?) One can only hope--- but with the new announcement pending, It looks better.

 

[ahoyle]

So I've yet to hear someone that thinks Cameron is financing part of this tell me what he gets out of the deal? A percent of AK's gate? How do you measure that with all the park hoppers? Also, this is a worldwide licensing deal, so did Cameron give them a blank check and say..."I'll pay for the same thing in Tokyo, Paris, China...". It just makes no sense. People that own valuable IPs don't pay other people to use them. The only thing that Cameron is providing is his service in helping develop whatever they are doing. He's not writing a check to ride builders.

Maybe that will be Disney's next big source of revenue and ride improvement. They can get Nintendo to pay for some new Mario rides in their parks. Maybe get Stephen King to pay for some haunted houses to compete with HHN.

JK Rowling get 10 million pounds a year from Universal for however long they use HP. Paid for none of the development. But James Cameron, a billionaire with a massive ego (deservedly), arguably the most successful film maker of all time, is going to pay to have his baby in a theme park. Ok...

 

[twebber55]

So I've yet to hear someone that thinks Cameron is financing part of this tell me what he gets out of the deal? A percent of AK's gate? How do you measure that with all the park hoppers? Also, this is a worldwide licensing deal, so did Cameron give them a blank check and say..."I'll pay for the same thing in Tokyo, Paris, China...". It just makes no sense. People that own valuable IPs don't pay other people to use them. The only thing that Cameron is providing is his service in helping develop whatever they are doing. He's not writing a check to ride builders.

Maybe that will be Disney's next big source of revenue and ride improvement. They can get Nintendo to pay for some new Mario rides in their parks. Maybe get Stephen King to pay for some haunted houses to compete with HHN.

JK Rowling get 10 million pounds a year from Universal for however long they use HP. Paid for none of the development. But James Cameron, a billionaire with a massive ego (deservedly), arguably the most successful film maker of all time, is going to pay to have his baby in a theme park. Ok...

yep pretty much how i feel...simple really

 

[wallrock]

So I've yet to hear someone that thinks Cameron is financing part of this tell me what he gets out of the deal? A percent of AK's gate? How do you measure that with all the park hoppers? Also, this is a worldwide licensing deal, so did Cameron give them a blank check and say..."I'll pay for the same thing in Tokyo, Paris, China...". It just makes no sense. People that own valuable IPs don't pay other people to use them. The only thing that Cameron is providing is his service in helping develop whatever they are doing. He's not writing a check to ride builders.

Maybe that will be Disney's next big source of revenue and ride improvement. They can get Nintendo to pay for some new Mario rides in their parks. Maybe get Stephen King to pay for some haunted houses to compete with HHN.

JK Rowling get 10 million pounds a year from Universal for however long they use HP. Paid for none of the development. But James Cameron, a billionaire with a massive ego (deservedly), arguably the most successful film maker of all time, is going to pay to have his baby in a theme park. Ok...

I personally don't consider Avatar to be a valuable IP because once again there's been nothing in the way of extra financial potential outside of the first film.

You can't compare what J.K. Rowling is getting with Harry Potter to what Cameron may be getting with Avatar. As I stated earlier, Harry Potter equals 7 billion in merchandising. Avatar? Zero.

Rowling doesn't have to put so much as a dollar on the table to encourage a theme park buy into the Harry Potter universe because everyone knows it will pay for itself ten fold. Avatar has yet to convince anyone that additional sales beyond movie tickets and Blu-ray/DVD/digital downloads will happen. If you wish to compare the two what is Cameron bringing to the table that compares with what Rowling brought?


What Cameron is getting I truly don't know, however he gets no staying power unless his product is out in front of the world.

Once again folks it isn't about how much money a film makes when things like this are considered, but what its potential is to keep earning long after the lights come on and you exit the theater.

 

[clsteve]

So I've yet to hear someone that thinks Cameron is financing part of this tell me what he gets out of the deal? A percent of AK's gate? How do you measure that with all the park hoppers? Also, this is a worldwide licensing deal, so did Cameron give them a blank check and say..."I'll pay for the same thing in Tokyo, Paris, China...". It just makes no sense. People that own valuable IPs don't pay other people to use them. The only thing that Cameron is providing is his service in helping develop whatever they are doing. He's not writing a check to ride builders.

Maybe that will be Disney's next big source of revenue and ride improvement. They can get Nintendo to pay for some new Mario rides in their parks. Maybe get Stephen King to pay for some haunted houses to compete with HHN.

JK Rowling get 10 million pounds a year from Universal for however long they use HP. Paid for none of the development. But James Cameron, a billionaire with a massive ego (deservedly), arguably the most successful film maker of all time, is going to pay to have his baby in a theme park. Ok...

He has an un-established franchise he wants to establish - like a Lucas.

We'll never truly know the contents of the deal.

But what he immediately gets is the biggest, most detailed advertising "billboard" possible. The planted flag for growing the rest of the Avatar franchise and the real thing that (he hopes) builds that hardcore fan base like those SW geeks and Potter-heads

And, a living monument to his creativity. Never doubt the role ego plays in things like these. Or the competitiveness.....

This puts him up there with Rolling and beats Lucas to the punch. Not a trivial thing - and something creative moguls at that level would pay for.....

 

[ahoyle]

I personally don't consider Avatar to be a valuable IP because once again there's been nothing in the way of extra financial potential outside of the first film.

You can't compare what J.K. Rowling is getting with Harry Potter to what Cameron may be getting with Avatar. As I stated earlier, Harry Potter equals 7 billion in merchandising. Avatar? Zero.

Rowling doesn't have to put so much as a dollar on the table to encourage a theme park buy into the Harry Potter universe because everyone knows it will pay for itself ten fold. Avatar has yet to convince anyone that additional sales beyond movie tickets and Blu-ray/DVD/digital downloads will happen. If you wish to compare the two what is Cameron bringing to the table that compares with what Rowling brought?


What Cameron is getting I truly don't know, however he gets no staying power unless his product is out in front of the world.

Once again folks it isn't about how much money a film makes when things like this are considered, but what its potential is to keep earning long after the lights come on and you exit the theater.

I never said Avatar compares to HP. Tom Brady doesn't compare to his backup either. But his backup still gets paid. This deal was signed 3 years ago when Avatar was bigger than today, and the sequel was coming out this year. If I am Cameron's agent and negotiating this, I certainly start at what Rowling got for HP, point out my movie made almost 3 times as much as any of those films, and negotiate from there. Maybe my IP is worth half, a quarter, whatever...but no where do I ask where my client should wire his funds. Some people act like having Pandora in the park is some privilige that Cameron should pay for and will cause his movie to live on indefinitely. Even if all 10 million visitors to Animal Kingdom run right out to see Avatar 2 because Pandora is so great...thats an extra 100 million in receipts. Thats assuming none of those would have seen it otherwise. Thats chump change when your previous movie made 2.7 billion.

I don't know where this belief that he is footing the bill came from, but thats not how licensing property works. It seems some have such a faith in Disney and they think Pandora is a bad idea...the only way they can explain it is that Cameron is paying Disney for it.

 

[wallrock]

I never said Avatar compares to HP. Tom Brady doesn't compare to his backup either. But his backup still gets paid. This deal was signed 3 years ago when Avatar was bigger than today, and the sequel was coming out this year. If I am Cameron's agent and negotiating this, I certainly start at what Rowling got for HP, point out my movie made almost 3 times as much as any of those films, and negotiate from there. Maybe my IP is worth half, a quarter, whatever...but no where do I ask where my client should wire his funds. Some people act like having Pandora in the park is some privilige that Cameron should pay for and will cause his movie to live on indefinitely. Even if all 10 million visitors to Animal Kingdom run right out to see Avatar 2 because Pandora is so great...thats an extra 100 million in receipts. Thats assuming none of those would have seen it otherwise. Thats chump change when your previous movie made 2.7 billion.

I don't know where this belief that he is footing the bill came from, but thats not how licensing property works. It seems some have such a faith in Disney and they think Pandora is a bad idea...the only way they can explain it is that Cameron is paying Disney for it.

Not to put words in your mouth, but there was more or less an implied comparison when you mentioned that Rowling gets 10 million pounds per year from Universal. As such I continued with it.

If you're Cameron's agent again what are you bringing to the table to justify getting the same that Rowling got for Harry Potter? Yes your movie made more than any of the Harry Potter films, but your film along with your proposed sequels won't get anywhere near the TOTAL revenue that ole' Harry has generated thus far - and will continue to generate. You said so yourself that Avatar was bigger three years ago than today, so essentially your value has dropped. Kids are not lining up to buy Avatar related material and there's no Diagon Alley for Avatar anywhere. And if you're wanting to get your property into the theme park you may be asked to wire funds because I'm not seeing where I'm going to generate any profit - you're going to have to assume some of the risk. I don't see an increase in ticket sales (at least enough to make a profit) because most guests already have either an annual pass or a multi-day ticket. I'm keeping the park open for extended hours to take advantage of your IP so I've got to pay staff, keep the lights on and the food cooking. How am I going to get my money back plus some?

 

[twebber55]

Not to put words in your mouth, but there was more or less an implied comparison when you mentioned that Rowling gets 10 million pounds per year from Universal. As such I continued with it.

If you're Cameron's agent again what are you bringing to the table to justify getting the same that Rowling got for Harry Potter? Yes your movie made more than any of the Harry Potter films, but your film along with your proposed sequels won't get anywhere near the TOTAL revenue that ole' Harry has generated thus far - and will continue to generate. You said so yourself that Avatar was bigger three years ago than today, so essentially your value has dropped. Kids are not lining up to buy Avatar related material and there's no Diagon Alley for Avatar anywhere. And if you're wanting to get your property into the theme park you may be asked to wire funds because I'm not seeing where I'm going to generate any profit - you're going to have to assume some of the risk. I don't see an increase in ticket sales (at least enough to make a profit) because most guests already have either an annual pass or a multi-day ticket. I'm keeping the park open for extended hours to take advantage of your IP so I've got to pay staff, keep the lights on and the food cooking. How am I going to get my money back plus some?

all movies go through high and lows in terms of trends...as long as more stuff is coming out it will stay popular...go to google trends and see how this affects all IPS

my theory has always been if you build a quality product people will come out in droves to see it and spend their money..i see tons of potential of in park items being sold...heck disney sells magic band t shirts

you make your money back with a huge boost in attendance....now people are staying at DAK longer and now eating dinner there instead of someplace else be it off property or at Universal...which is one of the things disney wants to do here.....keep them on property

 

[twebber55]

the bottom line as fans is this...

is this expansion good and immersive....lets let Disney and Cameron worry about what gets sold

nobody going there will say i loved the land and themeing and the rides are great but the selection of t shirts just are not quite as good as they should be

one thing you can trust disney on is their ability to sell stuff

one last note..avatar will trend upward as teh books, movies, cirque show all come out around 2016

 

[Maineiak]

lockedoutlogic...is that you?

Article on Disney ditching Mattel for Hasbro

"Mattel spokesperson Alex Clark played it cool, suggesting that Frozen Mania will subside after next Christmas. 'We can expect the popularity arc to apex between now and the next holiday season,' he said."

 

[twebber55]

So I've yet to hear someone that thinks Cameron is financing part of this tell me what he gets out of the deal? A percent of AK's gate? How do you measure that with all the park hoppers? Also, this is a worldwide licensing deal, so did Cameron give them a blank check and say..."I'll pay for the same thing in Tokyo, Paris, China...". It just makes no sense. People that own valuable IPs don't pay other people to use them. The only thing that Cameron is providing is his service in helping develop whatever they are doing. He's not writing a check to ride builders.

Maybe that will be Disney's next big source of revenue and ride improvement. They can get Nintendo to pay for some new Mario rides in their parks. Maybe get Stephen King to pay for some haunted houses to compete with HHN.

JK Rowling get 10 million pounds a year from Universal for however long they use HP. Paid for none of the development. But James Cameron, a billionaire with a massive ego (deservedly), arguably the most successful film maker of all time, is going to pay to have his baby in a theme park. Ok...

Its like saying Cameron paid FX to show his movie as well...BTW it was the number 1 viewed movie on FX as well....

 

[wallrock]

Its like saying Cameron paid FX to show his movie as well...BTW it was the number 1 viewed movie on FX as well....

Respectfully, another incorrect analogy.

Cameron didn't pay FX because FX was able to generate revenue via advertising dollars when they broadcast. So once again we've come full circle - what is Cameron bringing to the table for Disney to get it's money? If he's not bringing anything then how will they recoup the cost?

 

[twebber55]

Respectfully, another incorrect analogy. Cameron didn't pay FX because FX was able to generate revenue via advertising dollars when they broadcast. So once again we've come full circle - what is Cameron bringing to the table for Disney to get it's money? If he's not bringing anything then how will they recoup the cost?

What was my other incorrect analogy lol

 

[twebber55]

Respectfully, another incorrect analogy. Cameron didn't pay FX because FX was able to generate revenue via advertising dollars when they broadcast. So once again we've come full circle - what is Cameron bringing to the table for Disney to get it's money? If he's not bringing anything then how will they recoup the cost?

Well fx generates ad dollars by showing stuff that people watch. Like when coke pays a bazillion dollars for a 30 sec add during the super bowl

Fx wants movies with high viewership right?

 

[DanBoris]

Respectfully, another incorrect analogy.

Cameron didn't pay FX because FX was able to generate revenue via advertising dollars when they broadcast. So once again we've come full circle - what is Cameron bringing to the table for Disney to get it's money? If he's not bringing anything then how will they recoup the cost?

Disney will recoup the cost the same way they recoup the cost of any other attraction, increased attendance in the park. You say you don't personally consider Avatar to be a valuable IP, but by virtue of it's $2.7B box office, and Cameron's name being attached to it, it would be considered a very valuable IP to some.

Personally I like the Avatar idea, but I am in no way trying to say this is a slam dunk for Disney. I agree with those that have said it doesn't still have much cultural relevance. I am just trying to make case that there doesn't need to have been any financial incentive from Cameron for this deal to have happened.

 

[wallrock]

What was my other incorrect analogy lol

I was referring to the other analogies in general like star Wars, Harry Potter and such. Wasn't directed specifically at you. I should have qualified that.

Well fx generates ad dollars by showing stuff that people watch. Like when coke pays a bazillion dollars for a 30 sec add during the super bowl

Fx wants movies with high viewership right?

Regarding how FX chooses what to broadcast, or for any channel's desires on content, I can't really say much because I don't watch television. I'm assuming your FX reference was to TV in general, so if I were FX and I wanted high viewership, which prompts a higher cost-per-second charge to advertisers, I'd go with obtaining a license to show more current films instead of something that's five years old. If I'm talking to 20th Century Fox give me the revitalized Planet of the Apes instead of Avatar. Want to wage a bet on which film advertisers will roll their eyes at when we start talking costs for showing a commercial? And which one Fox will charge more for on a license to distribute? Granted this discussion is sliding somewhat away from our earlier topic but it's nice to speculate.