Ground was broken this week for Avatarland

[Viva Las Disney]

We are all going to have to wait a few years to truly see if this is a hit or a flop. Sounds like a lot of people will either be pleasantly surprised or be proud that they predicted a flop!

Like I said though, we will just have to wait and see how it turns out!

I kind of envy those not expecting much, worst case scenario they were right and it equals their low expectations but best case scenario they end up liking something they thought they wouldn't. For those like me who are expecting something special I'll either be satisfied or incredibly disappointed.

Luckily I'm an optimist that can find the good in almost anything so I'm pretty easy to please.

 

[Mad Hattered]

Adjusted for inflation the best Harry Potter movie ranks 69th and the worst not even on the top 200 list but look at what it has done for Universal. Avatar is still sitting at an 83% favorable rating on rotten tomatoes as well, higher than 4 and lower than 4 of the HP movies

I'm not trying to say Avatar is better than HP, I prefer the HP movies myself, just pointing out that just judging by the numbers Avatar is in line with the individual HP movies in ticket sales and likability. Whether the franchise can duplicate that 2 more times is a huge question, HP was amazing in that it matched itself 7 times.

I like the concept of Pandora at AK, and like that it looks like they could drop the movie theme pretty easily if needed and emphasize a BK theme, but only time will tell if it ends up having a similar affect as HP has had for Universal.

Yeah, I didn't want to bring Harry into the mix but if we are speaking apples to apples here, then the Avatar sequels will have to match almost exactly what the original did. I'm not saying it won't, but I believe that movie made as much as it did because Cameron developed a "new" kind of 3D format that hadn't been seen before. That created "hype". Any given Multiplex these days has half of it's screens playing a 3D version of whatever movie happens to be released. It's oversaturated the market. I just don't know what the draw will be for the sequels.

Back to apples....the Potter movies grossed $7,723,431,572 worldwide. Avatar grossed $2,782,275,172 worldwide. It's conceivable it could pass Potter. What Avatar CAN'T do is match the 450,000,000+ BOOKS that Potter sold. THAT is the main reason people showed up like they did at Universal...not the movies.

And for the record....I'm not arguing with you at all. I wasn't even a big Potter fan....like at all. DW is, though. She has read all the books twice. I had to do a HP DVD movie marathon over a weekend in order to get caught up before we went for the first time. It still blew me away.

I think Disney will do a good job at theming Avatarland...I have no doubt about that. I just don't understand using that IP when they had so many more to choose from.

*coughStarWarscough*

 

[Mad Hattered]

Interesting point made about the Harry Potter movies compared to Avatar when it comes to box office. Good research!

Thanks!

 

[disneylovin24]

Thanks!

Are you really that desperate to feel good about yourself/feel right that you have to pretend that was directed at you? Mighty pathetic.

 

[disneylovin24]

Now thinking about this more, I think there is a reason why Avatarland and not Star Wars land. Avatarland was announced over a year before Disney acquired Star Wars and started planning new movies. I could be wrong, but I am guessing Disney was looking for something to build a new land off of and was able to acquire rights to Avatar first which is why Avatar took priority. They probably jumped at Star Wars too because of the money they will make off of films and everything else more than a land.

To sum up, Disney wanted to get working on something and got the rights to Avatar before Star Wars.

I could be entirely wrong, but that is just my thought. Not forcing on anyone, nobody has to agree, just sharing a thought.

 

[Mad Hattered]

Are you really that desperate to feel good about yourself/feel right that you have to pretend that was directed at you?

Nope.

 

[jade1]

It's just more choices offered, will choose to try it all, choose if we like any of it, choose if we will go again-it's not difficult.

Same with the mine train, and the new HP at US.

 

[BlovesC]

I admit I wasn't exactly thrilled when they announced the project, but mostly because I'd personally prefer WDW to stick to Disney/Pixar works, and also because I kinda wish they'd revisited Beastly Kingdom. But I think the setting of Pandora will lend itself quite nicely to new attractions, especially with Disney's eye for detail. There are some stunning touches in AK already and I don't doubt for a second that the Pandora areas will match or surpass them.

And I for one don't need to love a film to enjoy a well-made attraction inspired by it. I'm sure many of Splash Mountain's fans have never seen Song of the South. I certainly haven't! And I'm no fan of Star Wars, yet find Star Tours to be good fun.

I'm looking forward to learning more about the attractions they're planning, although not exactly on the edge of my seat since it's so...far....off. Honestly no new attraction could be a bad thing, in my mind, as long as it's not another elaborate meet & greet!

 

[disneylovin24]

I admit I wasn't exactly thrilled when they announced the project, but mostly because I'd personally prefer WDW to stick to Disney/Pixar works, and also because I kinda wish they'd revisited Beastly Kingdom. But I think the setting of Pandora will lend itself quite nicely to new attractions, especially with Disney's eye for detail. There are some stunning touches in AK already and I don't doubt for a second that the Pandora areas will match or surpass them.

And I for one don't need to love a film to enjoy a well-made attraction inspired by it. I'm sure many of Splash Mountain's fans have never seen Song of the South. I certainly haven't! And I'm no fan of Star Wars, yet find Star Tours to be good fun.

I'm looking forward to learning more about the attractions they're planning, although not exactly on the edge of my seat since it's so...far....off. Honestly no new attraction could be a bad thing, in my mind, as long as it's not another elaborate meet & greet!

I've seen this point brought up by a few others and its a good one too

 

[kathy884]

With Animal Kingdom as the park with the fewest visitors in WDW and many people skipping it, to me it makes all kinds of sense to build something else there. Cars Land and the new entrance to CA Adventure really helped that park go from a 1/2 day park for many people to a full day, so why not try a similar strategy here. // You don't have to be a fan of a movie to enjoy an attraction either. I'm personally quite interested in what they will come up with and quite pleased that they are taking risks and building something new and different.

Just a few personal examples: And I realize these are just rides, not full lands
Soarin is my favorite ride in WDW and it has no movie tie in. Tower of Terror is my second favorite ride in WDW and I've never watched a Twilight Zone Episode, but still appreciate the theming. I wasn't all that crazy with the CARS movie, but I'm really curious and interested in seeing Carsland and plan to visit Disneyland resort in 2015

For me personally it's the attraction that I care about, not the movie or show it was themed after. And new attractions will be nice enhancements to the park.

No it's not probably going to be as huge a hit as Harry Potter World at Universal, that got people who wouldn't have come to come. But it will be nice for the repeat visitors WDW has who enjoy something new IMHO (and there are lots of us to keep happy.)

 

[Mad Hattered]

I admit I wasn't exactly thrilled when they announced the project, but mostly because I'd personally prefer WDW to stick to Disney/Pixar works, and also because I kinda wish they'd revisited Beastly Kingdom. But I think the setting of Pandora will lend itself quite nicely to new attractions, especially with Disney's eye for detail. There are some stunning touches in AK already and I don't doubt for a second that the Pandora areas will match or surpass them.

And I for one don't need to love a film to enjoy a well-made attraction inspired by it. I'm sure many of Splash Mountain's fans have never seen Song of the South. I certainly haven't!b][/ And I'm no fan of Star Wars, yet find Star Tours to be good fun.

I'm looking forward to learning more about the attractions they're planning, although not exactly on the edge of my seat since it's so...far....off. Honestly no new attraction could be a bad thing, in my mind, as long as it's not another elaborate meet & greet!

I agree 100% and I know you mean that just by looking at your avatar I seriously agree with you on that.

I got to witness SOTS on The Wonderful World of Disney as a kid. I thought it was cool and that damn song has been stuck in my head ever since. Of course I was a kid and had no idea what it later came to represent. I thought it was cool that bluebirds would land on his shoulder.

 

[fairyprincess88]

As a Potter nerd(who has been deeply involved in the fandom since the beginning) I have to point this out because it is very important if you are going to bring it into this Avatar thing.

Harry Potter is first and foremost a book series. It's main sales are in book sales, the main fandom is from the books. In fact, while most of the fandom has seen the movies, a majority would never put them near the same level as the books. What Universal is drawling on with Potter has very little to do with box office movie sales and everything to do with the novels. Now if you want to toss some numbers against numbers than add in the Potter book sales and the movie take and then do the comparison. You can not in anyway judge the draw of Harry Potter based on the films. The films are what most fans look at as merely a fun add on that we mostly pick apart and complain about but still find entertaining.

Sorry but it bugs me to no end when people overlook exactly what Potter is about and where it came from.

 

[disneylovin24]

With Animal Kingdom as the park with the fewest visitors in WDW and many people skipping it, to me it makes all kinds of sense to build something else there. Cars Land and the new entrance to CA Adventure really helped that park go from a 1/2 day park for many people to a full day, so why not try a similar strategy here. // You don't have to be a fan of a movie to enjoy an attraction either. I'm personally quite interested in what they will come up with and quite pleased that they are taking risks and building something new and different.

Just a few personal examples: And I realize these are just rides, not full lands
Soarin is my favorite ride in WDW and it has no movie tie in. Tower of Terror is my second favorite ride in WDW and I've never watched a Twilight Zone Episode, but still appreciate the theming. I wasn't all that crazy with the CARS movie, but I'm really curious and interested in seeing Carsland and plan to visit Disneyland resort in 2015

For me personally it's the attraction that I care about, not the movie or show it was themed after. And new attractions will be nice enhancements to the park.

No it's not probably going to be as huge a hit as Harry Potter World at Universal, that got people who wouldn't have come to come. But it will be nice for the repeat visitors WDW has who enjoy something new IMHO (and there are lots of us to keep happy.)

And the thing with this is that nothing else would fit in to Animal Kingdom. They couldn't have used Star Wars or Carsland there

Yes, they could have went the Beastly Kingdom route but I think going the route of a movie is better because while it may not attract fans like HP did (can't deny that HP has a strong following no matter who did better at the box office), I think it will attract more people being themed after a movie instead of not being.

I really think it can attract a lot of outsiders if it is opened when the second movie is being released. I will agree that the first was a success because of the special effects and what not, but I think the second will be a success for the same reasons. I think people will go to see the second one to see more of the ground breaking things and if the land opens at the same time, people may be attracted to flock there and see the ground breaking movie as a theme park.

I honestly don't know but I am having fun coming up with predictions. The Avatarland concept is very interesting to me more because of the business side of it.

 

[Mad Hattered]

As a Potter nerd(who has been deeply involved in the fandom since the beginning) I have to point this out because it is very important if you are going to bring it into this Avatar thing.

Harry Potter is first and foremost a book series. It's main sales are in book sales, the main fandom is from the books. In fact, while most of the fandom has seen the movies, a majority would never put them near the same level as the books. What Universal is drawling on with Potter has very little to do with box office movie sales and everything to do with the novels. Now if you want to toss some numbers against numbers than add in the Potter book sales and the movie take and then do the comparison. You can not in anyway judge the draw of Harry Potter based on the films. The films are what most fans look at as merely a fun add on that we mostly pick apart and complain about but still find entertaining.

Sorry but it bugs me to no end when people overlook exactly what Potter is about and where it came from.

Just in case you missed this part of my previous post:

What Avatar CAN'T do is match the 450,000,000+ BOOKS that Potter sold. THAT is the main reason people showed up like they did at Universal...not the movies.

 

[JanaDee]

And the thing with this is that nothing else would fit in to Animal Kingdom. They couldn't have used Star Wars or Carsland there

Yes, they could have went the Beastly Kingdom route but I think going the route of a movie is better because while it may not attract fans like HP did (can't deny that HP has a strong following no matter who did better at the box office), I think it will attract more people being themed after a movie instead of not being.

I really think it can attract a lot of outsiders if it is opened when the second movie is being released. I will agree that the first was a success because of the special effects and what not, but I think the second will be a success for the same reasons. I think people will go to see the second one to see more of the ground breaking things and if the land opens at the same time, people may be attracted to flock there and see the ground breaking movie as a theme park.

I honestly don't know but I am having fun coming up with predictions. The Avatarland concept is very interesting to me more because of the business side of it.

See post 30 for a fantastic idea of what would have fit in AK.

People were interested in Avatar for the groundbreaking special effects. Years later, 3D, CGI and special effects aren't groundbreaking or unique.

 

[disneylovin24]

See post 30 for a fantastic idea of what would have fit in AK.

People were interested in Avatar for the groundbreaking special effects. Years later, 3D, CGI and special effects aren't groundbreaking or unique.

But again, none of them are based off of movies. I know a land can do very well when not based off of a movie too, but I think a safer bet is to try something with a movie if you can, especially when it is the highest grossing move of all-time.

Either way, I still see Avatar sequels doing well. I think the success of the first, no matter what caused it, will led people to see the others. But hey, I could be wrong.

 

[fairyprincess88]

Just in case you missed this part of my previous post:

What Avatar CAN'T do is match the 450,000,000+ BOOKS that Potter sold. THAT is the main reason people showed up like they did at Universal...not the movies.

Not you I was pointing that out to. I'm pretty sure we see things eye to eye.

 

[JanaDee]

But again, none of them are based off of movies. I know a land can do very well when not based off of a movie too, but I think a safer bet is to try something with a movie if you can, especially when it is the highest grossing move of all-time.

Either way, I still see Avatar sequels doing well. I think the success of the first, no matter what caused it, will led people to see the others. But hey, I could be wrong.

I hate to point out the obvious, but none of the lands in AK are based off movies.

 

[disneylovin24]

I hate to point out the obvious, but none of the lands in AK are based off movies.

No, really?!?!? I had no idea!!!

Just kidding.

I said that I know that lands can be very popular without being based off of a movie, but I also said that it is better to go off of a movie. With a movie you are going to have a following (whether Avatar does is up for debate to some I guess) and that I think will get people there faster. Even if people are not diehard fans of a movie I think they will flock somewhere fast if it is based off of something they saw.

But also, AK is the least popular of the Disney parks, could that be because it is not based off of movies? I guess EPCOT isn't either, but it's just something to throw out there.

 

[mouseguy77]

it's gonna be a failure

BIG Mistake, Huge waste of money

Am I the only one who is going to wait and judge it after they see it, not before? I'm legitimately excited and can't wait to see how it turns out. I have great faith in the imagineers after the amazing job they did on Cars Land.

Let's not rush to judge something we haven't seen yet.