Avatar Land...think Disney regrets the idea?

[Hakunamatata]

Tolkein's kids hate Peter Jackson.

I would like to see them put anything better on the big screen than what Jackson did. If they want something true to the book your talking about TV mini series lasting a long time, and likely would not make it past the first three episodes.

 

[OnyxNine]

I will be 40 this year. I have a daughter who will be 6 this summer and a son who will be 4 this Christmas. I did not see Avatar in theaters, I tried to watch it after it was released on the cable movie channels. I couldn't do it. I don't think it was a particularly good movie and I have zero excitement for its own land. Given the choice I had rather wait to see Elsa and Anna with my kids that experience a whole land based on one movie that I don't care about.

I have tried, and tried so many times to watch Avatar. It just don't even get my attention. I only seen some of the movie here and there. In my opinion, is to early to tell if it will be something to last like star wars. Who knows how the 2nd part will do. For me, avatar was just a one hit wonder.

 

[copcarguyp71]

Idea is absolutely BRILLIANT...for James Cameron to promote his next movie...for Disney, not so much IMO!

 

[pluto77]

It really is too early to tell how big the Avatar "franchise" will be. Cameron has announced that he has plans for 3 more movies to be released pretty much back to back. And the land is supposed to open right in the middle of when those movies are being released.

I always thought it was a little strange that they chose to have such a big presence of a non Disney movie in a park other than Hollywood studios, but here we are. I agree with other posters that say it doesn't really matter how popular the movie is if they can make an amazing land out of it. The world of Pandora definitely has potential to be a great theme park area. Yes, you could argue that it shouldn't have to be based off a movie if it doesn't matter, but, I guess, if this is what they needed to do to expand AK then I'm all for it. I'm excited to see how it turns out, and I'm excited for AK finally getting a night show.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Look, I think it's cool they are planning something different and I know this has been talked about before, but now a few years into when this was planned, am I the only one who thinks this idea is even worse now that when it was proposed? I mean this is not a movie where there is a lot of buzz around it, I never hear anyone mention it, it does not have a following like say Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, backed by tons of merch and books. I wonder if Disney could do this over again(especially since they ended up buying Star Wars) would they have gotten into bed with James Cameron on this or opted for something else.

I like this a billion times.

 

[Chef Mickey]

It really is too early to tell how big the Avatar "franchise" will be.

Precisely why I think Disney jumped the gun.

Disney doesn't need to movie tie in to make great lands and great themed attractions. Build that and incorporate movies like Avatar as a portion of a bigger land if and when they become popular enough to do so.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

I still think after Pandora is up and running and the Nighttime closings become much longer will be seeing Animal Kingdom Become Disney's Adventure Kingdom IMO.

 

[FettFan]

I still think after Pandora is up and running and the Nighttime closings become much longer will be seeing Animal Kingdom Become Disney's Adventure Kingdom IMO.

In summation: Avatar is to Disney World what Honey Boo Boo is to The Learning Channel.

 

[HDS]

JC did a ama today on reddit and someone did ask about AK stuff
"Well, Disney are doing a first-rate job designing it. It's going to be completely spectacular. It will be like being on Pandora. You will see real floating mountains. It's going to be a very magical experience just to be there and walk around. And the two rides will be absolute state of the art. But I don't how much they want to say about what those rides specifically will be, so I probably shouldn't say anymore than that. But from what I've seen so far, it will be amazing. I will be sad it's in Florida, because I won't be able to go a lot to it."

 

[stevehousse]

As long as he is actually backing it up, I think it will turn out to be good! JC is notorious for making sure a project with his name attached to it is nothing less than superb. It would be nice to get a third ride, but I will take anything added to a park that needs it!

 

[bubbles1812]

The ownership around LOTR is very complicated and very uptight from what I understand. The rights aren't signed off very easily as opposed to most other franchises.

That being said LOTR and Star Wars have stood the test of time, something Potter has not yet proven, which make them major franchises to be put into a theme park. If Disney were somehow to acquire the rights to LOTR and incorporate both into their parks, I wouldnt be able to visit for years due to crowds.

I would say Potter has very much proven it can stand the test of time. Granted, it's not quite as old as those other properties, but judging by how the books continue to be popular, the success of the films, not to mention how well HP continues to do at Universal even with no new product in several years speaks highly of the series. I know I'll introduce the books to my own kids when I have them and so on. Can't tell ya how many others I know who will do the same. It does also help that there will be a new film series in the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them Trilogy. People hunger for the world of HP the same way others do for Middle Earth or that long time ago in a galaxy far far away... That lasts.

The likelihood that Disney would obtain the rights to LOTR is very low from all the things mentioned. Tolkien was not Disney's biggest fan, making the estate reluctant to talk to Disney. They would most likely end up at Uni if the estate was ever interested in selling the rights (which they aren't at this time, though the idea has been occasionally entertained.) And it's true, the children were not fond of the films. Unfortunately since major amount of people only identify with the films, whatever development whether Uni or Disney, would encourage Jackson's involvement. It'd certainly be doable without him/the film teams, but the vision would then have to be different enough that a lawsuit wouldn't be inevitable by the film studios. Hard to do with a trilogy of movies that is so iconic. At some point, I would expect the idea to be revisited but not necessarily any time soon.

Avatar Land...think Disney regrets the idea?

No. And here's why: Avatar Land is a foot in the door to bigger and better and beastlier things. Once the Avatards lose interest in their little fad movie, Joe Rohde will have the infrastructure in place to quickly convert the land to Beastly Kingdom.

At least that's what I'm hoping.

Ain't ever going to happen. I would have loved for Beastly Kingdom to come to fruition when they built AK, but it didn't, and won't. I think you terribly underestimate the cost and quickness a "retooling" would take.

 

[bubbles1812]

I really don't think its possible to answer this question yet. You'll need to see how the sequels invade the cultural landscape in a couple years.

I would definitely agree on this point. The sequels are one big question mark at this point with a lot of variables to consider. the 3D fad has been fading, and the novelty of some of that shiny new tech has worn off. So then you are left with the story... I think that first sequel especially needs a much stronger storyline than Avatar did. And Cameron isn't exactly known for his prose. I don't necessarily think Disney would regret trying to do Avatar even if the sequels don't do as well (I don't expect them to flop), but it will probably make them at least a bit nervous.

I see Avatar as the CBS of blockbuster movies. It may not have as much geek cred as Star Wars, LOTR, or Potter, but it had wider appeal amongst the middle aged masses than many give it credit for. So, while it may not have the internet support, it does have mainstream familiarity amongst the casual consumer. Those people don't necessarily buy wands, or custom action figures, but they do bring their kids and grand kids to WDW. And something like Avatar might be enough of a draw for them to have them spend a day at AK during their trip.

Not sure I've seen the wider appeal you speak of with the middle aged masses. Curious as to why you think that? Avatar could certainly be a draw to AK if done right, no doubt. But to be really successful, the merchandise has to move... you need those people to buy the wands or the action figures or the princess stuff. Its the reason Carsland exists. And it is a core part of Disney's business model. Getting people in the door is just the first step, but it's only the first necessary to get to profit. The other steps need to happen. I'm not sure Avatar as a property can do that. Though I hope it's successful. I don't actually want the land to fail, and I think it has some potential. If we're going to end up with it, might as well hope for the best.

And as many on here like to say, for better or worse, Disney is targeting that demographic through meet and greets and rides focused at the younger set. Avatar reads to me as something targeted specifically at their parents, not necessarily the same people Uni is going after with Potter, Transformers and the like.

I would argue Uni is going for that same set of "parents" just as much as they want honestly any age group. Disney does have the edge in kids, while Uni may have the edge in teens, but each company wants it all. And Potter especially, though even Transformers appeals to that parent set. A generation grew up with Potter, but you don't get that mass success without a much broader age base that loves the product. It's a "4 quadrant" series, to use some box office lingo. Transformers may be a little less appealing to the parent set... but those films for example, weren't just marketed at teenage boys. They were marketed at older men especially as well. The "nostalgia factor" was used the same way Disney uses it for their products.

For Avatar, it's again, a very hard property to read. A lot of people saw it. A lot of people liked the tech. But the general consensus on the story was kind of a take it or leave it deal. The parents angle is hard for me again to understand, because I really just haven't seen that. Anecdotally, my 50+ parents have both seen all of HP, saw Avatar, and will probably see the sequels. But if you asked where they'd rather "visit," it's off to Hogwarts we go. Obviously it's different for different people. My point is, I think the demographic of say an HP, and Avatar, are more similar than you think.

 

[TubaGeek]

I'm SURE they regret the way (and time) that it was announced...

 

[Gomer]

I would argue Uni is going for that same set of "parents" just as much as they want honestly any age group. Disney does have the edge in kids, while Uni may have the edge in teens, but each company wants it all. And Potter especially, though even Transformers appeals to that parent set. A generation grew up with Potter, but you don't get that mass success without a much broader age base that loves the product. It's a "4 quadrant" series, to use some box office lingo. Transformers may be a little less appealing to the parent set... but those films for example, weren't just marketed at teenage boys. They were marketed at older men especially as well. The "nostalgia factor" was used the same way Disney uses it for their products.

Don't misunderstand me. I am in no way saying that there are no parents over 30 who love Potter. I love potter and am one of those people. But we have been addressed and marketed to for a long time buy the Orlando parks already. I am in no way saying Avatar is more popular than Potter or Star Wars, or Marvel. But there is a subset of people out there who either don't go to movies or turn their nose up at blockbusters, but still went to see Avatar for the world building and environmental messaging. These are people who are untapped by the current pull of geek properties currently exploited in Orlando. They don't care whether the story was derivative, because they see all blockbusters that way. But these people still take their kids on their "rite of passage" WDW trips. And although they may not buy Navi action figures, they might drop 200 dollars on an "authentic" African wood carving in Harambi quicker than they would spend 40 dollars on a "I rode Star Tours T-shirt".

Locals and teens will flock to Avatarland if the rides are good. But it seems like Disney is after getting as much out of the "once in a life-timers" as they can. I could be wrong, but I do honestly believe that Avatar touches a subset of that demo that others haven't been pursuing as of yet.

 

[Since1976]

I'm sure AVATAR land will be beautiful, but there's no escaping the perception that the project feels like an "also-ran" in the wake of the acquisition of STAR WARS and the mega-success of Marvel Studios.

But since the latter can't even be exploited on the East Coast, Disney needs another big tentpole property anyway.

 

[Redsky89]

I think its a terrible idea. They should have done something with Star Wars. I didn't even really care for Avatar. It hasn't done anything for our pop culture like Star Wars has and more importantly me or none of my friends even bring that movie up in discussion. Its not a movie that stuck with much of anyone I feel.

 

[FettFan]

Ain't ever going to happen. I would have loved for Beastly Kingdom to come to fruition when they built AK, but it didn't, and won't. I think you terribly underestimate the cost and quickness a "retooling" would take.

Don't be so quick to count it out completely. Disney has a reputation for holding on and re-using ideas over and over.

Disney Hollywood Studios began life as a cancelled Epcot Pavilion. Storybook Circus was initially conceived as the "Dumbo's Circus Land" expansion for Disneyland in the 1970s.
Heck, even Big Thunder Mountain Railroad began life as part of Western River Expedition.

 

[skimbob]

Another way to look at this is thinking of Avatar more as a land not really being based on the movie and not even trying to draw people who saw the movie. It would be similar in creating a ride like Maelstrom that has no connection to a movie or even Pirates and Haunted Mansion which were not originally based on a movie. It would just be a random idea creating a land based on something unique. I think we have all gotten caught up in the whole movie thing me inclded. There are many other rides that have been designed without a movie involved in any way.

 

[disneyflush]

I'm SURE they regret the way (and time) that it was announced...

They announced this in the midst of a few year period where their response to questions or complaints about staleness and/or Harry Potter was some type of press conference announcement of a new development. Hyperion Wharf was announced with no follow through and then Avatar. Its an absolute shame that the land hasn't even been cleared yet. Disney hasn't exactly had a ton of enthusiasm for this project it seems. And if you don't love yourself it makes it really hard for someone else to love you.

 

[jonesenon4]

i think the potential for an outstanding themed area is limitless.the possible attractions amazing possibilities.so really if its done right by the imagineers it doesnt matter if you liked the movie or not .what matters is the land itself your not watching the movie you will be enjoying the attraction.i for one am really looking forward to it.next trip may 14 2014 can hardly wait.