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

[ctxak98]

We are mostly in agreement here, I just don't think Avatar is worthy of a theme park land... especially in DAK where all the other lands are timeless. I don't hate the film or anything and, of course, the attraction could potentially be incredible, but it just seems reactive and not right.

you clearly hate avatar....:ROFLOL:....but It will make just a good of a land as dinoland!...and probably better so...I would be happy if I were you!...but you dont have to be. Just my opinion on the circumstance.

 

[ctxak98]

Dinoland =dinosaur.....Nothing else is themes accurately to the original concept at all....All in favor for the EXCAVATOR! and the boot of CHESTER AND HESTER!

 

[pwnbeaver]

To add in on our franchise judging here I'll throw in my bit. I'm an 18 year old university student who hangs around with people from the math, computer science, english and business departments. Nobody I know loves Avatar at the level it would require for somebody to book a trip based on a ride. Not too many of my friends don't like Avatar besides the people in english who hate the story and the acting in the film. However, everyone I know can agree that Avatar did have something amazing and that is the world that Cameron built.

I trust that the imagineers are inventive enough to craft a good story around the wonderful world that was designed for the film. A good plan would be to use none of the characters or story from the movie and fill the land to the brim with wonderful immersion and themeing. This kind of approach would provide the longevity needed for the land to be popular twenty years on and provide a satisfying theme park experience.

I understand what Iger wants to do with Avatar, he is looking for a big franchise to bring in money and fill the parks. Iger is all about brand synergy and loves to have things connect, a great plan really and a very safe one for shareholders. I think Iger has the wrong franchise. Even if Pandora doesn't do what he planned he doesn't care because he'll have left the company before the returns (hopefully) on the expansion start to roll in. Avatar has great potential for a wonderful theme park experience but doesn't have the power to pull in amazing crowds, as theme park fans we should look forward to how cool the rides could be not how much money is gonna line the pockets of executives.

I also believe that if Avatar is a flop it will not stop Disney from expanding the parks. Universal is gonna keep on growing with Potter and soon LOTR (I really hope they acquire enough land for another park to put this in, way too much potential for just one land). They wont sit around while the competition grows to be a major threat, something has to happen to keep the crowds steady. I fully expect AK to have increased attendance with Avatar but nothing that will detract from Potter, maybe some people will pick AK over HS for a day and then that park will need something new. A New Hope I guess one could say.

 

[pwnbeaver]

To start off I’ll provide my own crude ‘market research’. I’m an 18 year old university student who hangs around with people from the math, computer science, English and business departments. The only people who really don’t like Avatar are the English students and a few others who criticize the story and acting, the rest of my friends either like it or are indifferent to it. However, everybody agrees that Cameron created a fantastic world that with a good story could be something truly amazing.

I have enough faith in the imagineers to take this world and make an awesome land from it. A good idea would be to completely ditch the movie’s story and characters and fill the place to the brim with all the great creatures and foliage that make the movie interesting. Make a new story that the ride(s) can be tied into that is actually good and focus on immersion, I want to feel like I’m on Pandora. This kind of thing would provide the land with longevity and justify it existing twenty years from now.

I understand what Iger wants to do with Avatar, he is looking for a big franchise to bring in money and fill the parks. Iger is all about brand synergy and loves to have things connect, a great plan really and a very safe one for shareholders. I think Iger has the wrong franchise. Even if Pandora doesn't do what he planned he doesn't care because he'll have left the company before the returns (hopefully) on the expansion start to roll in. Avatar has great potential as a theme park experience and as theme park fans we should be more worried about the quality of the attractions rather than how much change will be lining the executive’s pockets.

I personally do not think that Disney will stop expanding if Avatar is a flop, not in today’s market. Universal is just going to keep getting bigger with more Potter and soon LoTR (I really hope they acquire enough land for a third park to put this in, there is way too much potential there to be wasted on one land. I would say LoTR has more potential in Mordor alone than Potter has in its whole story) and Disney wont just stand around while the competition becomes just as big as themselves. I think AK attendance will increase with this expansion for sure but not enough to detract from Potter; maybe some people will pick AK over HS for a day, then that park would need a new expansion. A New Hope one could say.

 

[AEfx]

Then why is Disney still re-releasing films in 3-D? Apparently people "don't care," and yet Beauty and the Beast 3-D opened yesterday.

I know my post was long (though quite a few people made it through and posted in agreement with me - so it couldn't have been too long), but you really need to read what is written.

What I said was, largely, yes, people do not care about 3-D like some of you think. The fad is already dying down. Again, like it has every other time.

There are quite a few conversions in the pipeline - Star Wars Ep I will be out later this year. These release schedules and the work put into the films takes years and was set in motion awhile back when the fad was hitting it's peak, because the studios are going to keep pushing and pushing this because they can make up to 2x per ticket.

3-D isn't going away, but you actually just proved my point - everyone and their brother is doing it - at the moment. That takes a lot of the "special" out of Avatar, which wasn't the very first 3-D film, but it was the first major motion picture made in 3-D from the ground up, and showed off the technology in a new way. In half a decade when Avatar 2 shows up - we will be so desensitized, and people who went to that film out of curiosity won't be nearly as in abundance.

I'm sure BatB will do well this weekend. But it would also have done well had they just re-released it, period, without 3-D. Disney films always do. Disney is rushing to get these 3-D conversions out there because they know the tide is drifting away. Though, again, Disney films are their own cachet - they will probably still do 3-D business longer than most.

Also, George Lucas announced that he will re-release his Star Wars films in 3-D, a format that is part of a fad that is or has passed, so I suppose we ought to criticize him some a little bit too.

Answered above. The 3-D Star Wars conversions started planning years ago. Go read up - it's pretty generally accepted in the industry that 3-D has hit it's peak, they are already pulling back on a lot of 3-D in 2013 and beyond.

And something that is "just really, really pretty" is not "intellectually stimulating" to you? Sounds to me like the reaction from the kind of person who hates to go to art museums because they just don't see the point.

No, just because something is really, really pretty doesn't mean it makes you think. Nothing about Avatar requires any analysis or critical thinking. That's not always bad, but it is what it is - a popcorn movie. There is nothing "deep" - I'm sorry, Captain Planet beat the Environmental stuff into us 20 years ago (and they had blue people do it, too!). There is no depth to the storytelling, layering, etc.

Again, how many people who saw the film out there do you think can even remember anything but "ooh pretty"?

Unless Cameron defrauded the USPTO, he is in fact listed as an inventor for the Stereo Camera With Automatic Control of Interocular Distance patent.

ROFL. I knew someone would mention that.

I already had written so much, I didn't think I needed to explain this, but I will.

He didn't invent anything NEW. And I'm sorry, but James Cameron may have filed a patent, but don't tell me he was in a lab and actually constructed anything (nor should he, he's a director). That was a publicity thing, mostly - to add some "prestige".

Regardless, as I fully stated, he took what was already there and tweaked it. Motion capture is not new. Combining live action and animation is not new. However, no one before him had 100's of millions and ten years invested into one film to do so from the ground up. It's quite sad to me he spent all that time on the tech stuff, and forgot about, you know - a story, compelling characters, etc. It's sort of like designing the most beautiful new automobile - and then putting a moped motor in it.

For any of us frequent moviegoers, if we went to see a movie during the first few weeks of Avatar's release, we probably recall seeing long lines of other moviegoers waiting to get into the next showing of Avatar. Maybe there's some sort of shortage of teenage boys in Orlando, but "generally teenage boys" does not describe the demographic of moviegoers that I saw waiting in long lines, night after night. Instead, the film had quite a broad appeal (at least in the Orlando theaters that I go to).

Again, addressed, but I'll clarify, because again, you are proving my points.

Yup, curiosity about 3-D got a huge amount of people to try it out. People that had never seen a true 3-D movie before. THAT'S why it was a hit. THAT has been my whole point.

Avatar was at the cusp of the 3-D ride. It was the new novelty of the moment. People went to see it in droves, to see what this 3-D thing was all about. And they did.

In six years...probably not so much. The only people you see posting on message boards and such in such fervor about this film today are generally teenage/young adult boys. Just like the furor over Titanic was mostly the same age group of females. That age group also tends to see movies multiple times. Titanic made so much because after the initial flock of movie goers, the teenage girls who went every weekend in groups are what really pushed it to the stratosphere.

I don't bring this all up because I'm a "hater", but the people that still give a lick about Avatar are few and far between.

Can't talk like this...

Disney don't cater to the rabid, foaming at the mouth Disney online fanboy... They cater to the general public... and numbers don't lie... The general public ate up Avatar in record numbers...

And no, we cannot say Avatar 2 will be a wild success, nor can we say it will be an utter bomb... Especially since the movie hasn't even been put into production yet...

Here is another argument I really have to laugh at... People love to mock Disney for being to childish... People want to mock those who think Disney is too childish.. People want to mock Disney for focusing on attractions geared to family and kids and not the teen or adult market... And yet, what to the haters base part of their argument on??? KIDS NOT DRESSING UP ON HALLOWEEN AS A CHARACTER FROM AVATAR... So, what is it?? Want Disney to cater to just a kids market or do you want Disney to try to appeal to a broader market???

And for those who said NO ONE dressed as any Avatar character for Halloween, speak to these people:

Want to know what I really laugh at?

When someone takes one sentence of a post, makes a big fuss about it, and then looks like a dunce because he didn't even understand what was said.

I chose my words carefully. My exact words were - "I mean, it's not like little kids were dressing up as the characters for Halloween in droves, stuff like that."

Where to begin...

First, I said kids. Those are pictures of teenagers/young adults. The exact audience I refereed to. And I said "in droves" - I'm sure some kid did, but the year Return of the Jedi came out, me and about a bazillion other kids were Ewoks that year. Just for an example. You may not think, but every year they tally up the most popular kids costumes and it's a great indicator of what is popular at the time.

It was an afterthought to the longer explanation I gave, and again, I was trying to keep it as short as possible, but I'll elaborate for you (since everyone else seemed to get it).

Avatar made a lot of money at the box office. Nowhere else. People went on the novelty of the 3-D, not a love of the film or the characters.

There were not lunchboxes, backpacks, school kits, etc. They tried - a little - but what they did do didn't sell. They did a very small run of action figures (for ADULT collectors) that failed. It's funny, because they do go for high prices on eBay - because they simply didn't make many because no one wanted them. So the same teenager/young adult boys didn't even buy them when they came out, so the limited number that still exist are sold back and forth to them now.

As to kids, yeah, many of us like more adult themed stuff at WDW. Thing is, WDW mainly caters to families. We all know this. AK is already a rather "adult" park, and very few adults are going to pick up and go to WDW just to see this. Unlike the millions who now flock to Universal for Potter.

Avatar was an anomaly. And it did not catch on in popular culture. I did not "base" my argument on Halloween costumes - it was an addendum to give a concrete example of Avatar not doing anything beyond box office. It's impressive what they did there, no doubt - but those people went home and forgot about it. They didn't run to Wal-mart and buy up Avatar merchandise. Next you'll say "well it's not all about merch!" but again - yeah, it kinda is. It's a great indicator of the cultural impact something has.

Regardless, it seems most people get all this...I've spent far enough time talking about a bad movie, LOL. I'll bookmark this, and in five years we can come back and see who was right. I'm sure the movie won't totally flop, but if you think it's going to make even a percentage of what the first did, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

I'm sorry guys - it may hurt to hear - the general public barely remembers it, it left the party and most forgot it was there. "Oh yeah, that movie with the blue people?" That shouldn't take away your personal enjoyment - but really...seriously...objectively...everything I have said is true.

 

[haveyoumetmark]

Inflated because of what?? Higher cost of a movie ticket?? IMAX?? 3D?? Ok...

The Dark Knight came out in 2008... in IMAX, 3D, and 2D... Worldwide Gross is just over $1 billion dollars...

Avatar came out in 2009... in IMAX, 3D, and 2D... Worldwide Gross is almost $2.8 billion... ($2.78 billion to be exact)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows came out in 2011.. in IMAX, 3D and 2D... Worldwide Gross is $1.3 billion...

Domestically Avatar did better than Dark Knight and Deathly Hallows Part 2...

Movie tickets weren't much more expensive in 2009 when Avatar came out.. and were more expensive in 2011 than 2009... So, what exactly inflated Avatar's numbers???? Wasn't IMAX or 3D because the two examples I showed ALSO had IMAX and 3D...

Let me clarify, cause re-reading this, I may not have said this right... If you want to use IMAX and 3D as a basis for inflating the numbers, then you need to say Dark Knight and DH Part 2's numbers are also inflated due to IMAX and 3D... and if you do that, Avatar still tops them...

You are absolutely right. What I'm saying is that Avatar's gross is not a quantifier for it's popularity and inflation is part of that reason. All of those numbers are massive because they are inflated. Avatar may have outgrossed all these films, that's great - I just don't think that is a quantifier for its popularity. I think Avatar has peaked and will not fare well with time without all the gimmicks and hype it had when it was released. You don't feel the same way and that's completely fine. We ca agree to disagree instead of constantly going back and forth. It is, after all, a matter of opinion.

Dino land is timeless huh.

It may not be the best land in the park, but that doesn't mean that its not timeless. :wave:

you clearly hate avatar....:ROFLOL:....but It will make just a good of a land as dinoland!...and probably better so...I would be happy if I were you!...but you dont have to be. Just my opinion on the circumstance.

I don't hate Avatar... I went to the theaters, saw it and have the blu-ray like everyone else. I just think that it's expired and it's not something I'm really interested in any longer. It had its time. I don't like the idea of it being at DAK.

 

[haveyoumetmark]

Want to know what I really laugh at?

When someone takes one sentence of a post, makes a big fuss about it, and then looks like a dunce because he didn't even understand what was said.

I chose my words carefully. My exact words were - "I mean, it's not like little kids were dressing up as the characters for Halloween in droves, stuff like that."

Where to begin...

First, I said kids. Those are pictures of teenagers/young adults. The exact audience I refereed to. And I said "in droves" - I'm sure some kid did, but the year Return of the Jedi came out, me and about a bazillion other kids were Ewoks that year. Just for an example. You may not think, but every year they tally up the most popular kids costumes and it's a great indicator of what is popular at the time.

It was an afterthought to the longer explanation I gave, and again, I was trying to keep it as short as possible, but I'll elaborate for you (since everyone else seemed to get it).

Avatar made a lot of money at the box office. Nowhere else. People went on the novelty of the 3-D, not a love of the film or the characters.

There were not lunchboxes, backpacks, school kits, etc. They tried - a little - but what they did do didn't sell. They did a very small run of action figures (for ADULT collectors) that failed. It's funny, because they do go for high prices on eBay - because they simply didn't make many because no one wanted them. So the same teenager/young adult boys didn't even buy them when they came out, so the limited number that still exist are sold back and forth to them now.

As to kids, yeah, many of us like more adult themed stuff at WDW. Thing is, WDW mainly caters to families. We all know this. AK is already a rather "adult" park, and very few adults are going to pick up and go to WDW just to see this. Unlike the millions who now flock to Universal for Potter.

Avatar was an anomaly. And it did not catch on in popular culture. I did not "base" my argument on Halloween costumes - it was an addendum to give a concrete example of Avatar not doing anything beyond box office. It's impressive what they did there, no doubt - but those people went home and forgot about it. They didn't run to Wal-mart and buy up Avatar merchandise. Next you'll say "well it's not all about merch!" but again - yeah, it kinda is. It's a great indicator of the cultural impact something has.

Regardless, it seems most people get all this...I've spent far enough time talking about a bad movie, LOL. I'll bookmark this, and in five years we can come back and see who was right. I'm sure the movie won't totally flop, but if you think it's going to make even a percentage of what the first did, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

I'm sorry guys - it may hurt to hear - the general public barely remembers it, it left the party and most forgot it was there. "Oh yeah, that movie with the blue people?" That shouldn't take away your personal enjoyment - but really...seriously...objectively...everything I have said is true.

Thank you for gracefully expressing what I have failed to over the past three pages. I am losing my mind to people who keep posting about this movie's box office and home video earnings. They are not an explicit quantifier for its popularity/cultural impact and I'm glad there a few people here who can recognize that. Awesome post.

 

[unkadug]

Thank you for gracefully expressing what I have failed to over the past three pages. I am losing my mind to people who keep posting about this movie's box office and home video earnings. They are not an explicit quantifier for its popularity/cultural impact and I'm glad there a few people here who can recognize that. Awesome post.

I also have no dog in this fight... however, my thoughts...I have not seen AVATAR but I know of it's reputation. I really could care less one way or the other if they build this new land, but I do feel confident that if they DO build it they would do a good job and make it an enjoyable area. Especially with the announced price tag.


Disney has always been very reluctant to admit errors in judgement.

This could turn out to be very different than what any of us expect and COULD be an excuse to build a Beastly Kingdom replacement. History has taught us that initial announcements are not indicative of the final product.

Casual visitors and fan bois alike should be happy that they are willing to drop money on the parks.

 

[Hakunamatata]

It may not be the best land in the park, but that doesn't mean that its not timeless. :wave:

:wave:

 

[flavious27]

Ever hear of the Matrix trilogy? LOL.

Look, no one denies that Avatar made a TON of money. It's quite obvious why it did so. It was the first "really for real" made for 3-D major theatrical release, the 3-D fad was at it's height of ebb/flow (like it was in the 50's, then again in the early 80's), and studios pushed the HECK out of it, just like they did with 3-D in general, because attendance at films has dropped dramatically since home video, and now the Internet, are part of the equation, and if they couldn't bring people back to the theater, they settled for charging the "3-D tax" to those that do still go.

It is extremely unlikely that this confluence of events will happen again. 3-D is already passing as a fad - sure, the studio's keep trying to push it, but as they are finding out - most people don't care. It's for theme parks and occasional films, not for everyday viewing.

As several others posted above, Avatar is now virtually gone from the cultural Zeitgeist. Part of this is Cameron's short-sightedness in using such a generic title. Not only is it a common word, there is also a successful children's media franchise with it in the title. It's also because there simply isn't much there to create anything out of - it was a film, it made an exceptional amount of money when it was released, and now...it's pretty much gone. And even when it had it's few minutes as the big thing to talk about, it simply never expanded beyond the theater. I mean, it's not like little kids were dressing up as the characters for Halloween in droves, stuff like that.

Add to the fact that we are half a decade probably away from the second film, and that 3-D is already losing it's novelty, and it's hard to see what some uber-Avatar fans see as the future of this "franchise" (it isn't one yet, folks) when the only thing that can be said is that it made a crap ton of money (but was far from being the most attended movie of all time, as a big part of the large gross was the "3-D tax"). It's so the Matrix all over again...but at least Matrix had a somewhat unique take on a quirky idea, whereas there was nothing whatsoever intellectually stimulating about Avatar. It was just really, really pretty.

When kids walked out of Star Wars in 1977, they wanted to be Luke or Han or Leia. When kids walked out of Harry Potter, they wanted to be Harry Potter or Hermoine. While both films are special effects heavy, it's the characters that brought the love. The first screenings of Star Wars are legendary for their technical skill, to the same level if not more than Avatar, based on what the technology was at the time (Cameron didn't invent any new techniques, people have been doing motion capture for many years, it was that he used it so fully and spent quite a bit of money to do so). But what kept Star Wars alive, and still does, is the characters and the emotions and the themes.

Avatar did nothing in that respect. I've seen the film, and I actually own it on Blu-ray - but I'm not a fan, and I doubt I'll ever see the other ones. I thought it was a boring mess of a movie. So my $20 for the Blu-ray was counted among that gross, simply because I was at Wal-mart, I had just gotten a Blu-ray player, and I was like, "Heck, I bet the picture looks good" and checked it out. It was a fad, a novelty - that's why I bought it. I doubt I was alone.

To continue those Matrix comparisons, it's quite funny because the Matrix was the first DVD to sell over a million copies, which is similar to the record Avatar now holds on Blu. It's almost comical how much the two franchises (or, the Matrix franchise and the future Avatar franchise, should it become one) have in common. And we all know how the Matrix ended up - once the "gimmick" was out there, and everyone was doing "Matrix fight scenes" all the way down to TV commercials, it got watered down - just like the "gee wow!" of the 3-D aspect of Avatar.

It's not about being a "hater", if I don't like a movie - I don't care if others do. But this teenage boy fantasy of it's the greatest thing ever made and is this major cultural force is simply laughable. It's not. Go out on the street and ask 10 people what "Avatar" is. Out of those people who actually know what you are talking about (without being reminded of Blue people), ask them what their favorite character was. Or to name ANY character.

My guess is you would be hard to find even 1.

I'm sorry to play Mr. Pragmatist, but the only ones who think Avatar is somehow even a blip on the cultural radar at this point, or that it somehow is some vastly superior marvel of storytelling, are generally teenage boys who haven't seen this stuff come and go before.



It's not even relevant at the moment. Notice how the Disney announcement was kinda, "Meh?" Someone farts over at Universal and it sounds like Harry Potter and it's on "Entertainment Tonight" and "Access Hollywood" and across the web. The Avatar/Disney thing was reported (thanks guys, I can google too - I don't need anyone to post the links) but it was a tiny little bit of "news" that didn't reach any significance at all.

They very well could come up with some amazing attractions from a really mediocre movie that simply had a bunch of external factors contributing to it's obvious financial success. We won't know till they actually announce what is coming. That said, I won't be surprised if it just quietly goes away, either. Even on Disney boards, you rarely see anyone excited about the theme - it's usually Johnny-come-post-lately types who came just to talk about Avatar. That's not saying EVERYONE, but it's rare to see anyone who is particularly excited that Avatar itself is coming; most either wish something else had been picked, or are just happy AK is getting any major attraction.

And if the public will even care in five years is the half-billion dollar question; while Universal picked up Potter rights when it was already a proven franchise and developed way beyond the motion pictures and books, Avatar had one big movie that everyone has forgotten about by now. It's a HUGE gamble for Disney, and it will be interesting if they are able to work with the notoriously hard to work with Cameron - if they do follow-through, my guess is they will be wishing to Dumbledorf they had just dealt with JK Rowling in the first place, because a pain in your butt is a lot better than the sitting on a spear that working "with" Cameron is like (as far as anyone can actually work "with" him).

I don't really see ava 2 or 3 doing as well because 3d sales really added to a good chunk of that movie. The cgi is okay but the navi don't look real, I can't believe cameron was able to get away with having live actors and obvious cgi characters in the same scene. Atleast jar jar looked real and that was over 10 years ago. The same with gollum, he looks almost real for most of the trilogy.

The bullet time effect was part of what drew people in but the action sequences and storylines make it a classic trilogy. I am happy that warner brothers hasn't made any additional matrix movies.

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




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...




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...

I really didn't care for ava before or after I saw it, but there is no reason to just make up assumptions when the facts and figures are out there. Ava made a boatload of money in the home media department.

There is more that will come out but I don't see cameron introducing stores and restaurants in the next movies. The imagineers will have some hard design and set decisions to make to get revenue centers into that land. For lotr, it is just too easy for what you can do to get those revenue centers into a lotr land. There can be a restaurant that celebrates bilbo's birthday, it would have an oktoberfest feel with a large tent and band playing. To have "healthy" food, there could a farmer maggot farm stand. Further into the land can be a recreation of bree with The Prancing Pony at its center.

 

[GenerationX]

If Av2 is delayed, then Disney will delay the opening of Avatarland. There's too much to be gained by coordinating the timing of the two to not schedule them in concert.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Like what? That is the thing I've come to realize. If Avatar gets canceled I would bet money we get... nothing.

No one seems to want to admit it, except some logical folks like WDWFigment, but if Avatar goes away it isn't like Mysterious Island is suddenly going to be greenlit.

I don't really have a dog in the fight, except that I want to see a major expansion at AK. My belief after reading the same arguments over and over is that most of the people against it are miffed that Avatar basically kills the long rumored fanboy favorites for the park; Beastly Kingdom and Mysterious Island.

Wait, you want to see a land based on this?

I totally agree with you. I'd rather wait 50 years for a worthy expansion at Animal Kingdom versus getting something like Avatarland.

My argument for World of Avatar/Avatarland/Pandora is as follows. Pretend that the movie Avatar didn't exist and the announcement on September 20th was as follows:

The Walt Disney Company is pleased to announce that it will be adding an additional themed land to Disney's Animal Kingdom made up of exotic plant life, mystical creatures and amazing attractions. This land will be created by Disney Imagineers who will consult with legendary filmmaker James Cameron on this new land which will be dubbed Pandora.

I'm indifferent towards the movie Avatar, I'm completely uninterested in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy/The Hobbit, and I'm indifferent towards the movie Tron. However, I recognize that the source material for all of these lend themselves very well to theme park attractions. The biggest problems would be would it be the massive draw that The Wizarding World of Potter achieved? I highly doubt it, but it doesn't mean that the attractions or environments themselves would be weak.

To continue this. Monster's Inc is probably my least favorite Pixar movie, but I'm one of the few defenders of Monster's Inc Laugh Floor. That doesn't mean that I'm going to be buying merchandise (although if it says M.I.L.F., I might) but it does mean that I can enjoy what was created.

The fact is, we know so little about World of Avatar at this point other than there's a lot of money being poured into it, and the source material raises questions from a story standpoint. Besides that, we know nothing. If it comes out that the attractions are going to be a Soarin' clone, a kid ride that's comparable and as limiting as Pteranadon Flyers, and a spinner, then by all means complain. But until then, I really don't understand the complaints.

 

[unkadug]

My argument for World of Avatar/Avatarland/Pandora is as follows. Pretend that the movie Avatar didn't exist and the announcement on September 20th was as follows:

The Walt Disney Company is pleased to announce that it will be adding an additional themed land to Disney's Animal Kingdom made up of exotic plant life, mystical creatures and amazing attractions. This land will be created by Disney Imagineers who will consult with legendary filmmaker James Cameron on this new land which will be dubbed Pandora.

Sound a bit like Beastly Kingdom doesn't it?

 

[WDWFigment]

My argument for World of Avatar/Avatarland/Pandora is as follows. Pretend that the movie Avatar didn't exist and the announcement on September 20th was as follows:



I'm indifferent towards the movie Avatar, I'm completely uninterested in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy/The Hobbit, and I'm indifferent towards the movie Tron. However, I recognize that the source material for all of these lend themselves very well to theme park attractions. The biggest problems would be would it be the massive draw that The Wizarding World of Potter achieved? I highly doubt it, but it doesn't mean that the attractions or environments themselves would be weak.

To continue this. Monster's Inc is probably my least favorite Pixar movie, but I'm one of the few defenders of Monster's Inc Laugh Floor. That doesn't mean that I'm going to be buying merchandise (although if it says M.I.L.F., I might) but it does mean that I can enjoy what was created.

The fact is, we know so little about World of Avatar at this point other than there's a lot of money being poured into it, and the source material raises questions from a story standpoint. Besides that, we know nothing. If it comes out that the attractions are going to be a Soarin' clone, a kid ride that's comparable and as limiting as Pteranadon Flyers, and a spinner, then by all means complain. But until then, I really don't understand the complaints.

Totally agree. The quality, or lack thereof, of the film is largely irrelevant. The environments contained in the movie, and to a lesser extent, the characters, are what matters.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Sound a bit like Beastly Kingdom doesn't it?

Or a mysterious island with lava monsters... seriously we know so little about this I have to turn a deaf ear to most of the criticisms. One of my own cohosts is vehemently against World of Avatar and we've had outright debates on our show about it. I just think that at this point we know so little that to argue about the unknown is silly.

Totally agree. The quality, or lack thereof, of the film is largely irrelevant. The environments contained in the movie, and to a lesser extent, the characters, are what matters.

For the most part, I'm indifferent towards or dislike most of the source material of many theme park attractions. My favorite franchise that was used as the basis for an attraction was Back to the Future, and I found the ride so nauseating that I couldn't bare to go on it. Franchises are primarily for merchandise and marketing.

I have no attachment to the Twilight Zone or Song of the South and they are two of my favorite attractions on property. If Disney is concerned with the merchandising aspect of it, perhaps producing quality attractions regardless of the source material should be the focus. The Beastly Bazaar does pretty well from a merchandise standpoint. It doesn't do Harry Potter well, but for an original attraction I would guess that Everest may be second only to The Haunted Mansion for merchandise sales.

Now if only they would sell hand towels in Tower Gifts...

 

[Captain Chaos]

if done right it won't matter.

I removed the rest of your post because THIS is what matters the most... if done right... Key wording there... Like someone said, if it is only a clone of Soaring, then that is unimaginative and a failure despite Soarin's popularity... i they do the land right, and do the land well, it really won't matter if half the country, or half the world, forgets the Avatar movie...

 

[stitch2008]

Wait, you want to see a land based on this?

Joel, Mike, bots, your experiement this week is Journey 2 The Mysterious Island. Its got Dwyane "The Rock" Johnson and Vanessa Hudgens mixed in with random Dinosaurs, giant birds, a giant killer iguana, a midget elephant and other bizare and demented creations that didnt make it into the Star Wars prequel trilogy. It does have Michael Caine in it, so it has that going for it. But then so did Jaws: The Revenge and well...... oh just send them the movie Frank.

Seriously, someone MST3K that poster at once.



In all seriousness, a movie delay is not going to cause a delay in Pandora. The world has already been revelaed. The themes have been revelaed. Thats what is important.

 

[truecoat]

ROFL. I knew someone would mention that.

I already had written so much, I didn't think I needed to explain this, but I will.

He didn't invent anything NEW. And I'm sorry, but James Cameron may have filed a patent, but don't tell me he was in a lab and actually constructed anything (nor should he, he's a director). That was a publicity thing, mostly - to add some "prestige".

So we should discount the underwater dolly he "invented"? How about the scuba masks and refilling station for the Abyss?

 

[Patricia Melton]

I doubt the release of the movie will push back the Pandora project at DAK any further. James Cameron is sharing all his sketches and things for the new movie with Disney so they know what's going to be in Parts 2 and 3...which appear to be a lot of underwater life forms based on what Cameron found on the bottom of the sea when he visited there.

A Pandorra land at DAK will take many years to build. Not sure exactly when the FLE was announced, but I've seen threads as old as 2009 talking about the FLE here on this forum, so at least three or four years and the construction is continuing through 2014 for the Mine Train. So Pandora in DAK will not be open for guests until maybe 2016 or 2017.

It appears Cameron's movies might be opening right around that time...so it actually works out better for DAK that these movies are delayed as they will coincide with the opening of the new land.

The last I heard, it looks like Camp Minnie Mickey will be removed and that area near the front of the park will be where Pandora is built. My son heard that Disney is going to probably call it "Pandora" and not "Avatarland" because this way the characters from the Avatar movies can be in there but it would give Disney a little distance from the movies so it can be a timeless attraction...and Pandora fits better with Africa, Asia, and even DinoLand USA (which are all places, even though DinoLand USA is a made-up place somewhere in North America where they found dinosaur bones and then this little carnival place sprung up around it). DAK would then have lands based on continents on Earth, a roadside attraction on a real continent on Earth, and then another planet (Pandora).

 

[Hakunamatata]

I can't wait to see what a Pandoran roadside attraction looks like......