Avatar 2 and 3 Delayed??? The Effect on Avatarland at WDW...

[djkidkaz]

The problem here is the franchise. Plain and simple.

People love to throw out Splash Mountain as an example of an unpopular movie or franchise and showing it can work. But it works because most people don't know of Song of the South and assume Splash Mountain and the Zip-A-Dee song are all originals to that ride. And the people that are familiar with SotS, accept the ride because it is from an old Disney movie.

Look at Everest in AK. No one complains about that not being a Disney franchise, but thats because its based on a more general topic.

So again, why Avatar? Its not Disney. The movie is still very new for the most part and its already faded into society. Why wouldn't Disney use its own franchises, most of which are more popular than Avatar?

 

[ctxak98]

Disney shouldn't do any movie at all....they should be imaginative and build another ride like mount everest- that's not based on a movie. Its a great ride that will never become "old news" or "outdated" like most movies become. It doesnt have to be a rollercoaster, but maybe just a differnt ride based off the land. They want to be called imagineers then they should be imaginative!

Then nothing is ever going to be grand enough for disney! If people want disney to take back from potter it NEEDS to be some kind of movie in my opinion. The imagineers are not taking exactly from the movie and neither does any other ride....including the harry potter ride. It is imaginative! I wont disagree that Everest wont get outdated but I think Avatarland is the best thing for animal Kingdom right now.

 

[RSoxNo1]

The problem here is the franchise. Plain and simple.

People love to throw out Splash Mountain as an example of an unpopular movie or franchise and showing it can work. But it works because most people don't know of Song of the South and assume Splash Mountain and the Zip-A-Dee song are all originals to that ride. And the people that are familiar with SotS, accept the ride because it is from an old Disney movie.

Look at Everest in AK. No one complains about that not being a Disney franchise, but thats because its based on a more general topic.

So again, why Avatar? Its not Disney. The movie is still very new for the most part and its already faded into society. Why wouldn't Disney use its own franchises, most of which are more popular than Avatar?

The Serka Zong bazaar at the exit of Expedition Everest is usually a pretty busy shop, but I guarantee it doesn't do a quarter of the retail sales as Filch's Emporium.

 

[ctxak98]

WHY do people keep saying avatar isnt popular!? I really honestly dont know many people who dont like the movie. I know a LOT of the younger crowd that likes this movie which is what is important for Disney right now. Creating the land will be no more different then creating anyland in the magic kingdom. I know people who go to disneyworld and DONT even really know any disney characters besides the main ones. I think everyone has to take a look at the big picture here, whether you liked the movie, think it will sell merchandise, or think it has good enough characters!....Because the Land will most likely fit the best into this park. Lord of the rings has TOO much to do with humans and kings and stuff. If you havent watched the movie...seriously watch it. I dont know about you but I want to ride on those flying creatures!:sohappy:

 

[COProgressFan]

WHY do people keep saying avatar isnt popular!? I really honestly dont know many people who dont like the movie. I know a LOT of the younger crowd that likes this movie which is what is important for Disney right now. Creating the land will be no more different then creating anyland in the magic kingdom. I know people who go to disneyworld and DONT even really know any disney characters besides the main ones. I think everyone has to take a look at the big picture here, whether you liked the movie, think it will sell merchandise, or think it has good enough characters!....Because the Land will most likely fit the best into this park. Lord of the rings has TOO much to do with humans and kings and stuff. If you havent watched the movie...seriously watch it. I dont know about you but I want to ride on those flying creatures!:sohappy:

People say Avatar isn't popular because it isn't. The movie made a big bang when it came out, earned a ton of money, and for most people was quickly forgotten. I've never seen it myself, and even for most of those that have, I doubt many could name all the characters. Contrast that to Harry Potter, which is instantly recognizable by nearly everyone, in most age groups and demographics beyond sci-fi geeks.

Disney does not have to go the "franchise" route in the development of parks, but clearly that has been their plan in recent years (really Iger's push). So why choose a film or franchise that hasn't established itself yet (if it ever does at all)? There is such a deep history of settings from Disney films which would connect much more with park goers in terms of wanting to visit and spend money on merch.

 

[Phineas fo Prez]

I think the best thing for Disney, would be do a Beastly or Fantasy Kingdom type expansion of DAK, and then have an Avatar area in the new land. Best of both worlds!!

 

[WDWFigment]

I think a lot of people are making a big assumption when they indicate that they'd like to see Avatar Land canceled so that "something else" can take its place.

Of course, the assumption is that if Avatar Land is canceled, that something else will replace it. I would not be surprised to see nothing replace Avatar Land if canceled. That, or another third party franchise-driven land.

I am in favor of an Avatar-based expansion because (though I don't care for him) Cameron is a perfectionist. I think this project has the potential to go over-budget instead of under-budget because Cameron has a fair deal of creative control and can exert some force over Disney with regard to quality and detail. It's a bit sad that it takes a third party "forcing" Disney to adhere to rigorous quality standards, but such is the case.

What I'm saying is how would you answer the question: "Avatar Land or nothing?" If your answer is nothing, sure, hope the plans get abandoned.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I agree, but I think Disney has put a lot of eggs in one basket. They're obviously hoping for something to rival WWOHP. Now, while I'm no huge HP fan, those movies (and books) have characters that people know and love. Can the same be said for Avatar?

But, can you be so sure??? There are 7 billion people in the world, can you speak for all of them??? Do you know for a fact that NO ONE knows or loves the Avatar characters???

A theme park can build any E-Ticket attraction based on any movie, popular or not, and the ride will be a hit. Creating an entire land, to me, is another story. I'm sure if they make a great Avatar ride, anybody who is at Animal Kingdom will ride it. What I don't think will happen, is people going out of their way to go to AK to see Avatarland. Not in the same way people are doing for Harry Potter.

Animal Kingdom pulled in over 9 million guests in 2010 (will be interesting to see how many guests visited DAK in 2011)... Does anyone really think DAK's attendance will jump 36% like IOA did with Potter?? No way... I love IOA but let's face it, the attendance figure was already so low that they only could go up... and 36% still only brought them to 6 million guests (again, waiting for 2011 figures to come out cause this could be interesting).. For DAK's attendance to jump 36% only 3 million more people need to enter the gates... If that in the realm of possibiity? Yep... is it a reality? Probably not... (And no, DAK will not lose attendance cause of Avatar being built, so 9 million or more guests will visit DAK every year)... But that also does not make the Avatar land a failure either, no matter what the Avatar haters want to say... If the land gets built, and it keeps people in the park ALL DAY, and merchandising sales increase and food sales increase.. Guess what?? The land is a success... And in the end, money and the bottom line is ALL Disney is looking at...

 

[Captain Chaos]

People say Avatar isn't popular because it isn't. The movie made a big bang when it came out, earned a ton of money, and for most people was quickly forgotten. I've never seen it myself, and even for most of those that have, I doubt many could name all the characters. Contrast that to Harry Potter, which is instantly recognizable by nearly everyone, in most age groups and demographics beyond sci-fi geeks.

Disney does not have to go the "franchise" route in the development of parks, but clearly that has been their plan in recent years (really Iger's push). So why choose a film or franchise that hasn't established itself yet (if it ever does at all)? There is such a deep history of settings from Disney films which would connect much more with park goers in terms of wanting to visit and spend money on merch.

The movie stayed number 1 for 6 weeks and when the DVDs came out, only became the number 1 selling blu ray and sold over 10 million copies... I wouldn't say it was quickly forgotten...

 

[Plutofan1]

People say Avatar isn't popular because it isn't. The movie made a big bang when it came out, earned a ton of money, and for most people was quickly forgotten. I've never seen it myself, and even for most of those that have, I doubt many could name all the characters. Contrast that to Harry Potter, which is instantly recognizable by nearly everyone, in most age groups and demographics beyond sci-fi geeks.

Disney does not have to go the "franchise" route in the development of parks, but clearly that has been their plan in recent years (really Iger's push). So why choose a film or franchise that hasn't established itself yet (if it ever does at all)? There is such a deep history of settings from Disney films which would connect much more with park goers in terms of wanting to visit and spend money on merch.

If people quickly forgot it after its release, then why did it sell 2.7 million Blu-Ray discs and 4 million DVDs in the first four days after it hit shelves (also generating roughly $130 million in revenue, and breaking records along the way—becoming the fastest selling movie ever). The movie was the definition of a Hollywood blockbuster, and with two more films coming, the popularity can only go up.

 

[Captain Chaos]

18 million in Blu Ray sales? Maybe first day sales. Avatar has sold more than 6 million bar bones blu ray copies, $20 a pop for each would put the blu ray sales at atleast $120 million.

SHHHHH we cannot let facts get in the way of Avatar hate...

Seconded. LOTR has the story depth to carry a good sized land and the attractions, stores, and restaurants that will fill it.

I agree, but then I can also make the same argument for Avatar... Pandora lends itself perfectly for a themed land in a theme park... Avatar can have good attractions, stores, and restaurants as well... And let's not forget, there are 2 other movies coming out which can and more than likely will add more depth to the lands and worlds surrounding Pandora...

Like uni really has the land or money for a lotr land and also their obligation to expand potterland.

While true, no one says LOTR has to be in Universal Orlando only.. there are other Universal theme parks... And Universal is also being backed by a major corporation, so if they want the LOTR rights, they will be able to afford them especially if they see a major return on the investment...

 

[Captain Chaos]

I think a lot of people are making a big assumption when they indicate that they'd like to see Avatar Land canceled so that "something else" can take its place.

Of course, the assumption is that if Avatar Land is canceled, that something else will replace it. I would not be surprised to see nothing replace Avatar Land if canceled. That, or another third party franchise-driven land.

I am in favor of an Avatar-based expansion because (though I don't care for him) Cameron is a perfectionist. I think this project has the potential to go over-budget instead of under-budget because Cameron has a fair deal of creative control and can exert some force over Disney with regard to quality and detail. It's a bit sad that it takes a third party "forcing" Disney to adhere to rigorous quality standards, but such is the case.

What I'm saying is how would you answer the question: "Avatar Land or nothing?" If your answer is nothing, sure, hope the plans get abandoned.

Spot on...

 

[GLaDOS]

Like uni really has the land or money for a lotr land and also their obligation to expand potterland.

They do.

 

[MickeyPeace]

WHY do people keep saying avatar isnt popular!? I really honestly dont know many people who dont like the movie. I know a LOT of the younger crowd that likes this movie which is what is important for Disney right now. Creating the land will be no more different then creating anyland in the magic kingdom. I know people who go to disneyworld and DONT even really know any disney characters besides the main ones. I think everyone has to take a look at the big picture here, whether you liked the movie, think it will sell merchandise, or think it has good enough characters!....Because the Land will most likely fit the best into this park. Lord of the rings has TOO much to do with humans and kings and stuff. If you havent watched the movie...seriously watch it. I dont know about you but I want to ride on those flying creatures!:sohappy:

Good point. Maybe most people on this board are thinking too "old" lol. Get out of the box.

 

[Captain Chaos]

They do.

Of course they do... And if people think Universal is just sitting back and resting on Harry Potter and not trying to get another major "franchise" then they are sadly mistaken...

 

[ctxak98]

People say Avatar isn't popular because it isn't. The movie made a big bang when it came out, earned a ton of money, and for most people was quickly forgotten. I've never seen it myself, and even for most of those that have, I doubt many could name all the characters. Contrast that to Harry Potter, which is instantly recognizable by nearly everyone, in most age groups and demographics beyond sci-fi geeks.

Disney does not have to go the "franchise" route in the development of parks, but clearly that has been their plan in recent years (really Iger's push). So why choose a film or franchise that hasn't established itself yet (if it ever does at all)? There is such a deep history of settings from Disney films which would connect much more with park goers in terms of wanting to visit and spend money on merch.

Its not a very valid point. If it was forgotten then I dont believe Disney would even think about it! PLUS harry potter has been going on since 2001 or later and up into 2011 the movies and books have been well known. AVATAR is only ONE movie. Ofcourse not many people will know that characters names. There might be more movies or franchises that Disney COULD potentially use but not for Animal Kingdom!

 

[ctxak98]

Good point. Maybe most people on this board are thinking too "old" lol. Get out of the box.

Exactly...WE need to start getting into the new age! Its time to make Disney Blow people away again and this will do it. I dont understand why we make such a fuss over avatar but not when star wars or indiana jones is brought up. I mean the latest idiana Jones wasnt That good. it was decent but Not like the orignals

 

[Figment571]

Good point. Maybe most people on this board are thinking too "old" lol. Get out of the box.

20 yrs old, in college, when i do mention this to people I know, in a objective "hey did you hear about what they are building in animal Kindom?" sort of way the response I get is either 1) "I don't really remember that movie." 2) "What? The Freakin blue people?" 3) "That's stupid."

 

[Figment571]

Exactly...WE need to start getting into the new age! Its time to make Disney Blow people away again and this will do it. I dont understand why we make such a fuss over avatar but not when star wars or indiana jones is brought up. I mean the latest idiana Jones wasnt That good. it was decent but Not like the orignals

Avatar has not proven itself to be the sort of franchise like Star Wars that makes AN IMMEDIATE and Lasting impact. People talked about Star Wars years after its release. It has the kind of quality that makes it timeless. Avatar lacks that. It is not a franchise that will stay relevant.

 

[Magenta Panther]

In my opinion, this would be a great way for Disney to dump the Avatar idea entirely. So much is riding on the sequels' success, which is far from guaranteed. And who needs it anyway? Disney should create a new attraction based on, oh, I don't know, Jungle Book or Lion King or maybe get back to creating the Beastly Kingdomme. Personally I have no interest in an Avatar attraction; if Disney built it, I wouldn't come - I'd just skip Animal Kingdom entirely, like I did on my last visit.