Was Avatarland really the best idea?

[JimmyV]

If a non-Disney fan thinks it will be neat, then I have to assume it has good potential.

This may be the single most important point in all of this. Disney doesn't always want to pander to the "I love Mickey and princesses" crowd. To attract new guests, it has to try to appeal to a wider audience. That includes the Comicon crowd and Avatar crowd. And maybe some day, the Trekkies. (Not that these are mutually exclusive).

 

[CinderElsa]

I just keep thinking about those individuals who popped up after the movie came out, writing blog posts about how they really believed they had been one of those blue people in a past life... or were actually one of the blue people RIGHT NOW, trapped in a non-blue body... I just hope I never encounter one of them IRL once Avatarland opens.

I didn't care for the movie, either. Far from the worst I've seen, but farther from the best.

 

[surferdave]

Avatar was a guilty pleasure, the sort of thing nobody will admit to enjoying even though it outsold everything but Titanic. Sorta like Creed or Nickelback.

 

[DisneyMountainWoman]

I loved avatar, watched it a couple times in IMAX 3d thought graphics were just amazing. But I just do not think this movie has the staying power of things like Star Wars. Also I wish they did the mythical beast area, unicorns, dragons and other creatures would have been so much fun and more importantly can still be relevant 20 years from now in AK, which I am sorry to say but avatar will not be. That is why Star Wars area would have been so great, it has already proven it can still be relevant after 30 plus years. Now the avatar art does look cool, so when they build I will still come but everything will be through a filter that says this is cool but a ewoks village would have been even better. Also to the people saying avatar areas will bring in different people I would say Star Wars would do the same thing. All my friends and people I meet a comic cons, etc... Who love avatar love SW and probably love it more. But not all SW fans love Avatar, so I think SW would bring in more fans than Avatar.

 

[Jennasis]

Avatar was a guilty pleasure, the sort of thing nobody will admit to enjoying even though it outsold everything but Titanic. Sorta like Creed or Nickelback.

Hey! I like Creed and Nickelback...

 

[Jennasis]

Skip the entire park because you don't like Avatar?? You're never going to go on EE or Safari or Dinosaur or see FOTLK again because of Pandora??

Wow you really do hate Avatar don't you ? We'll I guess you're going to really show Disney whose boss, aren't you ! Sounds like the idle threats of a 13 yr old

You are being incredibly rude here to the poster you quoted. They were not attacking anyone...but yet you did. Why take their stance on Avatarland so personally? It has no bearing on you if they choose to ignore the park completely for any reason.

Frankly, I know some who now refuse to step foot in US because they don't like Harry Potter land (mostly for religious reasons). Their right...their choice. Doesn't affect me or the park at all.

 

[hookedonears]

It was a huge movie and I'm sure the sequels will do well. However, I'm not
certain that it has the draw and iconic status to pull this move. It is a huge risk by Disney, IMO. Was it a knee jerk reaction to Harry Potter over at Universal? I know at the time this decision was made Disney did not own Star Wars, but a Star Wars section at HS (not just Star Tours but an entire "land")?or even a whole stand alone Star Wars theme park seems a more viable option to compete
with Harry Potter. Thoughts?

Pretty much hits the nail on the head. Yes it was, and it was a horrible idea. I've never seen management so determined to prove so many wrong when the overwhelming response has been so negative. Some have said; just wait for the new technology, it's going to be awesome. Who cares how good the new technology is, if the themeing is totally wrong.

 

[rteetz]

Pretty much hits the nail on the head. Yes it was, and it was a horrible idea. I've never seen management so determined to prove so many wrong when the overwhelming response has been so negative. Some have said; just wait for the new technology, it's going to be awesome. Who cares how good the new technology is, if the themeing is totally wrong.

But disney doesn't need to show universal anything disney and universal are two different companies on two different levels. Disney having avatar isn't trying to answer Harry potter. All four WDW parks bring in more than universal parks. And I don't understand the theming being totally wrong? If disney does what they have shown in concept art the theming will be quite stunning and the technology will also be top notch. Just because the movie is bad doesn't mean it can't be a good theme park experience.

 

[JimmyV]

I've never seen management so determined to prove so many wrong when the overwhelming response has been so negative.

But this misses the whole point. You assume that there is and has been an overwhelming negative reaction to this. By whom? Disney-philes who go twice a year anyway and post on Disney chat boards? OK. Maybe. But linking Avatar to WDW is an effort to capture a different audience. They already own you. They want to own new customers now. Do a search and find an "Avatar Chat Board" (I'm sure they exist), and I'll bet you won't find an overwhelmingly negative reaction. The Navi crowd is likely salivating at this, and perhaps these are people who, in the past, found WDW to be lame but might give it a try now. Go to San Diego between 7/24-7/27 and ask the people there if they are excited to see Pandora come to life and you will not get a negative reaction. Sure, there may be a negative reaction among the "Let's meet Cinderella" crowd. But Disney has them in its back pocket already. What's so wrong about branching out to a wider audience. The assumption that "hard corp Disney fans don't like Avatar" is both too broad and irrelevant.

 

[rteetz]

But this misses the whole point. You assume that there is and has been an overwhelming negative reaction to this. By whom? Disney-philes who go twice a year anyway and post on Disney chat boards? OK. Maybe. But linking Avatar to WDW is an effort to capture a different audience. They already own you. They want to own new customers now. Do a search and find an "Avatar Chat Board" (I'm sure they exist), and I'll bet you won't find an overwhelmingly negative reaction. The Navi crowd is likely salivating at this, and perhaps these are people who, in the past, found WDW to be lame but might give it a try now. Go to San Diego between 7/24-7/27 and ask the people there if they are excited to see Pandora come to life and you will not get a negative reaction. Sure, there may be a negative reaction among the "Let's meet Cinderella" crowd. But Disney has them in its back pocket already. What's so wrong about branching out to a wider audience. The assumption that "hard corp Disney fans don't like Avatar" is both too broad and irrelevant.

Now this is perfectly said!

 

[fairyprincess88]

But disney doesn't need to show universal anything disney and universal are two different companies on two different levels. Disney having avatar isn't trying to answer Harry potter. All four WDW parks bring in more than universal parks.

I think you'd be surprised just how much notice Disney is giving to what Universal is doing up the street.

Yes, the WDW parks bring in more money than Universal, but that is not the only thing that matters. What matters is that since Potter, Universal has been pulling guests off of WDW property by the droves since it phase 1 opened. Sure, the guests are still going to WDW but they are not staying the whole week there anymore. That is one reason MM and FP+ was brought into play. In fact, it was highlighted as the main reason for the new tech, "lock them in".

There is also the industry buzz. Right now, Universal currently is seen as the ride innovator in Orlando, if not the country. Universal rides are winning the awards and the buzz. If you think Disney doesn't care about this, I don't think you'd be correct. Because buzz leads to increased attendance and money. Do you honestly think Disney wouldn't kill to have the merch dollars that Universal has rolling in off of Potter? The cash brought in by butterbeer alone? You figure WWoHP sold it 1 millionth butterbeer 4 months after opening and at 5-$10 a cup? That's many millions of dollars on just one beverage alone. And the $40 wands they are selling hundreds of a day?

So yes, Disney sees this money, yes they notice this money and yes they want to find their own way to bring in this money. To think they wouldn't care is just not sound business thinking at all.

 

[estherhead]

Pretty sure it's Universal that has a popular Waterworld attraction at several of their parks worldwide. It's a dumb movie, but a good concept for an attraction.

I'm not a huge fan of Avatar, mainly because I like depth of characters and plots in my movies. I don't, however, need character depth in my theme park attractions. And it's a visually gorgeous movie with a lot of things that would translate well to an attraction.

 

[Jennasis]

But disney doesn't need to show universal anything disney and universal are two different companies on two different levels. Disney having avatar isn't trying to answer Harry potter. All four WDW parks bring in more than universal parks. And I don't understand the theming being totally wrong? If disney does what they have shown in concept art the theming will be quite stunning and the technology will also be top notch. Just because the movie is bad doesn't mean it can't be a good theme park experience.

As evidenced by Transformers, the Mummy (at least the sequels), MiB (the sequels)...

It's the only reason I'm interested in Avatarland. The rides/attractions.

 

[Jennasis]

Why because Harry Potter is a wizard?? We'll that's just as irrational. Do they also not go to HS because Mickey is a Sorcerer in Fantasia?? Heck the parks icon is the Sorcerers hat!! I'm not the only one that called that poster out for a totally overblown response to Pandora. Why don't you MYOB and by the way....Creed and Nickelback we're mediocre 90's bands.

I think so. From what I was able to gather from them it was their insistence that HP promotes witchcraft. I never asked them about their feelings on Sorcerer Mickey. I was pointing out that people can choose to avoid a park (or anything) for any number of reasons and it's entirely up to them and has no bearing on anyone's else's enjoyment and therefore is not warranting of scorn, ridicule or rude replies.

And of course Creed and Nickelback are mediocre 90's bands LOL. That's why I whispered I liked them (as evidenced by the smiley and small font).

 

[rteetz]

I think you'd be surprised just how much notice Disney is giving to what Universal is doing up the street. Yes, the WDW parks bring in more money than Universal, but that is not the only thing that matters. What matters is that since Potter, Universal has been pulling guests off of WDW property by the droves since it phase 1 opened. Sure, the guests are still going to WDW but they are not staying the whole week there anymore. That is one reason MM and FP+ was brought into play. In fact, it was highlighted as the main reason for the new tech, "lock them in". There is also the industry buzz. Right now, Universal currently is seen as the ride innovator in Orlando, if not the country. Universal rides are winning the awards and the buzz. If you think Disney doesn't care about this, I don't think you'd be correct. Because buzz leads to increased attendance and money. Do you honestly think Disney wouldn't kill to have the merch dollars that Universal has rolling in off of Potter? The cash brought in by butterbeer alone? You figure WWoHP sold it 1 millionth butterbeer 4 months after opening and at 5-$10 a cup? That's many millions of dollars on just one beverage alone. And the $40 wands they are selling hundreds of a day? So yes, Disney sees this money, yes they notice this money and yes they want to find their own way to bring in this money. To think they wouldn't care is just not sound business thinking at all.

Of course disney cares and yes I know that is one of the points of mymagic+ so people are locked in and don't leave property. What I was saying is disney has enough base that if they didn't add a new attraction for the next ten years they wouldn't be hurting. Potter brought a ton of people opening year and it has died down a bit since then and now potter two will bring in a ton of people again. But what I'm getting at is a new attraction only brings a surge in attendance for a year or two and then it's back to average. Disney hasn't a lot in the last five years except new fantasyland and they are seeing record numbers and profits. If you think about it new fantasyland only brought two new attractions, mine train which isn't open yet and enchanted tales with belle which is more of a show. Dumbo was just moved and doubled, barnstormer so was also moved, mermaid is a copy of DCA. The only other big thing that NFL brought was be our guest which is always booked. Universal is adding all of these things to get to disneys playing field while disney just continues being on top by a large margin.

 

[Bullseye]

I think so. From what I was able to gather from them it was their insistence that HP promotes witchcraft. I never asked them about their feelings on Sorcerer Mickey. I was pointing out that people can choose to avoid a park (or anything) for any number of reasons and it's entirely up to them and has no bearing on anyone's else's enjoyment and therefore is not warranting of scorn, ridicule or rude replies.

And of course Creed and Nickelback are mediocre 90's bands LOL. That's why I whispered I liked them (as evidenced by the smiley and small font).

You know what, you're right. Not ever going to AK again because they are going to build Pandora is a completely rational response and the posters prerogative. Every post on this board should be met with a positive response.

Therefore I apologize. I do. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

 

[Jennasis]

You know what, you're right. Not ever going to AK again because they are going to build Pandora is a completely rational response and the posters prerogative. Every post on this board should be met with a positive response.

Therefore I apologize. I do. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

 

[fairyprincess88]

Of course disney cares and yes I know that is one of the points of mymagic+ so people are locked in and don't leave property. What I was saying is disney has enough base that if they didn't add a new attraction for the next ten years they wouldn't be hurting. Potter brought a ton of people opening year and it has died down a bit since then and now potter two will bring in a ton of people again. But what I'm getting at is a new attraction only brings a surge in attendance for a year or two and then it's back to average. Disney hasn't a lot in the last five years except new fantasyland and they are seeing record numbers and profits. If you think about it new fantasyland only brought two new attractions, mine train which isn't open yet and enchanted tales with belle which is more of a show. Dumbo was just moved and doubled, barnstormer so was also moved, mermaid is a copy of DCA. The only other big thing that NFL brought was be our guest which is always booked. Universal is adding all of these things to get to disneys playing field while disney just continues being on top by a large margin.

Disney will always have the edge because they are Disney, it's the brand that sells. However, resting on one's laurels is never a good game plan. Yes, Disney is having a slight increase. But it is very slight in comparison to Universal's numbers and Universal is maintaining their numbers. They are not lacking off from the increase but remain steady with a continued gain.

Now that doesn't mean Disney is in danger, of course they are not. But when a competitor is posting 30% plus increases and you are posting 1.5% increases that is a notable difference. What Disney has on it's side is that they were already #1 by a large margin and will remain so based on being Disney. But if Disney doesn't stay in the game, the soon they could be on a more even playing field then they ever wanted to be on.

Will Universal overtake Disney? Nope, no way. And they don't want to even try because they know it won't happen. What they do want is to do is put out quality content on a consistent basis and pull in day guests from Disney, which they are doing. To Universal, a guest who leaves Disney for 2 days to come to their park whereas before they would not is a home run win.

 

[rteetz]

Disney will always have the edge because they are Disney, it's the brand that sells. However, resting on one's laurels is never a good game plan. Yes, Disney is having a slight increase. But it is very slight in comparison to Universal's numbers and Universal is maintaining their numbers. They are not lacking off from the increase but remain steady with a continued gain. Now that doesn't mean Disney is in danger, of course they are not. But when a competitor is posting 30% plus increases and you are posting 1.5% increases that is a notable difference. What Disney has on it's side is that they were already #1 by a large margin and will remain so based on being Disney. But if Disney doesn't stay in the game, the soon they could be on a more even playing field then they ever wanted to be on. Will Universal overtake Disney? Nope, no way. And they don't want to even try because they know it won't happen. What they do want is to do is put out quality content on a consistent basis and pull in day guests from Disney, which they are doing. To Universal, a guest who leaves Disney for 2 days to come to their park whereas before they would not is a home run win.

I agree with you. Another thing people bring up is how long it has been taking disney to build things and how quickly universal builds things. Well that goes back to the fact disney doesn't need to go fast, disney likes to take their time and get everything right especially with the details. If universal started to get close to disney, disney would really do something but because they aren't disney just continues on their plan to add attractions. Comcast is aggressive and I like that, it pushes disney to continue doing something. One big thing with disney is they have a ton of land that they still could use. Universal doesn't have any land left unless they were to buy something out. Universal has been having to build on former attractions where disney just expands. I think avatar will really help AK with attendance not just because it's something new but because it is adding a new night time experience. With a show and big time safari those who haven't experienced AK at night will be drawn in. I think the next step for disney is DHS and with Star Wars because disney now owns all of those rights and could do whatever they want with it. DHS needs the help too I myself don't find myself spending as much time there as I used too. One more thing I think disney will look at is if they want to build something off of frozen which is now disneys most successful movie of all time. Lastly disney has DVC which they keep building at a rapid rate which locks people in for 50 years.

 

[Planogirl]

I agree with you. Another thing people bring up is how long it has been taking disney to build things and how quickly universal builds things. Well that goes back to the fact disney doesn't need to go fast, disney likes to take their time and get everything right especially with the details. If universal started to get close to disney, disney would really do something but because they aren't disney just continues on their plan to add attractions. Comcast is aggressive and I like that, it pushes disney to continue doing something. One big thing with disney is they have a ton of land that they still could use. Universal doesn't have any land left unless they were to buy something out. Universal has been having to build on former attractions where disney just expands. I think avatar will really help AK with attendance not just because it's something new but because it is adding a new night time experience. With a show and big time safari those who haven't experienced AK at night will be drawn in. I think the next step for disney is DHS and with Star Wars because disney now owns all of those rights and could do whatever they want with it. DHS needs the help too I myself don't find myself spending as much time there as I used too. One more thing I think disney will look at is if they want to build something off of frozen which is now disneys most successful movie of all time. Lastly disney has DVC which they keep building at a rapid rate which locks people in for 50 years.

Once Disney accomplishes all of that, could they do something to help Epcot? Future World could use some help and if they finally work on that area I hope that I'm still alive to see it.