News Round Up 2016

[twebber55]

Old data... Frozen passed it.

They should do a land in Epcot dedicated to Frozen. Or something.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Frozen-(2013)#tab=summary

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Avatar#tab=summary

 

[twebber55]

Does that include all the copies of Avatar that were sold with 3D blu-ray players? That's the only reason we have a copy, it came "free" with our player. I've never even watched it.

EDIT: Oops, I see eXo beat me to it.

see my post above
im not saying its the greatest thing ever (i never saw it in the theater) but dismissing its 2.8 billion while praising zootopias 1 billion just seems a bit odd

 

[twebber55]

If you are saying Universal wants to compete for the 0-6 year old crowd, I will agree you are probably correct and the answer is they have shown little to no interest.

However, I think we aren't in agreement with markets. I think Universal is going for the 7+ crowd - and succeeding. They are not doing much to pursue the little ones, although that is one of the fastest and easiest markets to cover.

The truth is only MK covers the "little ones" anyways. I'm sure Universal would be glad to give up an MK day and then go toe to toe with the other 3 parks. They'd smoke them. The strategy appears to be make Universal the home base, appeal to the 7+ crowd. Those with mixed families can split the time - throw in an MK day and then spend 3-4 days at Universal.

we just got back from a 3 night stay at Universal (we re dvc members) and my 17 year old and 13 year old both loved universal saying they like it better than disney

 

[Budshark]

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Frozen-(2013)#tab=summary

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Avatar#tab=summary

From the same site:
http://www.the-numbers.com/alltime-bluray-sales-chart

Frozen #1 in units, Avatar #1 in $s (although $s is a weird calculated number which is why there is a difference.)

 

[twebber55]

That site is not showing data past 06/2014. Its old data.

gotcha thanks
i still think the point stands obviously we disagree

 

[twebber55]

From the same site:
http://www.the-numbers.com/alltime-bluray-sales-chart

Frozen #1 in units, Avatar #1 in $s (although $s is a weird calculated number which is why there is a difference.)

i guess that means the Avatar DVD cost more?

 

[rteetz]

i guess that means the Avatar DVD cost more?

I'm guessing more 3D blu-rays were sold which is usually more expensive.

 

[mikepizzo]

That's apples / oranges. Avatars numbers includes home release, a much longer time on the market, and the fact it was centered around a very strong 3D gimmick. Even if you didn't care for the movie, it was worth seeing for the technology. That doesn't translate into a future for the series.

Tell me about how successful Avatar is when the second movie comes out. That will be the true test of if people care about that franchise when 3D is no longer the buy-in gimmick.

The short of it is Avatar is one dimensional currently. It's a tribe that loves their planet and boo to the evil corporate giants. I'm *very* curious how they are going to drag that out into 4 simultaneously filmed sequels and maintain *any* interest without also devaluing the brand.

Too lazy to look for a previous post I had, but I remember saying that I think Avatar can be successful if each movie has it's own "gimmick". First one was the spectacular 3D. Seems like the second one is going to have a lot of underwater filming and high frame-rate. (Side note - I heard the HFR wasn't really that great for the Hobbit, but who knows if it will be the same for Avatar 2).

This may sound dumb, but to me it's almost like Cameron is accepting water downed stories in the name of advancing the technology of film. I mean, I hope I'm proven wrong with Avatar 2. I hope it has both great visuals and an enthralling story, but who knows.

If the movies are basically just gimmick after gimmick, would that equate to staying power? Probably not from a film point of view, but as others have said, it probably will give some great material to work in if an expansion was ever on the table.

I guess time will tell!

 

[rteetz]

News

Interesting read on the workers who built Shanghai Disneyland

http://www.sixthtone.com/news/shanghai-disney-land-left-behind-dreams?platform=hootsuite

 

[rteetz]

Photo update

Citywalk update

http://www.orlandoparksnews.com/2016/06/citywalk-update-new-chocolate-emporium.html

 

[WooPigScientist]

From the same site:
http://www.the-numbers.com/alltime-bluray-sales-chart

Frozen #1 in units, Avatar #1 in $s (although $s is a weird calculated number which is why there is a difference.)

Interesting to see some of the movies on this list - thanks for posting! I know the point wasn't the rest of the list, but I enjoyed looking it over. I was surprised at some of the older Disney (Little Mermaid, Beauty & Beast, etc), but I guess those are recent vault releases, so makes sense.

Duck hunt was one of the highest selling NES games, but hardly anyone has it on their "best of list". It got that status by being packed in with a ton of systems.

Hey, I liked Duck Hunt!

 

[Rommie]

Wait, there are such things as "avatar fans"?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bagging on the movie. I thought it was perfectly fine and the best use of 3D cameras to date (at the time of release). But between the fact it came out 7 years ago and ultimately, it's just blue people living in the jungle fighting "the man"... well, I guess it's hard for me to understand where fandom exists in that. Movies like LOTR and HP have huge casts of unique characters based in a world with deep folklore and history. Did any of the Pandorians actually have backstories? Maybe it's more my fault than the movies, but all I remember is Ridley and a dude in a wheelchair jacking into blue bodies and learning the ways of the tribesman. It was great throw away fun, but not exactly a deep world full of history and interest.

After watching Zootopia the other day I pictured Iger kicking himself in the butt for not developing that property sooner and building that instead of Pandora. Not only would they have owned it 100%, but it has a lot more potential for storyline exploration.

Dinoland could always use an overhaul though.... Or heck, just rename EPCOT to EPZOT, Experimental Prototype Zootopia of Tomorrow

I agree with you that probably going for Avatar wasn't the best idea, and I'm not a huge Avatar fan. I liked the movie, but I have a history of liking all of Cameron's movies very much, so taking that into account, it should have amazed me, and still it didn't. But in the end, I believe most Disney park goers top priority is good themeing, and Avatar seems to excel at that. And I also believe that Disney already knew they would build Star Wars land by then, and that IP is just a license to print money, so they weren't afraid to pick Avatar and lose money. With Avatar, they just opted for the best theme to fit in a problematic park, AK. I don't think they visioned the land as a billion dollar success.

 

[beer dave]

Too lazy to look for a previous post I had, but I remember saying that I think Avatar can be successful if each movie has it's own "gimmick". First one was the spectacular 3D. Seems like the second one is going to have a lot of underwater filming and high frame-rate. (Side note - I heard the HFR wasn't really that great for the Hobbit, but who knows if it will be the same for Avatar 2).

This may sound dumb, but to me it's almost like Cameron is accepting water downed stories in the name of advancing the technology of film. I mean, I hope I'm proven wrong with Avatar 2. I hope it has both great visuals and an enthralling story, but who knows.

If the movies are basically just gimmick after gimmick, would that equate to staying power? Probably not from a film point of view, but as others have said, it probably will give some great material to work in if an expansion was ever on the table.

I guess time will tell!

Gimmick-- changing from black and white to (I think) the first color film-- Wizard of Oz-- anyone heard of it?

 

[crazy4wdw]

Disney CEO: US taxes are 'too high' and 'ridiculously complex'

http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/09/news/disney-ceo-bob-iger-taxes/index.html

 

[mikepizzo]

Gimmick-- changing from black and white to (I think) the first color film-- Wizard of Oz-- anyone heard of it?

If an attempt/innovation doesn't catch on, doesn't it make it a gimmick?

They tried the 36 fps with The Hobbit and from what I remember reading that was very poorly received.

Maybe gimmick was the wrong word, I think a lot of people will "forgive" a bland story if there is some sort of technological draw.

 

[beer dave]

If an attempt/innovation doesn't catch on, doesn't it make it a gimmick?

They tried the 36 fps with The Hobbit and from what I remember reading that was very poorly received.

Maybe gimmick was the wrong word, I think a lot of people will "forgive" a bland story if there is some sort of technological draw.

I'm good with gimmick...
I don't think catching on is a criteria for gimmick-- just something out of the ordinary or innovative that makes the film (in this instance), stand out...

How good of a story is Oz? Not sure. Hard to judge. But many the elements were based on color-- ruby slippers, emerald city, horse of a different color... couldn't have worked with out the gimmick...

I guess I am saying that I think a good gimmick can carry a film pretty far...

 

[twebber55]

If an attempt/innovation doesn't catch on, doesn't it make it a gimmick?

They tried the 36 fps with The Hobbit and from what I remember reading that was very poorly received.

Maybe gimmick was the wrong word, I think a lot of people will "forgive" a bland story if there is some sort of technological draw.

Gimmick in this case is "i dont understand why people liked it, it must of been the 3D"
of course Avatars % of 3D money was similar to what the Avengers made in 3D money
Of course IMAX helped a lot for this movie but i dont recall anyone saying how much IMAX helped The Force Awakens
http://www.imax.com/content/imax-sc...ox-office-star-wars-force-awakens-grossing-48

the bottom line is (and im guilty of this as well) people have a bias and try to fit a narrative around that bias. "I dont like avatar so i ll come up with excuses why it was successful." sorry about the thread drift this was not supposed to be about avatar but more about comparing it to Zootopia, both fit DAK but because of Avatars deep themes of conservation and living in harmony with nature i see it as a better fit and a much easier adaptation to a theme park. I leave with this story, listening to Jim Hill the other day he mentioned a friend of his worked for Dsiney who got a tour of the Avatar site. This person claimed they did not like the movie but when they walked through the area they said it was the best work they ve seen Disney do and that is what we can ask Disney to do. IPs are overrated execution is far more important. Sorry for the ramble any further discussion any one wants to have with me on this topic you can pm me

 

[eXo]

Gather round kiddies, it's time for another edition of eXo writes a book.

This may sound dumb, but to me it's almost like Cameron is accepting water downed stories in the name of advancing the technology of film. I mean, I hope I'm proven wrong with Avatar 2. I hope it has both great visuals and an enthralling story, but who knows.

If the movies are basically just gimmick after gimmick, would that equate to staying power? Probably not from a film point of view, but as others have said, it probably will give some great material to work in if an expansion was ever on the table.

I guess time will tell!

Cameron is smart enough to know that the most timeless stories are the simplest. And the simplest stories have been told time and time again, with small tweaks to the settings, characters, etc. I'm sure we all remember the first avatar being called Dances with Wolves in space. The story of a outsider understanding the ways of a previously misunderstood people/culture has been told time and time again. This time it just had hair sex, dragons, and glowing mushrooms.

It was really smart for him to pair his new technology with a tried and true story format. Otherwise he ran the risk of torpedoing his new 3D tech with a bad story.

Gimmick-- changing from black and white to (I think) the first color film-- Wizard of Oz-- anyone heard of it?

You might be understating the quality of the movie itself though. Sure, color was a huge "gimmick" in that movie. But that doesn't explain why it remains hugely popular, or why so many little girls go through Wizard of Oz phases and want to be Dorothy. It had great music, costumes, and acting - and still does, to this day.

Avatar literally just has it's technology. There are no broadway quality musical numbers hidden in there or Oscar worthy performances. Kid's won't be popping copies of Avatar into their holodecks in 30 years and wishing they were Jake Sully. Comparing those two ignores a *lot* of factors.

If an attempt/innovation doesn't catch on, doesn't it make it a gimmick?

They tried the 36 fps with The Hobbit and from what I remember reading that was very poorly received.

Maybe gimmick was the wrong word, I think a lot of people will "forgive" a bland story if there is some sort of technological draw.

I agree completely. Give someone a familiar archetypal story and frame it in something new and shiny, and you have a hit. The problem is Cameron is talking 5 sequels all filmed at the same time. There is no way he pioneers 4 huge technological advancements in filming at the same time. Not only that, but they are bringing back basically every character from the first movie under the guise of "in Sci-Fi, no one really dies". It is going to take some compelling story telling to convince movie goers that they want to see the exact same people (crazy marine general, hippy scientist, name-your-stereotype...) across 4 more movies.

If you look at other series that go 5 movies deep, it requires a very strong "quest-like" feel. Or you go with something chronological, like the years the Potter kids spent in school, while simultaneously fleshing out a larger story.

The challenge here is not simply keeping people interested or even getting great reviews. It is releasing all of these movies without souring people on the base property. Disney has a whole world based on this stuff opening up. Others here have admitted that what they find most interesting is the world itself, not the characters or the story. Well... once you've seen that world... you've seen it. There is no merchandising or costumes to be sold in that (unless they start selling bioluminescent mushrooms or something). For Pandora at AK to be successful, it really needs to be more than a beautiful sci-fi nature stroll. They need characters that kids and adults can relate to and enjoy. I'm sure the floating islands and glowing plants are going to look spectacular. But that alone can't carry an entire land. The crux of Disney's business is selling people on characters. Right now, Avatar is going to be their "faceless" land. I'm not saying it's going to fail miserably. I'm simply pointing out that the investment and time they have put into this expansion requires the area to remain relevant for more than a few years. And it's my humble opinion that the scenery itself isn't enough to do that.

Gimmick in this case is "i dont understand why people liked it, it must of been the 3D"
of course Avatars % of 3D money was similar to what the Avengers made in 3D money
Of course IMAX helped a lot for this movie but i dont recall anyone saying how much IMAX helped The Force Awakens
http://www.imax.com/content/imax-sc...ox-office-star-wars-force-awakens-grossing-48

the bottom line is (and im guilty of this as well) people have a bias and try to fit a narrative around that bias. "I dont like avatar so i ll come up with excuses why it was successful." sorry about the thread drift this was not supposed to be about avatar but more about comparing it to Zootopia, both fit DAK but because of Avatars deep themes of conservation and living in harmony with nature i see it as a better fit and a much easier adaptation to a theme park.

Ya, your bias is showing strongly, as you have huge assumptions as to what I meant when I wrote that. At no time did I say Zootopia was a better movie. At no time did I say I didn't understand why people liked Avatar. All I showed was surprises that anyone would consider themselves a "Avatar fan" 7 years after a movie was released. There are very few movies that have the depth of story and character to illicit fandom based on a single theatrical release and no supporting story lines to keep the concept fresh.

First off, Avatar redefined 3D movies were in 2009. There was a resurgence in theater attendance based solely on this. The poster child for 3D movies in theaters was Avatar. Your acting like I just arbitrarily picked Avatar and pretended that 3D was a boost to it. Do you really not remember the state of things back then? Are you really not aware the movie was packed in with every Panasonic 3D blu-ray player when they first came out? And the only other way to play 3D blu rays at the time was through a software update to the ps3. So if you didn't have a playstation, and you wanted a 3D bluray player, for over a year, you got a copy of Avatar with your player whether you wanted it or not.

Now, since you think I'm just making up the link between Avatar and 3D, here is the evidence.

Put on your 3D goggles, we're going in:

Gizmag - James Cameron's Avatar in IMAX 3D: a mind blowing glimpse into tomorrow's cinema (yea, 3D really took off, didn't it)
Dec 17th, 2009
"he [Cameron] had to evangelize the very concept of 3D to a cinema world that had dismissed 3D as a cheesy relic of the 1950s."
"The visuals are far and away the most staggering thing I've ever witnessed, and the use of 3D adds immeasurably, transporting you into each scene in a way that simply redefines immersion."
"The characters and some of the dialogue have a fairly strong whiff of cheese and ham about them, the plot gets a little obvious and the environmental/harmony with nature message could be seen as preachy, but the overall experience of this movie had me gasping in pure awe."

CNN - Avatar Review: IMAX 3D scores big
Dec 17th, 2009
"AVATAR has advanced 3D filmmaking."
"Seeing this on an IMAX in 3D is an almost Zen experience. "Transported" is a another word that comes to mind."
"AVATAR in IMAX 3D is awe inspiring. The 3D effects take some getting used to, but before long you forget you're even watching in 3D. There are no blatant, "IN YOUR FACE!" "My Bloody Valentine moments, rather instead a depth of field that draws the viewer into the action and into the jungles of Pandora."
"If you're expecting the next "Citizen Kane," you'll be disappointed, but AVATAR succeeds tremendously in being a must-see piece of filmed entertainment. Especially in 3D"

Popular Mechanics: 10 Best 3D Movies on BluRay to watch at home
#1 - Avatar

Cinemablend - 3D or Not to 3D:
"...which many of you will remember as the time when Avatar completely blew up at the box office and made 3D the new “it” thing in Hollywood."
"I have watched dozens of 3D movies in this same theater, including Avatar 12 times!"

I could keep going, but all you have to do is go back and read *any* review of Avatar from it's release and you'll see the exact same sentiments. You don't understand why I am saying 3D was a huge reason for Avatar's box office numbers? Then you have blanked on the state of the movie industry 7 years ago.

You can't write my statement off as simply as claiming I don't get the movie and I'm blaming it's success on a "gimmick". Every single bloody review stated that this was a new era of cinema. Ever single review stated this was ground breaking 3D. People who don't give a crap about Sci-Fi went to see this just to see what all the hub bub was about. And the under current in a good chunk of the reviews is that the movie is as cheeseball as it gets in Sci-Fi, but that IT DIDN'T MATTER because the 3D technology was so amazing.

When reviewers are telling people to see a movie despite it being cheesy simply for the 3D effects, then your argument about me a trying to come up with "excuses" goes right out the window.

Avatar defined 3D. Avatar kicked off the 3D movie craze. Unfortunately, many companies (especially Disney) took the cheap post processing route instead of actually filming with 3D camera rigs, and the difference is night and day. Post processing feels like a shallow puppet show. Discussing Avatar without mentioning how it changed the 3D landscape or discussing it's box offices numbers without taking into consideration how 3D affected that is divorcing the movie from the very thing that defined it.

Did I say Zootopia should have replaced Avatar? No. I said I could see Iger kicking himself in the pants. Why? Because it is much more lucrative to OWN the property you are building a land based on versus leasing it (just ask Universal how much more cash they'd be making if a chunk of it wasn't running out the door to HP licensing fees). Did I say Avatar was a bad movie? No. Did I say I don't understand why it wasn't popular? No. The amount of assumption in your responses to me is epic.

 

[twebber55]

Gather round kiddies, it's time for another edition of eXo writes a book.



Cameron is smart enough to know that the most timeless stories are the simplest. And the simplest stories have been told time and time again, with small tweaks to the settings, characters, etc. I'm sure we all remember the first avatar being called Dances with Wolves in space. The story of a outsider understanding the ways of a previously misunderstood people/culture has been told time and time again. This time it just had hair sex, dragons, and glowing mushrooms.

It was really smart for him to pair his new technology with a tried and true story format. Otherwise he ran the risk of torpedoing his new 3D tech with a bad story.



You might be understating the quality of the movie itself though. Sure, color was a huge "gimmick" in that movie. But that doesn't explain why it remains hugely popular, or why so many little girls go through Wizard of Oz phases and want to be Dorothy. It had great music, costumes, and acting - and still does, to this day.

Avatar literally just has it's technology. There are no broadway quality musical numbers hidden in there or Oscar worthy performances. Kid's won't be popping copies of Avatar into their holodecks in 30 years and wishing they were Jake Sully. Comparing those two ignores a *lot* of factors.



I agree completely. Give someone a familiar archetypal story and frame it in something new and shiny, and you have a hit. The problem is Cameron is talking 5 sequels all filmed at the same time. There is no way he pioneers 4 huge technological advancements in filming at the same time. Not only that, but they are bringing back basically every character from the first movie under the guise of "in Sci-Fi, no one really dies". It is going to take some compelling story telling to convince movie goers that they want to see the exact same people (crazy marine general, hippy scientist, name-your-stereotype...) across 4 more movies.

If you look at other series that go 5 movies deep, it requires a very strong "quest-like" feel. Or you go with something chronological, like the years the Potter kids spent in school, while simultaneously fleshing out a larger story.

The challenge here is not simply keeping people interested or even getting great reviews. It is releasing all of these movies without souring people on the base property. Disney has a whole world based on this stuff opening up. Others here have admitted that what they find most interesting is the world itself, not the characters or the story. Well... once you've seen that world... you've seen it. There is no merchandising or costumes to be sold in that (unless they start selling bioluminescent mushrooms or something). For Pandora at AK to be successful, it really needs to be more than a beautiful sci-fi nature stroll. They need characters that kids and adults can relate to and enjoy. I'm sure the floating islands and glowing plants are going to look spectacular. But that alone can't carry an entire land. The crux of Disney's business is selling people on characters. Right now, Avatar is going to be their "faceless" land. I'm not saying it's going to fail miserably. I'm simply pointing out that the investment and time they have put into this expansion requires the area to remain relevant for more than a few years. And it's my humble opinion that the scenery itself isn't enough to do that.



Ya, your bias is showing strongly, as you have huge assumptions as to what I meant when I wrote that. At no time did I say Zootopia was a better movie. At no time did I say I didn't understand why people liked Avatar. All I showed was surprises that anyone would consider themselves a "Avatar fan" 7 years after a movie was released. There are very few movies that have the depth of story and character to illicit fandom based on a single theatrical release and no supporting story lines to keep the concept fresh.

First off, Avatar redefined 3D movies were in 2009. There was a resurgence in theater attendance based solely on this. The poster child for 3D movies in theaters was Avatar. Your acting like I just arbitrarily picked Avatar and pretended that 3D was a boost to it. Do you really not remember the state of things back then? Are you really not aware the movie was packed in with every Panasonic 3D blu-ray player when they first came out? And the only other way to play 3D blu rays at the time was through a software update to the ps3. So if you didn't have a playstation, and you wanted a 3D bluray player, for over a year, you got a copy of Avatar with your player whether you wanted it or not.

Now, since you think I'm just making up the link between Avatar and 3D, here is the evidence.

Put on your 3D goggles, we're going in:

Gizmag - James Cameron's Avatar in IMAX 3D: a mind blowing glimpse into tomorrow's cinema (yea, 3D really took off, didn't it)
Dec 17th, 2009
"he [Cameron] had to evangelize the very concept of 3D to a cinema world that had dismissed 3D as a cheesy relic of the 1950s."
"The visuals are far and away the most staggering thing I've ever witnessed, and the use of 3D adds immeasurably, transporting you into each scene in a way that simply redefines immersion."
"The characters and some of the dialogue have a fairly strong whiff of cheese and ham about them, the plot gets a little obvious and the environmental/harmony with nature message could be seen as preachy, but the overall experience of this movie had me gasping in pure awe."

CNN - Avatar Review: IMAX 3D scores big
Dec 17th, 2009
"AVATAR has advanced 3D filmmaking."
"Seeing this on an IMAX in 3D is an almost Zen experience. "Transported" is a another word that comes to mind."
"AVATAR in IMAX 3D is awe inspiring. The 3D effects take some getting used to, but before long you forget you're even watching in 3D. There are no blatant, "IN YOUR FACE!" "My Bloody Valentine moments, rather instead a depth of field that draws the viewer into the action and into the jungles of Pandora."
"If you're expecting the next "Citizen Kane," you'll be disappointed, but AVATAR succeeds tremendously in being a must-see piece of filmed entertainment. Especially in 3D"

Popular Mechanics: 10 Best 3D Movies on BluRay to watch at home
#1 - Avatar

Cinemablend - 3D or Not to 3D:
"...which many of you will remember as the time when Avatar completely blew up at the box office and made 3D the new “it” thing in Hollywood."
"I have watched dozens of 3D movies in this same theater, including Avatar 12 times!"

I could keep going, but all you have to do is go back and read *any* review of Avatar from it's release and you'll see the exact same sentiments. You don't understand why I am saying 3D was a huge reason for Avatar's box office numbers? Then you have blanked on the state of the movie industry 7 years ago.

You can't write my statement off as simply as claiming I don't get the movie and I'm blaming it's success on a "gimmick". Every single bloody review stated that this was a new era of cinema. Ever single review stated this was ground breaking 3D. People who don't give a crap about Sci-Fi went to see this just to see what all the hub bub was about. And the under current in a good chunk of the reviews is that the movie is as cheeseball as it gets in Sci-Fi, but that IT DIDN'T MATTER because the 3D technology was so amazing.

When reviewers are telling people to see a movie despite it being cheesy simply for the 3D effects, then your argument about me a trying to come up with "excuses" goes right out the window.

Avatar defined 3D. Avatar kicked off the 3D movie craze. Unfortunately, many companies (especially Disney) took the cheap post processing route instead of actually filming with 3D camera rigs, and the difference is night and day. Post processing feels like a shallow puppet show. Discussing Avatar without mentioning how it changed the 3D landscape or discussing it's box offices numbers without taking into consideration how 3D affected that is divorcing the movie from the very thing that defined it.

Did I say Zootopia should have replaced Avatar? No. I said I could see Iger kicking himself in the pants. Why? Because it is much more lucrative to OWN the property you are building a land based on versus leasing it (just ask Universal how much more cash they'd be making if a chunk of it wasn't running out the door to HP licensing fees). Did I say Avatar was a bad movie? No. Did I say I don't understand why it wasn't popular? No. The amount of assumption in your responses to me is epic.

looks like i struck i chord,sorry
couple points
1. if you go back and read what i originally responded to you i simply said Iger nor the company regrets this project. Furthermore i know someone fairly high up the WDI Avatar food chain (who is on site every day) told me when asked does Disney regret the project he literally laughed and said of course not,everyone was excited. In fact they are so excited about this project they are now extending the park 4 extra hours a night just so we get a complete immersion into the bioluminescence of Pandora
2. now lets just say Avatar was so popular only for its visuals, GREAT a visual environment fits perfectly into a theme park environment now all we need is for them to fully develop (which it looks like they are doing)
if you want to continue the debate feel free to pm me
thanks

 

[rteetz]

News

Disney makes 3 million dollar donation to create play spaces for kids in China

https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/b...spaces-in-childrens-hospitals-across-china-2/