Is anyone really excited about Avatar Land?

[AshleeH]

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?

Yes, I absolutely realize that. I also realize that the trilogy has taken years longer than planned to get off the ground, pushing the date back multiple times and just recently announced that it has been pushed back yet again (as of now, we're into borderline 2018 territory with a tentative Christmas 2017 premiere). And aside from the Comic-Con crowd, it is not on the radar for most people. Let's be real - this is not Star Wars. This is not Harry Potter or Avengers. Heck, this is not even Terminator. This is not a movie series that is showing it has the legs to stand the test of time. Cameron does amazing special effects and is able to hype up his projects for the moment, which is good for box office receipts, but in spite of that, he's had a lot of hits and misses.

I'm sure Disney will do a good job with what they have to work with - but they are doing whatever they can to keep up with the Harry Potter expansions at Universal and grabbing onto any popular movie won't do that.

And no, Jurassic Park was not obsolete because it has stood the test of time for over 20 years. Something Avatar has not done.

 

[crazymomof4]

OK, here's the thing: I don't care about the movie. I don't need to have seen Pirates of the Caribbean to appreciate it as a well-themed, interesting ride - which is good because the ride existed before the movie. Really what I'm trying to say though, I feel there are very few rides at WDW (can't think of any in fact) that have value only if you have seen the movie or are familiar with the background, or lose anything if you're not up on the backstory.

I trust that Disney Imagineering will succeed in creating Avatarland as a beautiful, immersive experience that does not require you to know any backstory, nor leave you feeling like you're missing something if you haven't seen the movie that was the basis of the experience. I don't anticipate that it will be something that people will give only 3 stars if they haven't seen the movie, but 5 stars if they did. Given that, is there any reason to lose excitement just because the movies may not line up temporally? I don't think so. So yes, I am excited about Avatarland.

Wow! Since I've not seen the movie, I couldn't exactly put my finger on my reasons for being excited about Avatarland UNTIL I read your post! You put all of my thoughts into words. Thanks!

 

[AshleeH]

And for those talking about the box office receipts, yeah, it was popular, but the total is not only in relation to how good the movie is - it's due to inflation in large part. If we're talking about building a land based solely on movie popularity, Disney better gear up for Gone With the Wind Land because it still holds the record as top box office hit when you include inflation.

 

[JimmyV]

And no, Jurassic Park was not obsolete because it has stood the test of time for over 20 years. Something Avatar has not done.

Jurassic Park was completely dead before the release of the most recent movie...except for its theme park treatment by Universal. So why shouldn't Avatar be given the same symbiotic treatment? The movies spawn the attractions and the attractions keep alive the interest in the movies.

 

[JimmyV]

If we're talking about building a land based solely on movie popularity, Disney better gear up for Gone With the Wind Land because it still holds the record as top box office hit when you include inflation.

For the same reason there is no Romeo and Juliet themed area or a Little Women themed area. Some long-lasting and beloved works simply do not translate to theme park treatment. (Although a Shakespeare Land could be kind of cool if done right.)

 

[AshleeH]

Jurassic Park was completely dead before the release of the most recent movie...except for its theme park treatment by Universal. So why shouldn't Avatar be given the same symbiotic treatment? The movies spawn the attractions and the attractions keep alive the interest in the movies.

I wouldn't say it was completely dead, since countless people who were born after it's release are fans - there is a current generation of children who still love it and are growing up with it. Avatar has not proven it can do that. That being said, I wouldn't make a theme park out of Jurassic either. I'm not overly impressed with what Universal has done with it.

For the same reason there is no Romeo and Juliet themed area or a Little Women themed area. Some long-lasting and beloved works simply do not translate to theme park treatment. (Although a Shakespeare Land could be kind of cool if done right.)

We agree on that - I would go to a Shakespeare Land, but we might be the only two there.

I do think Avatar Land will be visually stunning - and I will appreciate that it helps draw some crowds away from the other parks, so that's always a plus. I'm not one of those who needs to love every decision Disney makes, just because it's Disney - but I do think it's a financial risk (not that they can't afford to take that risk). It's not like Harry Potter opening at Universal when people were so excited and talking about it for years before it happened. If anything, the vast majority of hype for this has been negative from the very beginning when it was just rumors, while WWOHP seemed to be excitement for the majority.

But just because I'm not a fan doesn't mean it won't be a nice area (I'm not a fan of a lot of movies that are based on Disney rides or vice versa), but I'm not even a little bit excited about it. We'll go there once to see what it's like - if we like it, we'll make time to go there on future trips, but I have no expectations beyond assuming it will be a beautiful area to walk through.

In my perfect world, Disney would pay out the nose to reclaim their rights from Universal and create an entirely new and separate theme park based entirely on Marvel comics. I would practically bow down to that idea . Never gonna happen, but a girl can dream.

 

[JustCor]

The Star Trek rights are complicated. I believe there are a number of companies who currently have their hands on the franchise for various distribution rights, including Paramount (the majority of licensing), CBS, Bad Robot (merch for the new Trek), and I think Marvel has some connection through various comics that have been put out through the years. There may be others through the other projects that have popped up here and there, like the Star Trek Experience in Las Vegas and video game licensing. There have been stories that pop up every couple of years of attempts to do an all out Star Trek deal out in Las Vegas where the hotel/casino design would be a full scale replica of the Enterprise, with plans coming close but falling apart due to licensing issues with Paramount. Had the COO at the time not gotten cold feet, there's a good chance that the Enterprise would be there.

I think the difference between Star Wars and Avatar is that the first Star Wars was hugely influential across so much of the world in so many different areas. It changed the expectations for big summer blockbusters, it changed how merchandising was done, it greatly influenced a lot of the visual effects industry. It was far reaching in impact as well as appeal. Even in the interim between the first and second trilogy, there was always talk about what would be next, where the characters would go, how other plot lines would tie in, what new twists and turns there could be, and so on. The movies were bolstered by expanded universe books, comics, tv shows, and video games. The Universe of Star Wars continued to grow in spite of a lack of movies for 20 years. The interest was always there. I just don't see that kind of continued growth from Avatar. I think people are looking to see where the story goes, but the interest to grow it outside of Cameron's idea doesn't seem to be as active, so it feels less inclusive, which detracts from a big theme park experience. I agree that Lord of the Rings seems a better candidate, with more avenues of growth and a broader appeal. While I'm sure that they looked at overall box office gross in this decision, I think it doesn't speak to how well a movie would do as a theme park attraction. Titanic is next on that list of film gross, but it's, at best, a ride. Even ET, which had a much broader appeal across age groups than Avatar, probably wouldn't lend itself to anything beyond the dated ride it currently has, nor is there any clamoring for an ET expansion. A films total gross only gives an idea of what the people were into at the moment, and using that as the means to producing anything theme park related is risky. I'd almost be willing to wager that Doctor Who has finally reached a global saturation point to warrant an "experience" type theme park setting rather than Avatar just because of its 50+ years of broadcast, plus radio serials, and books. There's a wealth of story and interest beyond the show that grew outside of American interest before the current resurgence brought more fans. But that's an argument for another time and thread.

 

[alicat8]

I really don't think it's fair to compare Cars to Avatar. Cars is a kids' movie-kids see it and love it. Kids who've never seen it still know the cars and can appreciate the area. Cars is cutesy and happy. Avatar is not a kids' movie. It's really not even a very happy movie-I left it very impressed...and depressed. If they wanna up the happy in the sequels, I'd be more excited about AK. As much as I appreciate the conservation theme of AK, I don't really want to spend a third of my park day feeling sad about the fictional planet we're destroying in addition to our real one. I want dragons and unicorns!!!!!

 

[GeorgiaHoo]

Nope. Walked out of the movie halfway through, and I'm a huge Pixar/Star Wars/Marvel nerd type of guy. Avatar land is a pretty awful idea. About as good an idea as Kingdom of The Crystal Skull.

 

[Boo Bear]

I love the movie and I'm incredibly excited to see how it turns out.

 

[saskdw]

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.

Yes

 

[LOL!]

I think the entertainment offerings in the movie industry have been so lame the past few years that ANY familiar franchise offering is almost guaranteed success. Fast 'n' Furious, Jurassic, Spiderman/Batman/Avengers, and yes, Avatar are all potential blockbusters because most everything else pales.

Heck, even "Dumb and Dumber To" stole a weekend box office first place.

Personally, I'm just glad to see a new land in the works and hope it has a bit more substance than FLE turned out to have.

 

[aVASTGrl]

I thought Avatar was one of the worst movies I'd ever seen, and I still do. But I will admit it had some visually beautiful scenes that I know Disney will work wonders with, and I am excited to see what they do with it. I may not care about the film, but I'm always excited about a Park expansion!

 

[Colleen27]

I have mixed feelings. Frankly I though the movie stunk. It took me three tries to get all the way through it and I just was not impressed, it didn't in any way live up to the hype. Like others, I wish Disney would have put the money/time/effort into Star Wars (and Studios, which needs the love much more than AK did IMO) first. There's just so much more to draw from there in pretty much every way - characters, stories, settings, etc. - and so much more all-around potential.

However, the movie was visually interesting and if done right bringing the world to life could be pretty impressive. So I'm curious to see what they are able to do with it even though the movie holds no appeal for me at all. Blue people, meh. But the bio-luminescents and other effects could make for a very interesting setting.

 

[eyehartdisney]

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.

Can we talk about why it was so successful though? 3D movies were really just coming out to every movie theater back then, and this movie was the visual version of the base test at the beginning of movies. Sure, it's awesome to hear that, feel how deep the sound goes, but it's not something you'd put on your ipod. That being said, I can see why Disney grabbed it while it could. It's not going to be popular past the last of the trilogy (if it's popular at all for 2 and 3) but as a land, it will succeed for the same reasons that the first movie did, it's visually, jaw droppingly beautiful, and if they pull in fans, all the better for it.

 

[Tomh]

If Avatar is such a useless property, and bad gamble, then why is it that Universal was trying so hard to get it? If TWO of the biggest theme park operators in the world BOTH try to purchase the same intellectual property, wouldn't that in and of it's self be some kind of indication that perhaps it has some value in it?

 

[AshleeH]

Can we talk about why it was so successful though? 3D movies were really just coming out to every movie theater back then, and this movie was the visual version of the base test at the beginning of movies. Sure, it's awesome to hear that, feel how deep the sound goes, but it's not something you'd put on your ipod. That being said, I can see why Disney grabbed it while it could. It's not going to be popular past the last of the trilogy (if it's popular at all for 2 and 3) but as a land, it will succeed for the same reasons that the first movie did, it's visually, jaw droppingly beautiful, and if they pull in fans, all the better for it.

Cameron also demanded (within his scope) that it only play in 3D/Imax, where possible. He is very vocal about his desire that every movie (animation included) should be released in 3D - or he was at that time, I haven't heard him comment on it in the last year or two. Very few 2D versions were released, and only to those theaters that were not upgraded with digital projectors. My family owns a theater and we had upgraded to digital by this time - they told us we could play it in 3D or not at all. Being 3D, the higher ticket price came with it, which meant, by the numbers, more profits for the film company.

Don't be fooled - this was not a "Titanic" success. Titanic had so much repeat business that film companies actually came back and demanded more profits later in the run. This has never happened, to my knowledge, before or since. The film company keeps the majority of the box office profits opening weekend and with each subsequent week, the percentage that they collect drops little by little. With Titanic, which released in December, we were into April and still selling out every night. Being April, that meant we got to keep the majority of the profits because it had been playing for so many weeks and it was somewhere around a 80%/20% split in favor of the theaters. The film company did not hold to their own rules and threatened to pull all copies from any theater that did not hand over a certain higher percentage to them. That's the sign of a monster success (and a view as to how the film companies operate when something is out of their control).

This was not a problem with Avatar - it had a typical run, had a typical blockbuster sellout business that the Christmas/summer seasons usually draw, and might have run for a week longer than predicted, but was gone by February with no sellout after the first week or two. The first Harry Potter did more business eight years earlier - but ticket prices were several dollars lower and 3D was not in the mix. I have never worked a faster sellout than the first HP movie - we had four cashiers working opening night (this was before advanced ticket sales and online ticketing at our theater). We had a line around the block and it sold out in four minutes. I had never read the books, but went and bought the first book after my shift was over because I wanted to see what the fuss was about.

But back to Avatar, it was also released before 3D lost it's appeal - we try not to play it when possible these days. It's an afterthought for so many directors to film, that it's just not worth the hassle to play it because customers are disappointed in the quality or lack of actual effects.

 

[DatFan]

Loved the movie! And Yes, I am very excited!

 

[Davey Jones II]

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??

 

[JimmyV]

Don't be fooled - this was not a "Titanic" success. Titanic had so much repeat business that film companies actually came back and demanded more profits later in the run. This has never happened, to my knowledge, before or since.

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.