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

[Brewmaster]

This is easily one of the most arrogant biased forums on the internet. Only here would people claim that a film that made just shy of 3 BILLION dollars isn't a sure thing in regards to a theme park attraction

FWIW I ran a quick search on both Toys r Us and Walmart's websites for Avatar themed merchandise (toys, bedding, etc) and found only 74 items that Walmart carries (actually less than 50 items if you remove The Last Airbender from the lot) and over 400 Harry Potter themed items. Toys r Us was even worse. That's pretty good observational evidence that the franchise just isn't that popular in general. You toss in Star Wars into that mix and you've got a mega hit....

 

[Cybercat]

FWIW I ran a quick search on both Toys r Us and Walmart's websites for Avatar themed merchandise (toys, bedding, etc) and found only 74 items that Walmart carries (actually less than 50 items if you remove The Last Airbender from the lot) and over 400 Harry Potter themed items. Toys r Us was even worse. That's pretty good observational evidence that the franchise just isn't that popular in general. You toss in Star Wars into that mix and you've got a mega hit....

This is a ridiculous strawman argument. If the world of Pandora is built at Animal Kingdom, it will drive people to the park and break attendance records. And people will buy merchandise as a result including children. Just because there isn't a ton of children's toys for a PG-13 film in Toys R Us now 3 years after the film left theaters is irrelevant. I mean seriously that's the measuring test for what to build now? What about Indiana Jones? People here seem to want an Indy attraction and I guarantee you there isn't a ton of toys in Toys R Us at the moment. I'm sorry using this rationale, they should just bulldoze all four parks and rebuild everything around Cars and Bratz.

Anyone that says a movie that made 3 billion from repeat viewings isn't popular is ignorant. Yes, that's the word I'm using. You can have an opinion, but you can't change facts. Similarly, if you wanted McCain to win in 2008, it doesn't mean you get to pretend Obama isn't the president. Changing the goalpost to "current amount of children's toys in toysrus.com" is just a way to excuse the fact you are biased against something that was wildly popular with people other than yourself.

 

[wm49rs]

I'm curious, where do your facts on repeat viewings of Avatar come from?

And really, bringing politics into the discussion? I guess you're just trying to get banned through more than personal insults.....

 

[danlb_2000]

This is a ridiculous strawman argument. If the world of Pandora is built at Animal Kingdom, it will drive people to the park and break attendance records. And people will buy merchandise as a result including children. Just because there isn't a ton of children's toys for a PG-13 film in Toys R Us now 3 years after the film left theaters is irrelevant. I mean seriously that's the measuring test for what to build now? What about Indiana Jones? People here seem to want an Indy attraction and I guarantee you there isn't a ton of toys in Toys R Us at the moment. I'm sorry using this rationale, they should just bulldoze all four parks and rebuild everything around Cars and Bratz.

Anyone that says a movie that made 3 billion from repeat viewings isn't popular is ignorant. Yes, that's the word I'm using. You can have an opinion, but you can't change facts. Similarly, if you wanted McCain to win in 2008, it doesn't mean you get to pretend Obama isn't the president. Changing the goalpost to "current amount of children's toys in toysrus.com" is just a way to excuse the fact you are biased against something that was wildly popular with people other than yourself.

I am not a big fan of extreme negativity on the boards, and I personally like the Avatar idea, but I also think that the question of whether the expansion will be a success or not is a very valid topic of debate. There is not doubt that it was a very successful movie, the bigger question is whether it has maintained it's relevance. Avatar hasn't become a big part of popular culture like Star Wars and Harry Potter have. I don't think Disney can necessarily rely on a large Avatar fan base to flood into the park like Universal had with Harry Potter. If they build an immersive environment with a cutting edge e-ticket ride, I think they will get people into the park, but I don't think they can just rest on the popularity of the franchise. Yes, Avatar sequels are in the works, but these are a wild card at this point.

 

[Brewmaster]

This is a ridiculous strawman argument. If the world of Pandora is built at Animal Kingdom, it will drive people to the park and break attendance records. And people will buy merchandise as a result including children. Just because there isn't a ton of children's toys for a PG-13 film in Toys R Us now 3 years after the film left theaters is irrelevant. I mean seriously that's the measuring test for what to build now? What about Indiana Jones? People here seem to want an Indy attraction and I guarantee you there isn't a ton of toys in Toys R Us at the moment. I'm sorry using this rationale, they should just bulldoze all four parks and rebuild everything around Cars and Bratz.

Anyone that says a movie that made 3 billion from repeat viewings isn't popular is ignorant. Yes, that's the word I'm using. You can have an opinion, but you can't change facts. Similarly, if you wanted McCain to win in 2008, it doesn't mean you get to pretend Obama isn't the president. Changing the goalpost to "current amount of children's toys in toysrus.com" is just a way to excuse the fact you are biased against something that was wildly popular with people other than yourself.

Wow, you are wound tight. I think you may want to revisit the concept of the "Straw Man" concept, you seem to have either misunderstood my post or simply used it as a jumping off point for your lecture. The fact is that Avatar was a wildly successful box office draw, however it has never materialized into a cultural phenomenon, which is why I offered the Harry Potter and Star Wars franchises as a measuring stick. I have no personal stake in whether or not Avatar (or Pandora) is represented at DAK, I am of the opinion that as long as it is well done (meaning thematically and having solid attractions) then I will be more than happy to plunk down the cash and visit.

I would like to point out that I think the reason so many people would be happy to see a version of the Indiana Jones Adventure installed at WDW is because it is a great attraction, simple as that. People like great attractions, give 'me what they want and they will come.

 

[Cybercat]

Wow, you are wound tight. I think you may want to revisit the concept of the "Straw Man" concept, you seem to have either misunderstood my post or simply used it as a jumping off point for your lecture. The fact is that Avatar was a wildly successful box office draw, however it has never materialized into a cultural phenomenon, which is why I offered the Harry Potter and Star Wars franchises as a measuring stick. I have no personal stake in whether or not Avatar (or Pandora) is represented at DAK, I am of the opinion that as long as it is well done (meaning thematically and having solid attractions) then I will be more than happy to plunk down the cash and visit.

I would like to point out that I think the reason so many people would be happy to see a version of the Indiana Jones Adventure installed at WDW is because it is a great attraction, simple as that. People like great attractions, give 'me what they want and they will come.

The movie was number one week after week after week. It defied all boxoffice trends and shocked analysts. That was the definition of a cultural phenomeon. If you don't think so, you''re just being a contrarian. Just becuase James Cameron didn't decide to flood the gates with cartoons and kids merchandise afterwards doesn't change the significance of its success.

It's a strawman becuase you're changing the argument to something extremely narrow that you can more easily attack when it's obvious your overall argument has no merit and is flat out false.

 

[Brewmaster]

The movie was number one week after week after week. It defied all boxoffice trends and shocked analysts. That was the definition of a cultural phenomeon. If you don't think so, you''re just being a contrarian. Just becuase James Cameron didn't decide to flood the gates with cartoons and kids merchandise afterwards doesn't change the significance of its success.

It's a strawman becuase you're changing the argument to something extremely narrow that you can more easily attack when it's obvious your overall argument has no merit and is flat out false.

Record box office receipts is absolutely not the "definition" of a cultural phenomenon, and I'm pretty certain analysts were not taken by surprise by the film. It was very much hyped, and was being held to the Titanic standard before the first projector fired up. I will give credit that it changed the way films are marketed and released, meaning a studio can rake in more cash from a 3D movie because they can charge a premium price for it (some would say it was a "pandora's" box that should have never been opened, but that's an entirely different discussion), add IMAX showings to the balance sheet and you artificially inflate the perceived box office returns. The formula was very basic: Blockbuster Director James Cameron + a revolutionary motion capture and 3D technology= Profit!

And you are still using that word incorrectly in this instance...

 

[Cybercat]

Record box office receipts is absolutely not the "definition" of a cultural phenomenon, and I'm pretty certain analysts were not taken by surprise by the film. It was very much hyped, and was being held to the Titanic standard before the first projector fired up. I will give credit that it changed the way films are marketed and released, meaning a studio can rake in more cash from a 3D movie because they can charge a premium price for it (some would say it was a "pandora's" box that should have never been opened, but that's an entirely different discussion), add IMAX showings to the balance sheet and you artificially inflate the perceived box office returns. The formula was very basic: Blockbuster Director James Cameron + a revolutionary motion capture and 3D technology= Profit!

And you are still using that word incorrectly in this instance...

Like I said, you're being ignorant. Proof:

After the film's release and unusually strong box office performance over its first two weeks, it was debated as the one film capable of surpassing Titanic's worldwide gross, and its continued strength perplexed box office analysts.[209] Other films in recent years had been cited as contenders for surpassing Titanic, such as 2008's The Dark Knight,[210] but Avatar was considered the first film with a genuine chance to do so, and its numbers being aided by higher ticket prices for 3-D screenings[209] did not fully explain its success to box office analysts. "Most films are considered to be healthy if they manage anything less than a 50% drop from their first weekend to their second. Dipping just 11% from the first to the third is unheard of," relayed Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office analysis for Hollywood.com. "This is just unprecedented," he said. "I had to do a double take. I thought it was a miscalculation."[163]

That's history. You don't get to change it, because you're mad a theme park isn't building what you want.

Plenty of films have been in 3D and IMAX, and they mad squat compared to Avatar. Those alone do not explain its success in any conceivable way. It's performance as stated above explains it all. I also remember a certain Disney film named John Carter that used the same tricks you are decrying Avatar for and even the same source material, and it bombed. You're in total denial.

Yes, because Titanic was the hugest success in film history, it's not big deal that Cameron's next movie made even more to become the most ridiculous success either. That's such a great argument for why it wasn't a huge deal. If you don't think movies can define a cultural phenomenon, stop going to Disney World, which was built on the success of theatrical films. Your hypocrisy is intergalactic in size.

 

[Brewmaster]

If you don't think movies can define a cultural phenomenon, stop going to Disney World, which was built on the success of theatrical films. Your hypocrisy is intergalactic in size.

Oh, but I do think films can BECOME cultural phenomena (as I have previously stated) just not Avatar. Clearly you are a zealous fan of the film, and I never said anything untoward about it so I'm not sure where your misguided anger is coming from. Much to your (apparent) dismay, I do plan to return to WDW and hopefully will experience a game changing attraction at DAK (sometime in 2017 is the word on the street).

 

[Beholder]

Reading these and other posts, I think one of the arguments against Avatar isn't based on the movie being good, bad, culturally significant, or having staying power. It's that some have a problem with it going into AK, thematically and cohesively. Disney has quite a few properties that would fit exceptionally well in AK. Some would say it should go to DHS with the other non-Disney properties.

But Pandora, visually and message wise, does fit within AK. Does the "alien" and off world aspects present problems? Yes, but can Disney figure out the angle necessary for the suspension of disbelief? I believe they can. I hope they will. I don't know if Avatar is a "cultural phenomena", but it did break records, revolutionize certain movie making techniques, and regardless if I know the characters, I bet most people know about the movie.

Will all of this translate into a great theme park experience? Time, commitment, and budget will tell. As I've said elsewhere, if they're going to do it, do it right.

 

[Brewmaster]

Will all of this translate into a great theme park experience? Time, commitment, and budget will tell. As I've said elsewhere, if they're going to do it, do it right.

I'm totally with you on this, ultimately what all WDW fans want are quality (maintained) attractions and experiences. I will admit a personal bias that I have towards original storylines vs. using existing films (Disney's or not) for attractions, but I'm also keenly aware that times have changed and this is the direction that theme parks are heading (or are already there?).

 

[RSoxNo1]

I am not a big fan of extreme negativity on the boards, and I personally like the Avatar idea, but I also think that the question of whether the expansion will be a success or not is a very valid topic of debate. There is not doubt that it was a very successful movie, the bigger question is whether it has maintained it's relevance. Avatar hasn't become a big part of popular culture like Star Wars and Harry Potter have. I don't think Disney can necessarily rely on a large Avatar fan base to flood into the park like Universal had with Harry Potter. If they build an immersive environment with a cutting edge e-ticket ride, I think they will get people into the park, but I don't think they can just rest on the popularity of the franchise. Yes, Avatar sequels are in the works, but these are a wild card at this point.

Part of the problem here is that at no point in the history of the Avatar Franchise (the one mega-super-dooper blockbuster movie) was it geared towards children. The same cannot be said about Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings/Hobbit, or any of the Pixar and Disney Animated movies. This is going to hurt the merchandise offerings available, but it may help the demand from adults.

 

[luv]

Since it left theaters, I haven't heard anyone mention it...Disney fans excepted.

Even when it was in theaters, everyone who talked about liking just talked about the special effects. Nobody talked about plot or characters. They may have enjoyed it, but they didn't care about it.

I love the AK. It is my favorite of the Disney parks, no question. But I don't think avatar fits there and wish to God they'd find another place to try this out. Stick it in the Studios. It was a movie and God knows it can't hurt the theming over there.

I hate to see this happen to my beloved AK.

 

[Cybercat]

Analysis from actual industry insides says a lot of people saw it 3 to 5 times. That's why its performance was so extraordinary. If you want to read that as "people didn't care about it," you're just another hater trying to re-write reality to match your own sour grapes.

 

[Taylor]

Analysis from actual industry insides says a lot of people saw it 3 to 5 times. That's why its performance was so extraordinary. If you want to read that as "people didn't care about it," you're just another hater trying to re-write reality to match your own sour grapes.

Avatar was a extremely decent movie which people saw more then once because it "looked preety" I support the expansion but the film was OVERRATED

 

[danlb_2000]

Analysis from actual industry insides says a lot of people saw it 3 to 5 times. That's why its performance was so extraordinary. If you want to read that as "people didn't care about it," you're just another hater trying to re-write reality to match your own sour grapes.

The point he is trying to make is that "seeing it" doesn't mean the same thing as "careing about it". I am a perfect example of this. I loved the movie when I saw it, and saw it twice in the theaters. I was really interested in this movie for a couple weeks after I saw it, but then my interest declined. I have the original Blu-ray of it, but never watched it and never even bothered to get the extended edition. If the sequals didn't happen, I wouldn't be disappointed.

Compare this to Star Wars where I fully admit that I sold my soul to George Lucas. I anxiously awaited each movie (even after seeing episode 1) and have bought every DVD/Blu-ray release. I am personally "invested" in Star Wars, but I have not maintained that feeling for Avatar.

I think the phrase "They may have enjoyed it, but they didn't care about it." really sums up the attitude a lot of people have for Avatar.

Despite all of this, I still think a well done Avatar attraction/land would be a great edition to Animal Kingdom.

 

[Cybercat]

If there was a constant stream of Avatar junk since the theatrical run and the bluray came out, I'm pretty sure people here would still be playing Twister to explain away it being one of the most successful and popular films ever made. Too bad actual Disney films don't have to live up to this ridiculous non-achievable standard you set for Avatar. I don't see anyone saying, "People in the mainstream don't obsess over the Little Mermaid anymore, can the dark ride Disney, you morons!"

I'm also sick of examples like "I saw the movie 10 times but hated it, so everyone is like me." So disingenuous. You sound worse than a politician.

 

[wm49rs]

If there was a constant stream of Avatar junk since the theater and bluray came out, I'm pretty sure people here would still be playing Twister to explain away it being one of the most successful and popular films ever made. Too bad actual Disney films don't have to live up to this ridiculous non-achievable standard you set for Avatar. I don't see anyone saying, "People in the mainstream don't obsess over the Little Mermaid anymore, can the dark ride Disney, you morons!"

I'm also sick of examples like "I saw the movie 10 times but hated it, so everyone is like me." So disingenuous. You sound worse than a politician.

Actually, if you took the time to read his post he said he only saw it twice in the theaters. But I'm sure your alleged movie analysts would still have him in their calculations.

And if Avatar is the do-all, be-all hit and global icon you suggest it to be (because after all, everyone saw it multiple times according to your analysts), then setting a high standard for both the sequels and any future developments at WDW shouldn't be too hard to obtain.

 

[Cybercat]

Betting against the track record of Avatar and James Cameron in regards to a sequel being successful is like sticking your head in the sand I think. Like I said, this is a sure thing, but I think that says something about this forum. From what I have heard, you were all naysaying Potter Land before it became wildly successful. I don't know if you people gamble, but I suggest staying away from it probably. What's funny is that with every new Disney movie coming out, people here all post that they should be given attractions and no one holds them to fire over it. Like people were talking about a John Carter attraction here, hilariously. However, when it's the biggest success in the history of cinema but is technically not a Disney license suddenly the standards skyrocket to something that is absolutely non-achievable. I don't see this as a coincidence. I'm all for brand loyalty, but not when it involves torching ridiculously huge piles of money purely out of spite.

 

[wm49rs]

Well, if you're tired of this forum and all.....

And discussing a JC attraction, or one from any past, present or future Disney movie is a far cry from an announced development, albeit one without any groundbreaking or even concept art. And expecting whatever does come about to be of the highest standard and quality, regardless of it being Avatar-related or not, isn't too much to expect.