Is anyone really excited about Avatar Land?

[alicat8]

Avatar didn't have a lot of repeat business? On which planet? Months after its release, it was only kicked out of IMAX theatres because IMAX was forced to kick it out. They had a contractual agreement with another movie. Every Avatar IMAX screening was still selling out. I know people who went back to see it 3-4 times.

Typcial run? $2.7 billion worldwide is typical? No movie has even come close since then, even with the inflation in 3D ticket prices.

Even if this movie was "only" a hit, rather than the biggest blockbuster ever, it would still lend itself incredibly well to become a land in a theme park. Visually dazzling, an exotic world with fantastic creatures.

In the end, it will come down to execution. I hope that Disney is going all out with this land, spending whatever it takes to create something great. Like they did with Cars Land and RSR.

As I said before, I'm cautiously optimistic, because I know the company has the resources to pull this off, and the movie (and sequels, very likely) offer great potential theme park applications. However, I never judge something before experiencing it first hand. If some of you won't even bother checking it out when it opens, that's fine. That will mean slightly less overwhelming crowds.

Oh, one more thing. Some people seem to be saying "Avatar is old news, people don't care about this IP anymore". Avatar came out in 2009. The sequels will be coming out about the same time as the land opens. Meanwhile, Disney has a huge hit on their hands with 7DMT, a ride based on an IP that debuted in the 1930s. Many kids haven't even seen it. But have you seen the crowds flocking to that ride daily?

Or how about Splash Mountain? Song of the South was a might IP when that ride opened??

Those both had adorable characters that kids love, and especially for Snow White-characters they know even without seeing the movie. Avatar has creepy characters. Also, those are RIDES. We're talking about an entire LAND here. If someone said, "Hey we're gonna tear down part of Frontierland and rename it "Song of the South" Land, I'd be just as against that. I don't care if the movie stayed in theaters for 3 years and made a trillion dollars, it's still not a kids' movie and I still wouldn't want to see an entire land in a family Disney theme park devoted to a non-Disney movie that no one has talked about (except apparently in the non-Disney geek world) since 2010.

 

[JimmyV]

Oh, one more thing. Some people seem to be saying "Avatar is old news, people don't care about this IP anymore". Avatar came out in 2009. The sequels will be coming out about the same time as the land opens. Meanwhile, Disney has a huge hit on their hands with 7DMT, a ride based on an IP that debuted in the 1930s. Many kids haven't even seen it. But have you seen the crowds flocking to that ride daily?

Some more food for thought for the "Avatar is stale" crowd:

• Cars came out in 2006. Cars Land debuted 6 years later. About the same time lag as Avatar vs. Avatar Land.
• The most recent Star Wars film came out in 2005. Whatever Star Wars expansion DHS gets will be further away in time than Avatar Land will be. (Oh! But the expansion will coincide with the sequels. Sound familiar?)
• There was a 14 year gap between Jurassic Park III and Jurassic World, and the latter is a blockbuster. No reason to think that Avatar II can't repeat this feat.

Plain and simple. The Avatar IP isn't stale. And if the time lag is resulting from Cameron trying to get everything "just right", then all the better.

 

[AshleeH]

Avatar didn't have a lot of repeat business? On which planet? Months after its release, it was only kicked out of IMAX theatres because IMAX was forced to kick it out. They had a contractual agreement with another movie. Every Avatar IMAX screening was still selling out. I know people who went back to see it 3-4 times.

Typcial run? $2.7 billion worldwide is typical? No movie has even come close since then, even with the inflation in 3D ticket prices.

Even if this movie was "only" a hit, rather than the biggest blockbuster ever, it would still lend itself incredibly well to become a land in a theme park. Visually dazzling, an exotic world with fantastic creatures.

Because IMAX is a novelty - it's a different experience. So when a great visual movie (which Avatar was) goes to IMAX, people want to see it instead of something like Twilight. It's like a Drive-In or a Dollar Theater - it's something out of the norm, so if you compare them to an average theater, the results are skewed. I get to see any movie I want for free - I still go to the drive-in or IMAX and pay if it's a movie I'm interested in seeing. IMAX is all about the visuals and there is no comparing any other director with Cameron when it comes to that - heck, the 3D re-release of Titanic was more impressive than any other 3D movie that came out that year. When Cameron can take his 15 year old movie and make it more visually impressive than the newest movie of the year that was actually filmed for 3D - that shows how amazing he is in that particular field.

The idea that a movie that generated $2.7B did not see repeat business is looney tunes. Not sure why people are not willing to see this, but there are chat boards out there for Avatar, people who dress in costume, people who learn the Na'vi language. There are hard corp super fans out there. They obviously are not here on the Dis. But they are out there and they saw the first movie 5 times or more and will see the next one 5 times as well. Sort of like this: http://www.gocomics.com/foxtrot/2010/02/21 Jason is the Avatar nut. Peter is the typical, unimpressed Dis'er.

I never said it didn't have repeat business - I said it didn't have Titanic repeat business. During the later months of Titanics sellouts, the average customer had seen it at least 4 times - more commonly 5-7. And there were many who saw it 10+ times. Avatars average repeat business was around 3 - with some seeing it 5 times. I never talked to (or heard from anyone) who saw it more than that in our city. If Titanic had been released in competition with Avatar for the first time, it would have blown it out of the water (no pun intended). However, as I've said, being a good or bad movie (or being a blockbuster) doesn't automatically translate into being a good or bad pick for a theme park. I wouldn't want a Titanic section of Disney either (although a ride might be interesting!).

And as far as my "typical" comment - if you account for inflation, Avatar isn't even in the Top 10 list of all-time movies. So yes, to me, it was typical. It played, it sold out for a while, it moved on - from a theater lobby standpoint, it was no different from Star Wars: Episode 1 or Harry Potter. Actually the difference was there were fewer fans dressed up for it and fewer stood outside waiting to line up for entrance into the theater. With one of the Harry Potters, we had a group actually bring a couch and park it outside and camp out with a portable grill. By the next morning, there was a line wrapped around the building. Avatar didn't even start to line up until a few hours before showtime. That might change for the sequel - we'll see.

Sure, it has a loyal fanbase - so does Jurassic Park, Twilight, Magic Mike. Show me a successful movie, I'll show you a fanatical fanbase.

 

[Davey Jones II]

Those both had adorable characters that kids love, and especially for Snow White-characters they know even without seeing the movie. Avatar has creepy characters. Also, those are RIDES. We're talking about an entire LAND here. If someone said, "Hey we're gonna tear down part of Frontierland and rename it "Song of the South" Land, I'd be just as against that. I don't care if the movie stayed in theaters for 3 years and made a trillion dollars, it's still not a kids' movie and I still wouldn't want to see an entire land in a family Disney theme park devoted to a non-Disney movie that no one has talked about (except apparently in the non-Disney geek world) since 2010.

Anything creepy will be softened for the theme park family audience. This is Disney, after all. There is a lot of creepy stuff in old Disney animated movies. Do you remember how Tinkerbell actually tried to murder Peter Pan in the original movie?

If the rides and theming are good, that will be the bottom line. The IP will just enhance interest and anticipation.

 

[JimmyV]

And as far as my "typical" comment - if you account for inflation, Avatar isn't even in the Top 10 list of all-time movies.

An oft-quoted "fact", but not entirely true. The "accounting for inflation" numbers only adjust the domestic box office numbers. Avatar's international numbers were three times its domestic take. That is highly unusual. So once you add the $2B it took in internationally and adjust that for inflation, it easily breaks into the Top 10. You can't find another movie (other than Titanic) in the Top 10 where the international box office equals the domestic. And Avatar's is 3x the domestic. Add that in, adjust for inflation, and you have your all time winner. For example, ET, which sits at #4 on the "adjusted for inflation" chart, took in a worldwide total of $793m. Adjusted, that is $2.2B. Avatar's adjusted worldwide number is over $3B, almost dead even with Star Wars' worldwide adjusted number at #2 on the chart.

 

[Davey Jones II]

Yeah, movies typically make twice as much money overseas. So if you're fixated on the domestic box office, that's usually only one third of the total picture. 25%, in this case.

 

[JimmyV]

Yeah, movies typically make twice as much money overseas.

Now. 20 years ago, that was different. China and India alone have boosted worldwide box office and 20-50 years ago, that revenue didn't exist. The first Star Wars movie in 1977 was $460m-D and $314m-I, and that counts re-releases. "Episode III-Revenge of the Sith" in 2005 was $380m-D and $468m-I which shows how things shifted over time.

 

[alicat8]

Anything creepy will be softened for the theme park family audience. This is Disney, after all. There is a lot of creepy stuff in old Disney animated movies. Do you remember how Tinkerbell actually tried to murder Peter Pan in the original movie?

If the rides and theming are good, that will be the bottom line. The IP will just enhance interest and anticipation.

Ha-She totally tried to kill Wendy too. At least Peter wasn't completely intentional. I miss spunky Tink

What it comes down to for me is that I'm sad about the limitations of it being a full land. I think about how IOA was done in the beginning with some of their dragony stuff, and I think Disney could have done something amazing along those lines-something more general that would leave them space for some creativity (while possibly incorporating a few Avatar attractions-I'd have no issue with that).

 

[fairytalelover]

I enjoyed the movie but that's it. I didnt think it was so good to deserve an entire land or even a ride for that matter....not to mention the movie was popular years ago. I barely remember it and I'm not the only one. The hype for the movie is gone....

 

[MrsDuck]

I'm excited for something *new* but I'm not overly thrilled about Avatar. I like that it falls into AK's ecological theme but I wish it was Beastly Kingdom (as originally planned)...

 

[travelbug]

Not excited about Avatarland, but I'll definitely give it a try with an open mind once it's open.

 

[LoverDisney]

I am excited for something new in AK. I wasn't crazy about the movie, but I can't wait to see how Avatar Land turns out.

 

[DetroitDisney]

Wait, are people actually trying to use technicalities of foreign box office take and inflation to imply that the highest grossing film of all time wasn't really that popular?

 

[hicksnichols]

Very excited by it, and I may be able to get my husband to go with me to DW again because of it! It fits AK mainly because of the heavy conservation theme of the movie, the fact that it is visually stunning and has several set-up's for great rides is a bonus. I don't go to AK now on my trips any more, but will when this area finally opens.

I totally agree!

 

[AshleeH]

Wait, are people actually trying to use technicalities of foreign box office take and inflation to imply that the highest grossing film of all time wasn't really that popular?

No. But I did point out that with inflation it's lower on the all-time list.

 

[inkedupmomma]

Well, its not Avatar Land, its Pandora, so yes, very excited. DAK was always meant to have a land that was based on mythological creatures and things of that nature. Based on the art work, it looks amazing and won't disappoint. You won't need to know anything about Avatar to enjoy what they are about to open. The worst thing Disney did was mention the word Avatar. People have done nothing but run with what could go wrong and why it is dumb. Lighten up, look at how beautiful the art work is, and try to enjoy it.

 

[Jennasis]

Now now...we all A&E fp's are the true unobtanium.

 

[Jennasis]

Avatar was mediocre at best. Can't name a single character or creature from it. No memorable lines. But it sure was purty to look at. In that vein, SOMETHING new at AK is better than nothing. So...meh...whatever. Am I excited? Nooooooo. I'll enjoy it when it eventually opens, but no way am I excited about it.

 

[Davey Jones II]

No. But I did point out that with inflation it's lower on the all-time list.

Yes, and someone else pointed out that your contention is only true if you take a blinkered view of nothing but domestic box office figures. At least two thirds of box office revenue comes from overseas.

So your argument holds no water. Please stop rehashing it.

 

[AshleeH]

Yes, and someone else pointed out that your contention is only true if you take a blinkered view of nothing but domestic box office figures. At least two thirds of box office revenue comes from overseas.

So your argument holds no water. Please stop rehashing it.

Oh my gosh, I was answering a question. How's this for rehashing:

In simple terms:
-Many people think the movie sucked (I am one of them)
-Many people think the movie is visually beautiful (I am one of them)
-Many are not planning on seeing the sequels (I am one of them)
-Many are excited about the expansion
-Many don't care one way or another and are grateful for an expansion to help with crowd dispersement at the other parks (I am one of them)

The title of the thread is - "Is Anyone Really Excited About Avatarland" - whether it hurts your sensibilities or not, there are plenty of people who are not excited or think it's a stupid decision to add this to Disney. Luckily, Disney doesn't cater to anyone - it would be an extremely boring location if they did. It might be the best thing ever - time will tell - that doesn't make anyone who's not looking forward to it excited about it with the current information Disney has released.

People will have differing opinions on a public forum - not everyone is going to like the same thing - this was proven on one of the Disney Facebook pages a few days ago when the vast majority said they did not like the idea of this and a handful of zealous fanboys came out with guns blazing to defend their precious movie. This movie has a fanbase - unfortunately, from what I've witnessed in the last few weeks, it's an intolerant, whiney fanbase when anyone dares to have an opposing view on the movie.

Those who hate the idea of this may like the idea of the Star Wars expansion in DHS. And for the record: I am one of them - I love Star Wars. I know people who hate Star Wars - doesn't bother me that they don't like the idea of that expansion. One less person in front of me in line.

Now I'm bowing out of this thread and not checking it anymore because I am so sick of fanboys.