Is anyone really excited about Avatar Land?

[22Tink]

I've never actually seen the movie so I wouldn't even know what to expect. I'll definitely check out Avatar Land at least once though!

 

[JimmyV]

I do think it'll be a great attraction despite there being no cult-like following for this movie.

You've obviously never been to ComiCon to see all the people dressed up in blue makeup and costumes. The cult fans are definitely out there.

In a word- No! Don't understand why after so many years they would do a land like that. I don't even remember the movie- that's how much it means to me.

Not excited at all. I'm sure Disney Imagineering will do it's best and I might like some aspects, but the movie is already obsolete.

You folks do understand that we have only seen the first movie of a trilogy, right? A franchise cannot be obsolete when only one of three movies have been released. Otherwise, Star Wars is also obsolete. And they waited to build the attractions when they did so as to coincide with the release of the second movie. Which, by the way, will open worldwide to a box office of over $200,000,000 in its first weekend. This idea that the franchise is forgotten, stale and obsolete is nonsense. Was Jurassic Park obsolete before the most recent film was released? How'd that movie do?

 

[wareagle57]

While I will never change my mind that it was a dumb idea for an entire land and huge expansion, yes of course I am excited for it. I am not a fan of the movie at all, but it could still be something pretty cool. Anything this big that is new is something to be excited about. I just don't think they should have chose this property to expand the parks.

 

[Davey Jones II]

You've obviously never been to ComiCon to see all the people dressed up in blue makeup and costumes. The cult fans are definitely out there.



You folks do understand that we have only seen the first movie of a trilogy, right? A franchise cannot be obsolete when only one of three movies have been released. Otherwise, Star Wars is also obsolete. And they waited to build the attractions when they did so as to coincide with the release of the second movie. Which, by the way, will open worldwide to a box office of over $200,000,000 in its first weekend. This idea that the franchise is forgotten, stale and obsolete is nonsense. Was Jurassic Park obsolete before the most recent film was released? How'd that movie do?

Couldn't agree more. Have people already forgotten that Avatar is by far the biggest box office smash in history? Even when it got yanked from IMAX 3D theatres -- forced out by a contractual agreement with another movie -- every screening was still selling out.

The sequels are about 99% sure to be monster worldwide hits, because of the incredible momentum from the first movie's success, and will give the new land a huge boost. It's funny how often people doubt James Cameron, maybe because he goes years between movie releases. But when his films come out, they are usually the movie event of the year.

Of course, a lot depends on the execution of the new land. But, unless they botch it badly, I can't imagine anything but huge crowds descending on it. Two new rides, and theming based on the biggest movie of all time? Hard to miss with that.

 

[GrumpyDad1974]

I have never seen the movie and I guess I'll make a point of watching it before we go after it opens. That being said I am always excited to new attractions, experiences and rides but why this one movie? I kind of feel like there is some punch line I'm missing?

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Avitar does have its own cult following, which for now is somewhat quiet as its been a few years since the 1st movie came out. Based on the art work, this is shaping up to b amazing attraction, which the next 2 movies will feed the frenzy.

AKK

 

[ravenclawtrekkie]

I don't see what's not to be excited about unless you expect everything Disney does to cater specifically to your own desires. DAK is getting more attractions, based on something that, whether you like it or not, was incredibly popular and will only have more of a draw once the next film is released.

Personally, I wasn't the biggest fan of the movie (although I did enjoy it), but I've never even seen a lot of the films whose attractions I enjoy immensely.

 

[JustCor]

I'd be interested to see how it all comes together. I didn't really care for the movie at all, but I remember it being visually stunning. I'd like to see how that all translates into a dedicated area. I do find it kind of difficult to see how it fits into the whole Disney thing, especially since it seemed more geared towards an older crowd than some other Disney films. I do also kind of wonder if some of the public interest in an immersive Avatar experience would cool if the sequels don't do the same big numbers.

 

[ML_LovesDisney]

I know the movie has fans and was more than a financial success but is that fan base big enough to warrant a new land? I am sure it will do well in the beginning as most of us would love to see any new attractions but I am afraid after a while it will seem dated like The Great Movie Ride. It doesn’t seem to have the fan base and staying power of a Star Wars or Harry Potter and has yet to prove itself as powerful franchise.

I'm not excited. I don't know anyone who is fan of Avatar the movie to any large extent. I'm sure the lantern ride will be cool though, I'm just not understanding where the idea for the theme of Avatar for Animal Kingdom park came from

 

[alicat8]

I liked the movie a lot, but it was a "See it once" kind of movie. I'm sure the land will be amazing and well done, but I'm still disappointed they're doing it. It seems silly to dedicate a whole land to a movie people kinda liked 6 years ago (I know more are coming.) I think the messages in the movie match the AK theming, but I still really wish they went with Beastly Kingdom. I just feel like they could have done SO much more with that without limitations of being stuck to one movie, and it would have been an awesome addition to the park. Avatar could have been PART of that.

 

[Tomh]

It feels like this was a knee-jerk reaction to the success of the Wizarding World.
Avatar is no Harry Potter . . .. I just think Harry Potter has more source material to draw from then Avatar though. Not sure why they chose to work on Avatar before Star Wars ... Star Wars has even more source material to draw from then Harry Potter.

Highest grossing films of all time . . .

• "Avatar" 2009 $2.8 billion.
• "Titanic" 1997 $2.2 billion.
• "Marvel's The Avengers" 2012 $1.5 billion.
• "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt 2" 2011 $1.3 billion

So, Avatar is three positions higher than the BEST of the Harry Potter Films, and grossed more than DOUBLE what Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt 2 did. I think that might have something to do with why Disney chose to invest in Avatar. Keep in mind that Universal wanted it first, so they too thought it was worth spending money on, they simply couldn't put the deal together.

Additionally, Rowlings has said that Harry Potter is done, there will be no more books, which means no more movies. Cameron, on the other hand, has pledged that the only thing he will do for the rest of his career is Avatar, and documentaries, and has indicated that there will be at least 3 more Avatar films to come, giving Avatar a long life ahead of it.

That having been said, I enjoyed the movie, I'm not sure if I would say it was the best movie I've ever seen, but it was a good movie, and the world that it was set in was immersive, and amazing. I personally can't wait for Avatar Land to open. I think that might very well be just the kick in the pants that Animal Kingdom needs!

 

[alicat8]

Highest grossing films of all time . . .

• "Avatar" 2009 $2.8 billion.
• "Titanic" 1997 $2.2 billion.
• "Marvel's The Avengers" 2012 $1.5 billion.
• "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt 2" 2011 $1.3 billion

So, Avatar is three positions higher than the BEST of the Harry Potter Films, and grossed more than DOUBLE what Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt 2 did. I think that might have something to do with why Disney chose to invest in Avatar. Keep in mind that Universal wanted it first, so they too thought it was worth spending money on, they simply couldn't put the deal together.

I think it made more money because it was everywhere in Imax and 3D and the visuals were amazing. People saw it in the movies to see it in the movies. I know I did. It's not something the majority of people are going to binge watch a marathon of on a long weekend like HP or LOTR. Those movies have followings because of great movies AND books, no matter how much money they make.

Plus, what if the sequels are terrible? They really could be terrible...

 

[Tomh]

What if an asteroid takes out Florida tomorrow? It could happen . . . .

The movie was an amazing performer, highest grossing movie of all time, 500 million dollars more than the number 2.
The world created in the movie was visually amazing. Even if the movie stunk on ice, the world is still something I would love to see created in Disney
The theme / moral of the movie is very much in keeping with the conservation theme already emphasized in AK
The creatures / world from the movie is a solid fit for the beastly kingdom section of AK that never came to be

So many parts of current theme parks are based on properties that are no longer active, on the bet that either they have staying power, or that they can become active again (like Star Wars . . . what if the new Star Wars movies flop?). This is no different, and it is based at least on a film that did amazingly well in theaters. I don't see this as a bad move for Disney to make, and if Cameron comes through with 3 sequels that do anywhere near as good as the original, it could turn out to be the best move Disney has made in quite some time.

 

[larryz]

I do think it'll be a great attraction despite there being no cult-like following for this movie.

Ah, but there IS a cult-like following for this movie franchise.

They passionately debate the Avatar universe while playing D&D and Smash-Up...

 

[JustCor]

I don't think "cult-like" is necessarily good in this case. There are a far greater amount of true cult films with dedicated followings that have fans that are far more vocal than the Avatar fans, and I wouldn't carve out a chunk of a Disney park for them. My question about Avatar is the cultural impact and how the movie has woven itself into the cultural mindset. It may be the top grossing movie of all time, but it doesn't seem to have created any points of impact that will resonate for years or decades to come. Also, the broad appeal that spans large swaths of age groups seems to be missing. By comparison, Star Wars has saturated itself into our culture. The Star Wars Universe has become so embedded in society that the names, running themes, and parts of dialogue are instantly recognizable to people even if they have never seen the movies. The same can be said of Harry Potter. They've created a world that draws people in from all ages. They've made entry points into the franchise for people to envision themselves as parts of the experience. They've managed to tap into the desire of people to be a part of something bigger than themselves and produce stories and merchandise to appeal to that need. It's why the Harry Potter stuff at Universal will always be big. The next generation will read the books, see the movies, and mentally plot out where they would want the sorting hat to place them, what kind of wand they would want to have, and how they could be something that's just a little bit different from everyone else while still being inclusive in something greater. It's a pervasive scenario that could potentially live on for decades because of the broad appeal.

Avatar, on the other hand, while visually stunning and wildly successful from a financial standpoint, seemingly lacks that draw. To my mind at least, it's missing that kind of reach. Maybe there will be elements in the sequels that will add that missing piece, but it seems doubtful if they haven't already established that with the first movie. It's a movie which would make a great ride, but an entire section of Animal Kingdom? I'm not as confident in that. There doesn't seem to be the same universal appeal that would cross generations. I don't see it being akin to something like Star Wars, where you can't wait until your kid reaches that certain age so that you can sit them down for the first time and watch them react to watching the films for the first time while you remember how it felt to you. That's what Avatar is missing. Without that, it's a visual thing without substance, and quite honestly, the Wachowski's Speed Racer movie did the same thing, but looked even more visually appealing and was way more fun. But that movie didn't make Avatar money.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I don't think "cult-like" is necessarily good in this case. There are a far greater amount of true cult films with dedicated followings that have fans that are far more vocal than the Avatar fans, and I wouldn't carve out a chunk of a Disney park for them. My question about Avatar is the cultural impact and how the movie has woven itself into the cultural mindset. It may be the top grossing movie of all time, but it doesn't seem to have created any points of impact that will resonate for years or decades to come. Also, the broad appeal that spans large swaths of age groups seems to be missing. By comparison, Star Wars has saturated itself into our culture. The Star Wars Universe has become so embedded in society that the names, running themes, and parts of dialogue are instantly recognizable to people even if they have never seen the movies. The same can be said of Harry Potter. They've created a world that draws people in from all ages. They've made entry points into the franchise for people to envision themselves as parts of the experience. They've managed to tap into the desire of people to be a part of something bigger than themselves and produce stories and merchandise to appeal to that need. It's why the Harry Potter stuff at Universal will always be big. The next generation will read the books, see the movies, and mentally plot out where they would want the sorting hat to place them, what kind of wand they would want to have, and how they could be something that's just a little bit different from everyone else while still being inclusive in something greater. It's a pervasive scenario that could potentially live on for decades because of the broad appeal.

Avatar, on the other hand, while visually stunning and wildly successful from a financial standpoint, seemingly lacks that draw. To my mind at least, it's missing that kind of reach. Maybe there will be elements in the sequels that will add that missing piece, but it seems doubtful if they haven't already established that with the first movie. It's a movie which would make a great ride, but an entire section of Animal Kingdom? I'm not as confident in that. There doesn't seem to be the same universal appeal that would cross generations. I don't see it being akin to something like Star Wars, where you can't wait until your kid reaches that certain age so that you can sit them down for the first time and watch them react to watching the films for the first time while you remember how it felt to you. That's what Avatar is missing. Without that, it's a visual thing without substance, and quite honestly, the Wachowski's Speed Racer movie did the same thing, but looked even more visually appealing and was way more fun. But that movie didn't make Avatar money.

This is what I was getting at; maybe I just worded it poorly. While Avatar has an underground cult like following, that doesn't exist among the general population. People don't quote the movie in everyday conversations, or even remember the names of the main characters. Contrast that with Harry Potter or Star Wars & those two are on an entirely different plane.

 

[Hudson Hornet]

This my take on it. I couldn't care less about Avatar. The movie was alright. I've watched it once. I liked the story. I liked it way more under its original title 'Dances with Wolves'.

I am not excited by Avatarland and will not make a special trip to see it, but I am positive that it will be well done and enjoyable. I worry about its staying power. Will Avatarland be at all relevant in 10 years?

 

[amg35]

Many years from now, new WDW fans will probably assume the movies are based on the land at Animal Kingdom rather than vice versa!

 

[Marionnette]

Count me among the "not excited". I'm not a big fan of the movie and I agree with those who feel the area could have been utilized better without an expensive movie tie-in.

But beyond that, I'm reserving judgement for whenever it is completed. I was so excited for the Fantasyland Expansion and what did it turn out to offer? Great visuals and little in the way of anything new. They doubled the Dumbos, gave us an Ariel-themed attraction that is a poor imitation of Epcot's The Seas with Nemo, the 7DMTR and more dining & retail space.

 

[JimmyV]

The Star Wars Universe has become so embedded in society that the names, running themes, and parts of dialogue are instantly recognizable to people even if they have never seen the movies. The same can be said of Harry Potter. They've created a world that draws people in from all ages. ...
Avatar, on the other hand, while visually stunning and wildly successful from a financial standpoint, seemingly lacks that draw.

You are making the mistake of trying to compare franchises that have released 6 and 7 movies respectively with a franchise that has so far released one. Star Wars has released 6 movies, four of which stunk out loud. HP released 7 movies and is now a static franchise with nothing more to come. Avatarland will open amidst the release of the second movie with at least one more to follow. Maybe more. After the 3 Avatar movies combine to bring in $5 billion in total receipts, then you can look back to see if its characters and theming have become embedded in society and produce scenes and dialogue that are instantly recognizable. Lots of people here seem to want to bet against James Cameron, but his track record suggests that he is a horse worth betting on.

Funny how people want to applaud creating an entire land out of the Cars "franchise" of two movies but don't think that Avatar, when all's said and done, warrants major treatment. If one were to debate which franchises warrant theme park treatment, I would offer the following:

Lord Of The Rings-No brainer, #1 all time.
Star Wars/Harry Potter, #s 2 and 3 in whatever order one wants to put them.

From here it gets sticky. There are several beloved and long-lasting franchises that simply do not lend themselves to "fantasy, sci-fi theme park treatment". Included among those would be spy and thriller franchises such as James Bond, Dirk Pitt, George Smiley, Jason Bourne and Jack Ryan. Can't see a themed land based on any of those. Then there are franchises such as Little Women and Little House on the Prairie. Can't see those as the basis for a land. If one wants to cheat a little, one could combine all of the Marvel characters into one big franchise and support a land based on Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hulk, et. al. And I am sure that Disney would love to. But it can't. One could cheat a bit more and combine all of the Pixar movies into one "franchise", and Disney is going to do that, or so it seems. After that, I would submit that Star Trek, Dr. Seuss and Avatar are your next three biggest franchises that would translate well into a theme park. Seuss has been done. I don't know who has the rights to Star Trek, but with Disney already pumping out Star Wars, a Trekkie land would be redundant. So Avatar is the next obvious choice. At least, that is may take on it.