Was Avatarland really the best idea?

[rteetz]

Ok I know I'm in the minority but I thought Avatar was awful. I will never understand why they are doing something like this when they have a small portion of Star Wars at H.S. Even before Disney bought out Lucas for the franchise, I never understood why Disney Executives didn't pursue this attraction for a park in itself. I'm really hoping they pull the plug on Avatar and now do something with Star Wars. I'm by no means a Star Wars freak but hoping this gets done over Avatar.

Disney is already in construction for avatar don't see them pulling the plug on it now that's a lot of money down the drain and a very unhappy James Cameron. Star Wars will come to DHS when we don't know but Disney would be stupid not to capitalize on it. Bob Iger has even said more Star Wars is coming to the parks.

 

[Redarrow5150]

How are you defining construction? Actually labor of starting or drawing up plans? Plans change as do budgets so just because Disney has put money toward doesn't mean they can't or won't stop it. Doesn't matter since it's going to AK it's going to happen but agree with a few who said the attractions are going to matter whether you liked the movie or not.

Disney is already in construction for avatar don't see them pulling the plug on it now that's a lot of money down the drain and a very unhappy James Cameron. Star Wars will come to DHS when we don't know but Disney would be stupid not to capitalize on it. Bob Iger has even said more Star Wars is coming to the parks.

 

[wareagle57]

Why would you want this to "crush" Universal? You want to be "right"? They're two different resorts,and it's great to have choices.As far as you not being in creative,the folks in creative don't have an interest in a full-out Star Wars Land.They wristbands to worry about.

I have no interest in crushing Universal, but Disney should. Right now they are getting their butts kicked by them. Universal's 10 year plan is freaking amazing. If Disney implemented something similar, it would be huge. But no, we get to wait 3 years for a glorified kiddie coaster to open while Universal adds major attractions every year.

I love what Universal is doing, because it makes their park great. But it SHOULD be driving up the quality of their competitor (which would be even more exciting to me) but so far it is not.

 

[Redarrow5150]

You mean the same Universal who took how many years to get rid of a dying movie in a "Jaws" attraction to finally expand a huge and popular attraction like HP? Disney is not getting their butts kicked just look at who OWNS the franchises. Listen I own both stocks in Dis and Comcast but to say Universal is kicking Disney butt is an over statement.

War Damn Eagle!

I have no interest in crushing Universal, but Disney should. Right now they are getting their butts kicked by them. Universal's 10 year plan is freaking amazing. If Disney implemented something similar, it would be huge. But no, we get to wait 3 years for a glorified kiddie coaster to open while Universal adds major attractions every year.

I love what Universal is doing, because it makes their park great. But it SHOULD be driving up the quality of their competitor (which would be even more exciting to me) but so far it is not.

 

[JimmyV]

​

How many total LANDS in WDW revolve around any of those movies? Heck, how many LANDS in WDW revolve around ANY movie? Zero.

Well, to be fair, when Disneyland opened, Davey Crockett was being released. Frontierland was absolutely an effort to capitalize on that franchise. And from the plans that have been released/leaked, calling Avatarland a "land" is a stretch. More like a ride or two and some shops. So while it is true that no one film anchors an entire land, (except for Cars Land in CA), it doesn't appear that Avatar will be carrying that much water either.

 

[Karlzmom]

I have never seen Avatar and don't have any plans to see it.

It may have made a bunch of money at the box office, but what impact has it had on popular culture? How far have the characters, quotes, references crossed over into mainstream consciousness?

Does the movie have any relevance to the average park-goer? Does it have any draw beyond the fact that it will be *something new* - but no more drawing power than anything else new would bring to the table?

 

[JeremyGNJ]

I think it's funny that on one side everyone says "Disney only makes attractions based on popular movies". And then they say "This movie isn't good enough to add a whole area to AK"

Avatar land is a near perfect example of what Disney does well. It is "otherworldly" fantasy with no direct relation to reality. It will allow them to create scenes and experiences without having to "hold true" to some movie that people have romanticized into some icon.

 

[Jennasis]

I'll go to Avatarland because I like rides, not because I give a fart about Avatar. But I'd go to Star Wars Land because I love SW and want to surround myself in that world...and buy merchandise...and food...and meet characters.

 

[JeremyGNJ]

I'll go to Avatarland because I like rides, not because I give a fart about Avatar. But I'd go to Star Wars Land because I love SW and want to surround myself in that world...and buy merchandise...and food...and meet characters.

See the thing I like about the idea of Avatar area is that it was "just a movie". They are now running with it wherever they chose. The have the ability to make people like it based on what they build there, not just because they like the movie. More like Figment....less like Yoda.

 

[Planogirl]

Who cares whether they make attractions based on Avatar or not? The only important thing is that they make good rides and other attractions period. After all, look at all of the popular rides they have now that either have no movies at all or they have lame movies.

As for Disney crushing Universal, I don't want either one of them to crush the other. I want them both to do well because that is a win-win for everyone. I'm a long-time Star Wars nerd but I don't think that it's any more timeless than Harry Potter.

ETA: To be more clear when I say attractions I mean not only rides but potentially lands and other venues.

 

[Bullseye]

Movies I have not seen in their entirety (or slept through while my daughter watched them):

• 
  [*]Pinocchio
  [*]Ichabod and Mr. Toad
  [*]Pocahontas
  [*]Mulan
  [*]Dinosaur
  [*]Princess and the Frog
  [*]Cars 2
  [*]Brave
  [*]All but the first PoTC movies
  [*]Wreck It Ralph
  [*]Swiss Family Robinson
  [*]Johnny Tremaine
  [*]The Robin Williams Flubber movie

And those are the ones off the top of my head. But this does not deter me from enjoying WDW.

"Lets get down to business to defeat the Huns...!" Jimmy come on!? Not Mulan

Avatar was a great movie which is supported by the box office, nine oscar nominations, three awards and numerous other records. Looking forward to the next installment. Pandora in AK is going to be awesome, might even make it a two full day park for us!

 

[JeremyGNJ]

Who cares whether they make attractions based on Avatar or not? The only important thing is that they make good rides and other attractions period. After all, look at all of the popular rides they have now that either have no movies at all or they have lame movies.

I disagree here completely. The things that makes Disney great, are no the quality of their rides, but the uniqueness and immersion around them. They could get away with only standard rides in Avatar land....as long as when you walk in you really feel like you're on another planet.

 

[Planogirl]

I disagree here completely. The things that makes Disney great, are no the quality of their rides, but the uniqueness and immersion around them. They could get away with only standard rides in Avatar land....as long as when you walk in you really feel like you're on another planet.

You can be immersed in a land (or ride) without loving the movie behind it if even such a movie exists. How many people have seen Song of the South? The dreadful Haunted Mansion movie doesn't detract from the attraction. Do the lands in Animal Kingdom need a movie?

My point isn't that they should just build good rides but good attractions which can include rides or shows or restaurants or all of it in one place in a land. Not that I think that Avatar is a bad movie but many do.

 

[rteetz]

How are you defining construction? Actually labor of starting or drawing up plans? Plans change as do budgets so just because Disney has put money toward doesn't mean they can't or won't stop it. Doesn't matter since it's going to AK it's going to happen but agree with a few who said the attractions are going to matter whether you liked the movie or not.

They are constructing the new festival of the lion king theater set to open in June. Camp Minnie Mickey has been closed for a couple months now and is pretty much gone. Disney has had a rough time with James Cameron already I don't think they want to piss him off more.

 

[rteetz]

I disagree here completely. The things that makes Disney great, are no the quality of their rides, but the uniqueness and immersion around them. They could get away with only standard rides in Avatar land....as long as when you walk in you really feel like you're on another planet.

And based on what disney has shown that is exactly what pandora is going to do put you on another planets. Disney is going to try to build floating mountains!

 

[JennyMP03]

Eh, Avatar.

Star Wars is eternal. A Star Wars land would have been phenomenal. I so want to eat at the Mos Eisley Cantina with floor shows that involve waiters screaming "No blasters!" Severed limbs on the floor are optional, but it'd add to the authenticity.

 

[wyurm]

Avatar not only doesn't interest me but I will actually stay away from it. If Disney finishes their AK Avatarland expansion, I will not visit AK. It's as simple as that. My choice, my right. I would definitely visit the heck out of a Star Wars land or Villain's Kingdom either if it were a park of its own or in an existing park. Why they chose a "B" movie that sold on hype alone I will never know.

 

[wyurm]

You can be immersed in a land (or ride) without loving the movie behind it if even such a movie exists. How many people have seen Song of the South? The dreadful Haunted Mansion movie doesn't detract from the attraction. Do the lands in Animal Kingdom need a movie?

My point isn't that they should just build good rides but good attractions which can include rides or shows or restaurants or all of it in one place in a land. Not that I think that Avatar is a bad movie but many do.

The examples you gave are Disney movies. Avatar is not and a lot of people not only don't like Avatar but actually hate it. I am included in that group. AK is off limits to me once Avatarland opens.

Full disclosure: I actually like and have seen Song of the South. One of my favorite audio books (I'm showing my age) when I was a kid was Brier Rabbit and the Tar Baby. Haunted Mansion was lame but lame becomes a good kind of cheesy on the ride for some reason.

 

[agavegirl1]

I have 5 grandchildren. Two of them have been to WDW. The other three, well, their mom is not into Disney but she is a Star Wars nerd since ...Oh, I think age 6? Anyway. We have a three generation bunch of Star Wars fans. My grandkids have light sabers, Darth Vader masks and the Angry Birds plush versions of Star Wars characters all over the house. They have Star Wars Legos, Star Wars sheets on their beds....you get the picture. They have never seen Avatar. By the time the sequels show up, they won't have a clue what the story is about since the original came out before they were born.

Now, Disney has done well with rides based on non-intellectual property...but this one? Seems like a contract gone bad. How do you explain Pandora to an 8 year old who is too young to see the original movie, even if you have the DVD?

 

[wyurm]

​

How many total LANDS in WDW revolve around any of those movies? Heck, how many LANDS in WDW revolve around ANY movie? Zero. To suddenly have an entire LAND spring up around one not-so-great-but-good-looking-and-getting-old movie is simply strange.

As for wasting money, I was referring to the billions spent on MDE/MB/FP+ rather than actually creating new rides. Disney is good at spending money to give people things they never asked for. Avatarland seems like one of them.

I'm not saying it will be horrible. I'm not saying I'm going to boycott it. I'm answering the question, "Was Avatarland really the best idea?". No, no it was not.

Might as well get this out of the way: Disney didn't waste money on MM+ the mistake they made was releasing it to the wild while it was still beta material. I've seen a great many online games do the perma beta thing and it appears Disney attempted to join their ranks. I honestly believe the backlash both in social media and conventional media has forced them to push forward with the improvements that are forthcoming with MM+.

It was inevitable that Disney would have to convert to a more digital presence at some point. After all I find it odd that the owner of "Tomorrowland" took as long as they did to institute RFID technology. On top of it, asset utilization is something they should have implemented ages ago. It allows you to see if an attraction is truly worth keeping or not.