Anyone else worrying that Pandora is lipstick on a pig?

[KrzyKtty]

I don't think there's a chance in hell that those sequels will not kill at the box office. Avatar is still one of the highest grossing movies of all time. Part of the reason why it has taken him so long to make a sequel is because he was trying to develop technology again. James Cameron rarely ever makes box office flops, and Avatar will not be one of them. It might not be quite as successful as its predecessor, but it will not be a failure.

 

[disney4life2008]

So next time you are in MK, ask random people if they know what movie Splash is based on. Be truthful. I think you will be lucky if any know the right answer. That ride has nothing to do with the success of the movie, just like Pandora.

I still do not agree. The ride would be successful regardless, its a classic. But i do think people would assume its based on a movie

 

[TheGuyThatMakesSwords]

Welllllll - there IS one way for Disney to deal with these "sequel delays"....

Buy the Avatar Franchise - just as it did with Star Wars. Be in control.
In fact? A very Clever current franchise owner MIGHT even get this.... then delay sequels as a business bargaining tactic .

 

[Me 'Earties]

I'm just excited to see something new, regardless if it's based on a movie or not. I did see the movie, and I remember enjoying it, but that is not my reason for my excitement. Disney typically puts a lot of attention to details, and that's what I look forward to. Guess we'll start finding out soon for ourselves, for all those lucky to get there in the upcoming months!

 

[spacemt354]

Attractions are the IP in your examples. So it's a bit different.

If the movies are disliked by the general population, then the land will be fighting an uphill battle.

AvatarLand is Avatar. If people hate Pandora from the film, why would they like it in its physical form?

Cars 2 came out in 2011 and got poor reviews the year before Cars Land's opening in 2012 (based on a film, Cars, that didn't get soaring reviews either). If Cars 3 gets poor reviews this summer, it won't impact my enjoyment of Cars Land.

I think that is why Disney took the initiative, from what it seems, to distance itself from Avatar's plot and timeline and rather focus more on Pandora in a time of peace after the film's events. This way the land is tangential to the films.

 

[KaliSplash]

No. We don't know enough. Not sure why people seem to thing there's nothing new or innovative here. The land and its engineering is unique, the AA is unprecedented, there have been hints that the plants are responsive to visitors, hints that parts of the land can be impacted by things going on in other parts and the brief views of the flight ride suggest more is in store in terms of implementation and effect. None of that will determine if someone finds it exciting or even worth the visit, but I don't think that will hinge on how new the technology is anyway. I'm 45 and love tom Sawyer island and pressing the nonfunctional buttons on mission space. Maybe I'm a simpleton. Maybe part of the excitement you get from an attraction is rooted in what you bring to it regardless of how ground breaking it is. I'm not worried about it. I enjoy 7dmt, but find it underwhelming because it seems to end just as it gets going. If the experience doesn't give me that feeling, I should be fine.

Do you mean the button on Mission:Space DON'T WORK? How the heck did we end up on Marhs, then???

 

[becca_]

I still do not agree. The ride would be successful regardless, its a classic. But i do think people would assume its based on a movie

FWIW, all of my non-Disney obsessed friends/family have absolutely no idea what Splash Mountain is based on. They just think it's a well themed ride with fun characters, as I'm sure many "average guests" do too.

 

[copcarguyp71]

I think they will have put their best foot forward (or at least that is my hopes). I do still question though going so deep into a franchise they hold no stake in...THAT makes me scratch my head and I kind of keep waiting for the other shoe to drop.

 

[Uncle Lupe]

No. It will be a beautiful and needed addition to the World.

Was Animal Kingdom always slated to become a night-time park? It seems like the use of Avatar was the cornerstone needed to justify the other night time offerings ROL and Safari.

 

[BoarderPhreak]

I'm not an Avatar fan (is anyone?) but I think the world (err, land) they created will be awe-inspiring nevertheless. Especially at night - something DAK has sorely needed. Along with RoL, DAK has graduated to a "big boy park" with late(r) hours now. Plus, this new land will absorb a lot of people. And this isn't even taking into account the new attractions within the land. All wins.

After seeing what Disney has done with NFL, I have faith that they've done alright with "Avatar Land."

 

[CaptainAmerica]

AvatarLand is Avatar. If people hate Pandora from the film, why would they like it in its physical form?

Because the rides are awesome?

Also, not directed at you, but to the OP. The very premise of this thread is ridiculous. Animal Kingdom is the most robustly themed park anywhere outside of Tokyo. The addition of the new land is the exact opposite of the "lipstick on a pig" metaphor. "Lipstick on a pig" implies you're trying to make something ugly appear beautiful with a cosmetic upgrade. Animal Kingdom is already beautiful and the thing they're adding is a substantive upgrade.

 

[xdan0920]

Cars 2 came out in 2011 and got poor reviews the year before Cars Land's opening in 2012 (based on a film, Cars, that didn't get soaring reviews either). If Cars 3 gets poor reviews this summer, it won't impact my enjoyment of Cars Land.

Cars 2 had an A cinema Score. Critics may not have liked it(I sure didn't) but audiences did. I may be crazy with this, but I think if the movies suck, and people hate them, which is possible...Then the land will suffer because of it. Why would you want to visit a place you hate?

 

[xdan0920]

Because the rides are awesome?

Also, not directed at you, but to the OP. The very premise of this thread is ridiculous. Animal Kingdom is the most robustly themed park anywhere outside of Tokyo. The addition of the new land is the exact opposite of the "lipstick on a pig" metaphor. "Lipstick on a pig" implies you're trying to make something ugly appear beautiful with a cosmetic upgrade. Animal Kingdom is already beautiful and the thing they're adding is a substantive upgrade.

Exactly. The rides are fantastic, but they came first. Disney built that IP, and it's stood the test of time. Avatar? Eh....

Anyway, you're right. I am not arguing that AvLand is lipstick on a pig. I love AK. I am arguing that it's possible the land will suffer if the movies suck and leave a bad taste in peoples mouths. Which is probably for a different thread.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Cars 2 had an A cinema Score. Critics may not have liked it(I sure didn't) but audiences did. I may be crazy with this, but I think if the movies suck, and people hate them, which is possible...Then the land will suffer because of it. Why would you want to visit a place you hate?

Does anyone actually "hate" movies? Like, an active dislike? I think the lowest most people go on the "hate" scale is "don't like at all." It goes down to zero, but not into the negative. I suppose you're right. If people HATE Avatar 2 that bad, it'll probably hurt the land. I just don't see anyone hating any movie that much.

The only movies I can think of that people actually hate are the Star Wars prequels.

 

[xdan0920]

Does anyone actually "hate" movies? Like, an active dislike? I think the lowest most people go on the "hate" scale is "don't like at all." It goes down to zero, but not into the negative. I suppose you're right. If people HATE Avatar 2 that bad, it'll probably hurt the land. I just don't see anyone hating any movie that much.

The only movies I can think of that people actually hate are the Star Wars prequels.

I can think of a bunch of movies I have an active and visceral hate for. But I am a hateful guy. Here's one, Forest Gump. I hate that movie with a passion. Controversial take, I know, but I stand by it. That film is a pox on the butt of American Cinema.

Anyhoo, I think you are going to be proved right. The movies will be okay, most people will be fine with them, and the land will chug on for 30 years.

 

[Incomudro]

Cars 2 had an A cinema Score. Critics may not have liked it(I sure didn't) but audiences did. I may be crazy with this, but I think if the movies suck, and people hate them, which is possible...Then the land will suffer because of it. Why would you want to visit a place you hate?

Because they're not "visiting a place they hate."
They are visiting an amazing creation.
An amazing work of construction, art, detail, and beauty.
With two rides that are likely to be very good - to great.

 

[xdan0920]

Because they're not "visiting a place they hate."
They are visiting an amazing creation.
An amazing work of construction, art, detail, and beauty.
With two rides that are likely to be very good - to great.

What if I hate Pandora? What if the movie is such a pile of garbage, that the physical representation of that world causes a visceral reaction of distaste for me? Are you saying this can't happen?

I don't think it will, but since the movies are nothing more then ideas bouncing around Camerons head, we don't know.

 

[Coaster Lover]

I think ultimately, the question about Avatar is "what about the movie didn't you like?" Did you not like the story being presented? If so, that doesn't really matter because Pandora will not be focusing on the story of the original movie at all. Did you not like the main characters? If so, that doesn't matter because Pandora won't focus on any of those characters. Do you believe the graphics have not aged well? If so, that doesn't matter because Pandora will be a brick and mortar physical place heavily relying on practical effects and the digital effects that they will have will all be brand new/highest resolution.

Conversely, what about Avatar did you like? Surely many people would agree that the first time you say the bio-luminescent forest you had at least a passing thought of how neat that would be to experience in person... well, now you can! Similarly, the first time you saw that banshee flight it got your heart racing at least a little... well, now you can relive that again.

I think there are plenty of examples in the theme park universe where parks have a source material that may not be everyone's favorite, but create an attraction so dissimilar from the source material that the attraction stands on its own. Dinosaurs is a great example. Now, we can argue until we're blue in the face about Dinosaurs vs. Indy, but on its own, Dinosaurs is a solid attraction despite the movie being less than memorable. I'm really not a big fan of Cars (I'm not a fan of racing, I'm not a fan of Larry the Cable Guy or Owen Wilson [just hearing either of their voices make me want to rip my ears off], I feel the movie is horribly slow) yet I really, REALLY enjoy Cars Land...

 

[spacemt354]

Cars 2 had an A cinema Score. Critics may not have liked it(I sure didn't) but audiences did. I may be crazy with this, but I think if the movies suck, and people hate them, which is possible...Then the land will suffer because of it. Why would you want to visit a place you hate?

Cars 2 had an A- CinemaScore. Avatar had an A CinemaScore. Critically, Cars 2 got a 39% on Rotten Tomatoes; Avatar an 83%.

My main point was you can not like a movie, but still enjoy a theme park attraction or land based on that film. The Cars franchise is an example of that, as is Star Wars Ep I. Fans are still luke-warm about it almost 20 years after its release...but if Disney said they were building a Pod Racing attraction tomorrow, I bet all of those haters would be lining up to ride it.

 

[xdan0920]

but if Disney said they were building a Pod Racing attraction tomorrow, I bet all of those haters would be lining up to ride it.

On that note, what if they built a Gungan talk with Jar Jar Binks? Think that generates some positive guest satisfaction surveys?