Maelstrom?

[101disneyfan]

Has anyone heard any rumors on a new Frozen dark ride attraction?

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Has anyone heard any rumors on a new Frozen dark ride attraction?

nope...
disney has all but given up on capitalizing on movies except the pixar brands in the parks....
several things:
1. movies are fairly hit or miss...they know that they will make a certain amount because its a disney animated but they cant predict for certain whether or not it will be a hit. Tangled had to be rewritten and looked DOA...but in the end it built the springboard that frozen is jumping off of...they thought for sure princess and the frog would be great...but missed (honestly, you could see that coming and disney puts blinders on with such things)
2. Why add lost dollars in construction for a movie that is a blip in time? Even if frozen is a mega smash...it will diminish its return shortly and they can just go back to status quo...which is a pretty obvious goal in the parks.
3. The tie-ins are always the same now and pathetic...flood the giftshops with crap/swag and peddle product. You can bet that those guns are blazing...

attraction dollars are lost dollars in this case...even in "exciting, new" draws to the parks...it is pretty much straight for PR. Disney is sparing at WDW...seems counterintuitive and they would deny it till the sun goes down...but they are also operating behind some pretty obvious smoke screens.

 

[skier_pete]

Disney will rarely tie-in a recent movie. They usually wait to determine long-term popularity. Think about it - it took almost 25 years to put in a Little Mermaid ride. Even something like Carsland in DCA was not started until Cars was well established as a marketing/sales behemoth.

So, I think there is little chance they tie-in the ride in the next 5 years - and only then if the popularity of the movie remains steady - a la continued merchandise sales.

 

[KYMickey]

Disney will rarely tie-in a recent movie.

This certainly used to be what they did but then they decided to build Avatar Land! That movie certainly hasn't proven that it has any long-term durability, as a matter of fact it's glamour is diminishing already to a large degree. While there are sequels in process there's no telling how they will do. Based on this, turning Maelstrom into something for the frozen movie isn't so far-fetched.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

This certainly used to be what they did but then they decided to build Avatar Land! That movie certainly hasn't proven that it has any long-term durability, as a matter of fact it's glamour is diminishing already to a large degree. While there are sequels in process there's no telling how they will do. Based on this, turning Maelstrom into something for the frozen movie isn't so far-fetched.

The main allure of avatar has been and continues to be that Cameron is splitting costs...
It's a "developement deal"... Not an acquisition or a licensing fee.
He splits costs... They give some take
Of the swag....all $81.50 worth that's gonna be sold each year.

For Disney it's obvious... It it's a huge hit they sit back, smile, take credit, and rake.

If it doesn't become a big, sustained draw... Whatever weasel is CFO or CEO in 5 years stands up at one of those doooche' podiums at an Investor conference blames Cameron... And points out that they didnt spend nearly the going rate of their own money for construction...

And goofy joe rhode jumps around and does more travel channel specials (like his failed 300 million dollar Everest) and acts like a dip.

House money.

But I have to feel that Disney privately has its finger on the kill switch still and they are nervous as heck.
The sequel movies aren't progressing and that makes the general fan indifference or criticism
Of this concept more Newtonian...even somebody else's money has to have a legitimate, semi-believable cover story or plausible deniability

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

The main allure of avatar has been and continues to be that Cameron is splitting costs...
It's a "developement deal"... Not an acquisition or a licensing fee.
He splits costs... They give some take
Of the swag....all $81.50 worth that's gonna be sold each year.

What is the basis for asserting that Disney and James Cameron are "splitting costs" on the development and construction or Pandora / Avatar Land at DAK? What would be the business case for James Cameron to sink a couple of hundred million dollars into a Disney theme park? Or am I reading lockedoutlogic's post wrong?

I have never heard that Disney's deal with Cameron is anything other than a licensing agreement for theme park rights for Avatar. Disney is paying big (although undisclosed) bucks for the theme park rights and for Cameron's creative input (and creative control). Disney's top executives are excited by how Avatar filled movie theater seats, and they think this will translate to theme park attendance.

The original press release had nothing about Cameron putting money into Disney theme parks: http://corporate.disney.go.com/news...DisneyParksandResorts/2011/092011_avatar.html

The reaction by Disney fans seem to fall into two categories: (1) "How could anyone think Avatar would make a good theme park land?" and (2) "With $400 million to spend, the Imagineers should be able to come up with something reasonably good, even if the IP is unexciting."

 

[lockedoutlogic]

The original announcement...if I remember correctly...

I will have to go back and read through it again.
This relationship is more like a Lucas/Disney partnership that Harry potter for a fee like universal if I remember correctly. But I'll double check.

Correction: avatar did fill the seats over one winter with no competition...and has been completely forgotten afterwards...
You're giving the "prize" too much credit

Ok...I just reread the release...
It doesn't give monetary figures on either side... But certainly doesn't rule it out. If Cameron - a notorious control freak - wants creative control...as indicated... Then they would extract funds in exchange. He's worth a fortune.

If he wants it simply as an advertisement for more movies... Then no.

OCD doesn't turn off though.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Investor articles published in October this year quote: "the parties have allocated 400 million to the project"

There's two in this tango.

Even if Cameron has agreed to contribute to operational costs (a la EPCOT), is providing yearly payments, or an upfront chunk that Disney will payback overtime...
It helps Disney defer costs and preserve today's profits. That's a win.

But even if I hadn't read it...I would have assumed that they were getting a price discount and that's why they brought in avatar. Didnt you? It's the only way it makes sense with a nut like Cameron.

They bought out the nut Lucas... But where
They could build anything with that...aren't doing a ting. New movie less than 2
Years away and they havent spent a dime on parks and have no prayer of getting anything up anywhere close... Which they seem to be in no hurry for:

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Correction: avatar did fill the seats over one winter with no competition...and has been completely forgotten afterwards...
You're giving the "prize" too much credit.

There's no need to "correct" me on this. I'm certainly not excited about expanding DAK based on Avatar IP, nor do I think Disney made a good business move in buying the theme park rights. I'm simply stating Iger and company were willing to pay for worldwide theme park rights because of Avatar's enormous box office numbers.

Investor articles published in October this year quote: "the parties have allocated 400 million to the project"

I haven't seen any credible business articles that discuss business terms by which James Cameron in sinking his own money into Disney theme parks (beginning with DAK). All indications are that Disney's Avatar deal with Cameron is along the lines of Universal's deals for Marvel, Dr. Seuss, and Harry Potter.

There are plenty of articles about how Disney and Cameron are collaborating (or how they "teamed up"), but it's always about the creative collaboration made possible by Disney buying the worldwide theme park rights.

I would welcome any links to articles that provide an overview of the business terms of the Disney-Cameron deal.

Even if Cameron has agreed to contribute to operational costs (a la EPCOT), is providing yearly payments, or an upfront chunk that Disney will payback overtime...
It helps Disney defer costs and preserve today's profits. That's a win.

Why would Cameron want to "contribute to operational costs" when the admission revenue all goes to Disney? This isn't like Chevrolet sponsoring Test Track to promote Chevrolet cars to Disney guests. I also can't see The Walt Disney Company effectively borrowing money from James Cameron.

 

[ErinTwinmom]

If I were to guess how disney was going to tie frozen to maelstrom I would guess that disney will change nothing except to add some of the trolls from frozen to the original ride.

 

[lorenni]

Maelstrom is a pretty lackluster ride - I've skipped it for years now - and it wouldn't be that hard to rework the trolls/ scenery a bit to wrap in frozen. Not like building a new ride and might actually get some folks ON the ride!

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Horace,

I guess I'm just not reading this development the way you are...i have seen no evidence that Disney is simply pimping out this "great IP" from Cameron. Possibly because it doesn't exist. If you read it as a mutually beneficial thing... Which is what both parties are after... Then shared development costs make alot of business sense.

Disney is taking a bit of a flyer to help a weak park...and Cameron is desperately trying to create a "franchise" that right now doesn't exist in almost any form.

I also differ in your assessment that Cameron isn't selling cars like GM has tried to. That's exactly what he's trying to do... He's attempting to create a global franchise similar to Star Wars because he's in love with this idea... And it's a hard sell. He needs to do "drastic" things.

 

[Evansvillegirl26]

Not that this is the best source but: http://perezhilton.com/2014-01-03-disney-frozen-attraction-epcot-walt-disney-world-disneyland/?from=readmore_perezhilton&more=yes#more-409189

I'll miss "you are not the first to pass this cave" but... I LOVE Frozen!.

 

[twebber55]

What is the basis for asserting that Disney and James Cameron are "splitting costs" on the development and construction or Pandora / Avatar Land at DAK? What would be the business case for James Cameron to sink a couple of hundred million dollars into a Disney theme park? Or am I reading lockedoutlogic's post wrong?

I have never heard that Disney's deal with Cameron is anything other than a licensing agreement for theme park rights for Avatar. Disney is paying big (although undisclosed) bucks for the theme park rights and for Cameron's creative input (and creative control). Disney's top executives are excited by how Avatar filled movie theater seats, and they think this will translate to theme park attendance.

The original press release had nothing about Cameron putting money into Disney theme parks: http://corporate.disney.go.com/news...DisneyParksandResorts/2011/092011_avatar.html

The reaction by Disney fans seem to fall into two categories: (1) "How could anyone think Avatar would make a good theme park land?" and (2) "With $400 million to spend, the Imagineers should be able to come up with something reasonably good, even if the IP is unexciting."

They re not splitting the cost...in fact insiders on magic have totally scoffed at this notion that Cameron is splitting the cost

Disney is footing the bill on this

 

[lockedoutlogic]

They re not splitting the cost...in fact insiders on magic have totally scoffed at this notion that Cameron is splitting the cost

Disney is footing the bill on this

Oh do tell...

Who are these "insiders"? Is it that rascally Jason again?

The fact is we don't know. My hunch is Cameron is contributing financially in some capacity...to what degree nobody would really know again. Theory

He's even crazier than Lucas as far as control of "his toys". And he has the money to do it. It's not like we're talking about gore verbinski.

My theory... And it is just that...is that this is more than leasing IP.

Cameron supposedly spent ten years developing that movie and a fortune. It made a billion bucks and I'm sure he felt like "the king of the WOORRRLLD!!!"

But we're about five years out and he can't seem to get traction on this worldwide dominating phenomenon...he's desperate.

Disney has animal kingdom and the bills must be staggering...elephants don't stop eating because park attendance is stale and the swag doesn't sell all day in the giftshops...
Wanting crowds but wanting them as cheaply as possible.

Mutually assured desperation

I'm just putting out a theory...I'm probably wrong.
But when I heard the announcement that Cameron had hooked up with Disney at animal kingdom and and it was avatar (and I had to google it to remember what avatar was)...it smelled of more angles at work than your average diamond cutter on 47th street in manhattan.

It's all too convenient... It doesn't pass the "face value" test...that Disney is "buying" James Cameron...that has never been printed in plain English either...all vague references.

Disney is extremely measured in its pennies in Orlando these days...magic kingdom just had an elaborate tinker job... Their last E ticket is not tremendously impressive (broken...actually) and last major gate turner is going on 6 years old. They first torpedoed their giftshop outdoor mall... Intentionally... And now are concentrating five years of time to rip it apart from the ground up to put in an Apple Store and a Cheesecake Factory...only timeshares have carte Blanche.

Analytical and calculating inside the Trojan horse of "magic"...that's the SOP for the "flagship"

Do you guys seriously think that Disney said "we'll show them... We'll buy avatar"...or that they're in love with the marketing potential?Reception of this has been pretty putrid... We must admit that?

More going on here...this isn't muppet vision or the tower of terror...and buy the way, Mickey Mouse and the Disney name are hand in hand 85 years old and grew when the world was alot smaller...lets not belittle their place as anecdotal quip...it's not a good or legitimate comparison.

 

[SpfAkf]

I read this today that someone posted and it seems it could have some truth. I can see a change in Norway. Very out dated. I see it being something simple and nothing major as far as rehab. It could be something like they did for the Mexico boat ride.

FROZEN-Themed Attraction Heading to EPCOT's Norway Pavilion?

January 3, 2014

by Movies News Desk

FROZEN, Walt Disney Animation


Pull on your snow boots and zip up your parkas! It looks like an all-new attraction based on Disney's hit animated film FROZEN, now in theaters, is heading to EPCOT's Norway Pavilion in Disneyworld, according to Moviefone.com.

The film, tells the story of fearless optimist Anna (voice of Kristen Bell) who sets off on an epic journey-teaming up with rugged mountain man Kristoff (voice of Jonathan Groff) and his loyal reindeer Sven-to find her sister Elsa (voice ofIdina Menzel), whose icy powers have trapped the kingdom of Arendelle in eternal winter. Encountering Everest-like conditions, mystical trolls and a hilarious snowman named Olaf (voice of Josh Gad), Anna and Kristoff battle the elements in a race to save the kingdom.

Surpassing the $500 million mark worldwide last month, Frozen held its number one box office spot on New Year's Day, bringing in $8.7 million for a six-week total of $271.9 million.

Yesterday, Disney historian Jim Hill, appearing on the Disney Dish Podcast, shared what Disney had in store for a planned "Frozen," attraction at the Norway pavilion of Florida's EPCOT, a logical setting for the Nordic-themed film.

"They're already looking at 2014/2015 and where does that fit into our holiday plans," explained Hill. Hinting that days might be numbered for the present Norway attraction, the Maelstrom boat ride, Hill suggested, "Those of you who love the Maelstrom might want to go visit it."

He continued, "Disney's not going to make the mistake they made with "The Little Mermaid" again. They're not going to wait 20 years to get a ride," Hill said, referring to the Ariel's Undersea Adventure attraction which opened more than 20 years after "The Little Mermaid" debuted in theaters.

Commenting on the proposed time table for the new attraction, Hill said, "There will be something in the next 18 months. Supposedly there's something larger in the works for Disneyland but that's in line behind the Marvel and the 'Star Wars' stuff."


Read more about FROZEN-Themed Attraction Heading to EPCOT's Norway Pavillion? - BWWMoviesWorld by www.broadwayworld.com

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Hmmmm...it sounds great...and makes a lot of sense.

But jim hill is notorious wrong with his "facts"...long rap sheet there.

Disney has a long history of adding/ retheming rides in the showcase at EPCOT.
If you count the Donald Duck overlay on the Mexican boat ride... They've done it exactly 1 time since the last pavillion opened 26 years ago.

 

[twebber55]

Oh do tell...

Who are these "insiders"? Is it that rascally Jason again?

The fact is we don't know. My hunch is Cameron is contributing financially in some capacity...to what degree nobody would really know again. Theory

He's even crazier than Lucas as far as control of "his toys". And he has the money to do it. It's not like we're talking about gore verbinski.

My theory... And it is just that...is that this is more than leasing IP.

Cameron supposedly spent ten years developing that movie and a fortune. It made a billion bucks and I'm sure he felt like "the king of the WOORRRLLD!!!"

But we're about five years out and he can't seem to get traction on this worldwide dominating phenomenon...he's desperate.

Disney has animal kingdom and the bills must be staggering...elephants don't stop eating because park attendance is stale and the swag doesn't sell all day in the giftshops...
Wanting crowds but wanting them as cheaply as possible.

Mutually assured desperation

I'm just putting out a theory...I'm probably wrong.
But when I heard the announcement that Cameron had hooked up with Disney at animal kingdom and and it was avatar (and I had to google it to remember what avatar was)...it smelled of more angles at work than your average diamond cutter on 47th street in manhattan.

It's all too convenient... It doesn't pass the "face value" test...that Disney is "buying" James Cameron...that has never been printed in plain English either...all vague references.

Disney is extremely measured in its pennies in Orlando these days...magic kingdom just had an elaborate tinker job... Their last E ticket is not tremendously impressive (broken...actually) and last major gate turner is going on 6 years old. They first torpedoed their giftshop outdoor mall... Intentionally... And now are concentrating five years of time to rip it apart from the ground up to put in an Apple Store and a Cheesecake Factory...only timeshares have carte Blanche.

Analytical and calculating inside the Trojan horse of "magic"...that's the SOP for the "flagship"

Do you guys seriously think that Disney said "we'll show them... We'll buy avatar"...or that they're in love with the marketing potential?Reception of this has been pretty putrid... We must admit that?

More going on here...this isn't muppet vision or the tower of terror...and buy the way, Mickey Mouse and the Disney name are hand in hand 85 years old and grew when the world was alot smaller...lets not belittle their place as anecdotal quip...it's not a good or legitimate comparison.

uh I don't know who Jason is?
but you ought to try wdwmagic...pretty well known for insider info
you should try the simplest solution....Bob and Tom looked at this collaboration with James and decided that avatar would be a great fit for animal kingdom
'
im still trying to figure out this outrage over avatar coming to DAK..what the 12 people on this board...go check out the video with Cameron and Joe Rohde on you tube...over 200 000 views...read the comments 1050 likes to 50 dislikes come on.....
you may be right about Cameron paying money although youre the only one on any Disney message board who thinks this that I ve read

for the record im not a huge Cameron fan and I probably disagree ith most of his views, but in my opinion you guys way underrate this movie...not that its star wars which nobody says it is but can translate to a nice theme park addition

and when the next movie makes a billion plus........

question, whats your view on Cars Land?

 

[twebber55]

apologies for taking the avatar discussion to this thread

 

[Yellowstonetim]

Interesting to think what could be done with Maelstrom to make it Frozen, and make it new and fun. Any ideas?

However, I have doubts about the story and how much they would change Maelstrom. The ride is fun and all about Norway. Why would Norway want their main attraction changed drastically? Unless, they are just going to add some Frozen references to the existing ride which seems far more likely. In which case, it won't be any big deal. An ice castle in the background somewhere, Olaf, Sven, Anna, and Elsa stuck in here or there for kids to pick out.

But then, Maybe a whole makeover would be popular...