News Avatar Experience coming to Disneyland

[Disney Irish]

I was interested in Avatar merchandise sales, so I Googled. I couldn't find any media reports on Avatar merch sales, unlike the media reporting on Pixar and Princess merchandise sales figures. But I did find this article at Vox. It's quite interesting, and speaks to the conversation here of Avatar's cultural impact, or nearly complete lack of cultural impact.

What if you made a movie that did $2 Billion in box office, but nobody really cared?

Avatar: The Way of Water made $2 billion worldwide. Wait, really?

How the Avatar franchise can be be wildly popular and still feel irrelevant

www.vox.com

And here I thought it was just me! Apparently, it's a sentiment shared by a lot of people. Which makes it an interesting thing to spend money on in the parks at a time when budgets are being slashed and thousands are being laid off.

I think you missed the point of the article my friend. That Avatar actually breaks the traditional measure/what we've been taught as having "cultural impact", ie the merch sales and your Halloween costume metric.

This sum it up pretty well for me:

"Avatar is, Connor says, a sort of dinosaur franchise that, thanks in large part to its financial success, still operates in a way that some older franchises — like Alien or, more recently, Planet of the Apes — worked. That means that while there’s supplemental merch and other cinematic accoutrements, the movie was the main attraction, the endpoint."

Its an IP that transcends all that stuff because its not meant be a large merch driver, the movie itself IS the cultural impact and it ends there. And so while Disney will build out lands and attractions at Disneyland and other Disney Parks, which will be successful. Its not the large merch driver that traditionally is considered to be "culturally impactful" but yet it still will be due to just the movies themselves.

 

[PiratesMansion]

I do hope at some point we can get over this apparently undying urge some people on this board have to be constantly yelling, "PROPERTY X ISN'T SUCCESSFUL BY MY METRICS THAT I WILL STICK TO DOGGEDLY, THEREFORE WHY THIS, RAH RAH, OLD MAN YELLS AT CLOUD, ETC!" But since it seems like we're a ways away from that...

Avatar, the movie franchise, doesn't have a huge merchandising or "cultural" footprint because it's not about the characters. There ARE no iconic characters, stories, etc. that you see in traditional massive franchises, nor are there crazy plot twists or anything else that can create huge buzz. No one that will seem like a fun character to dress up as on Halloween (sigh). From that perspective, it can be easy and tempting to make it seem like a flop on some level, or an odd choice to base a franchise off of in any capacity.

BUT

Pandora is a compelling environment (and compelling theatrical experience), which is why the movie has made gangbusters box office in spite of the fact that its characters and plot aren't traditionally iconic, and why Pandora works well as a theme park environment.

For all the digital ink spilled on the internet about all of the importance of story to theme parks, particularly Disney theme parks, if there's a compelling theme park environment, a lot of the work is already done (particularly since Disney isn't really that good at storytelling in the conventional sense on theme park attractions) in making a land or attraction work. It becomes easy to create a theme park land or attraction about interacting with this environment and the unique challenges contained within it, regardless of whether or not there is a conventional narrative structure or identifiable characters for riders to follow-and, frankly, more of Disney's iconic attractions fit that mold than is commonly acknowledged, because in many instances, traditional metrics of character, plot, etc. do not actually matter or determine whether or not something is successful as a theme park attraction.

For example: how many of the ghosts of the Haunted Mansion can you actually name? Ok, now how many would you be able to name if you weren't an uber nerd-I say this with love-posting on a theme park board, and who is therefore likely really into this stuff? Is knowing their names beyond giving them a generic description, i.e. the caretaker, actually important to what happens on the ride or how riders engage with it? It's not. Does Haunted Mansion have a big, detailed plot in the conventional sense? As much as fans and Disney themselves have increasingly tried to concoct one, the answer remains Not Really. And yet the attraction works and has become a classic because of its compelling environments and the way they are presented.

The same principle is true for the world of Avatar, and that's why the franchise works as the basis of a theme park land but more beloved Marvel or Pixar films largely do not. Pandora is never going to have the merchandise sales of a Potter land, but it works as a compelling environment, while also allowing bigwig CEOs to pat themselves on the back and feel good about what they're doing because it's also technically IP. So as long as they do it appropriately (admittedly a big ask to the modern leaders), there's nothing wrong with Pandora on paper-in fact, it already works better than several more conventional hot properties that people seem more ok with them building out.

And since there's already been an incredibly successful first Avatar movie, there's now an incredibly successful sequel (with more on the way), and there's already a highly regarded existing themed area based on the franchise that works pretty well, I really don't understand why people insist on having arbitrary conversations about how much space Avatar does or does not take up in pop culture. The impact of the franchise isn't in doubt-it's already here and demonstrable.

 

[Newtwo]

Lightning Lane line was basically non existent today when I rode. Regular line was moving super fast.

 

[Disney Irish]

I do hope at some point we can get over this apparently undying urge some people on this board have to be constantly yelling, "PROPERTY X ISN'T SUCCESSFUL BY MY METRICS THAT I WILL STICK TO DOGGEDLY, THEREFORE WHY THIS, RAH RAH, OLD MAN YELLS AT CLOUD, ETC!" But since it seems like we're a ways away from that...

Avatar, the movie franchise, doesn't have a huge merchandising or "cultural" footprint because it's not about the characters. There ARE no iconic characters, stories, etc. that you see in traditional massive franchises, nor are there crazy plot twists or anything else that can create huge buzz. No one that will seem like a fun character to dress up as on Halloween (sigh). From that perspective, it can be easy and tempting to make it seem like a flop on some level, or an odd choice to base a franchise off of in any capacity.

BUT

Pandora is a compelling environment (and compelling theatrical experience), which is why the movie has made gangbusters box office in spite of the fact that its characters and plot aren't traditionally iconic, and why Pandora works well as a theme park environment.

For all the digital ink spilled on the internet about all of the importance of story to theme parks, particularly Disney theme parks, if there's a compelling theme park environment, a lot of the work is already done (particularly since Disney isn't really that good at storytelling in the conventional sense on theme park attractions) in making a land or attraction work. It becomes easy to set a theme park land about interacting with this environment and the unique challenges contained within it, regardless of whether or not there is a conventional narrative structure or identifiable characters for riders to follow-and, frankly, more of Disney's iconic attractions fit that mold than is commonly acknowledged, because in many instances, traditional metrics of character, plot, etc. do not actually matter or determine whether or not something is successful.

For example: how many of the ghosts of the Haunted Mansion can you actually name? Ok, now how many would you be able to name if you weren't an uber nerd-I say this with love-posting on a theme park board, and who is therefore likely really into this stuff? Is knowing their names beyond giving them a generic description, i.e. the caretaker, actually important to what happens on the ride or how riders engage with it? It's not. Does Haunted Mansion have a big, detailed plot in the conventional sense? As much as fans and Disney themselves have increasingly tried to concoct one, the answer remains Not Really. And yet the attraction works and has become a classic because of its compelling environments and the way they are presented.

The same principle is true for the world of Avatar, and that's why the franchise works as the basis of a theme park land but Marvel or Pixar films largely do not. Pandora is never going to have the merchandise sales of a Potter land, but it works as a compelling environment, while also allowing bigwig CEOs to pat themselves on the back and feel good about what they're doing because it's also technically IP. So as long as they do it appropriately (admittedly a big ask to the modern leaders), there's nothing wrong with Pandora on paper-in fact, it already works better than several more conventional hot properties that people seem more ok with them building out.

And since there's already been an incredibly successful first Avatar movie, there's now an incredibly successful sequel (with more on the way), and there's already a highly regarded existing themed area based on the franchise that works pretty well, I really don't understand why people insist on having arbitrary conversations about how much space Avatar does or does not take up in pop culture. The impact of the franchise isn't in doubt-it's already here and demonstrable.

Very well said, thank you.

 

[Disney Analyst]

I think you missed the point of the article my friend. That Avatar actually breaks the traditional measure/what we've been taught as having "cultural impact", ie the merch sales and your Halloween costume metric.

This sum it up pretty well for me:

"Avatar is, Connor says, a sort of dinosaur franchise that, thanks in large part to its financial success, still operates in a way that some older franchises — like Alien or, more recently, Planet of the Apes — worked. That means that while there’s supplemental merch and other cinematic accoutrements, the movie was the main attraction, the endpoint."

Its an IP that transcends all that stuff because its not meant be a large merch driver, the movie itself IS the cultural impact and it ends there. And so while Disney will build out lands and attractions at Disneyland and other Disney Parks, which will be successful. Its not the large merch driver that traditionally is considered to be "culturally impactful" but yet it still will be due to just the movies themselves.

I do hope at some point we can get over this apparently undying urge some people on this board have to be constantly yelling, "PROPERTY X ISN'T SUCCESSFUL BY MY METRICS THAT I WILL STICK TO DOGGEDLY, THEREFORE WHY THIS, RAH RAH, OLD MAN YELLS AT CLOUD, ETC!" But since it seems like we're a ways away from that...

Avatar, the movie franchise, doesn't have a huge merchandising or "cultural" footprint because it's not about the characters. There ARE no iconic characters, stories, etc. that you see in traditional massive franchises, nor are there crazy plot twists or anything else that can create huge buzz. No one that will seem like a fun character to dress up as on Halloween (sigh). From that perspective, it can be easy and tempting to make it seem like a flop on some level, or an odd choice to base a franchise off of in any capacity.

BUT

Pandora is a compelling environment (and compelling theatrical experience), which is why the movie has made gangbusters box office in spite of the fact that its characters and plot aren't traditionally iconic, and why Pandora works well as a theme park environment.

For all the digital ink spilled on the internet about all of the importance of story to theme parks, particularly Disney theme parks, if there's a compelling theme park environment, a lot of the work is already done (particularly since Disney isn't really that good at storytelling in the conventional sense on theme park attractions) in making a land or attraction work. It becomes easy to create a theme park land or attraction about interacting with this environment and the unique challenges contained within it, regardless of whether or not there is a conventional narrative structure or identifiable characters for riders to follow-and, frankly, more of Disney's iconic attractions fit that mold than is commonly acknowledged, because in many instances, traditional metrics of character, plot, etc. do not actually matter or determine whether or not something is successful as a theme park attraction.

For example: how many of the ghosts of the Haunted Mansion can you actually name? Ok, now how many would you be able to name if you weren't an uber nerd-I say this with love-posting on a theme park board, and who is therefore likely really into this stuff? Is knowing their names beyond giving them a generic description, i.e. the caretaker, actually important to what happens on the ride or how riders engage with it? It's not. Does Haunted Mansion have a big, detailed plot in the conventional sense? As much as fans and Disney themselves have increasingly tried to concoct one, the answer remains Not Really. And yet the attraction works and has become a classic because of its compelling environments and the way they are presented.

The same principle is true for the world of Avatar, and that's why the franchise works as the basis of a theme park land but more beloved Marvel or Pixar films largely do not. Pandora is never going to have the merchandise sales of a Potter land, but it works as a compelling environment, while also allowing bigwig CEOs to pat themselves on the back and feel good about what they're doing because it's also technically IP. So as long as they do it appropriately (admittedly a big ask to the modern leaders), there's nothing wrong with Pandora on paper-in fact, it already works better than several more conventional hot properties that people seem more ok with them building out.

And since there's already been an incredibly successful first Avatar movie, there's now an incredibly successful sequel (with more on the way), and there's already a highly regarded existing themed area based on the franchise that works pretty well, I really don't understand why people insist on having arbitrary conversations about how much space Avatar does or does not take up in pop culture. The impact of the franchise isn't in doubt-it's already here and demonstrable.

Yes and yes!

 

[Phroobar]

Except monsters and the horror genre have always been a classic Halloween costume staple long before any Disney franchise existed.



And nurse cosplay only has 1432 results on Etsy, but I sure see a lot of "nurses" at Halloween parties I've attended. It doesn't mean much my friend.

 

[celluloid]

This sum it up pretty well for me:

"Avatar is, Connor says, a sort of dinosaur franchise that, thanks in large part to its financial success, still operates in a way that some older franchises — like Alien or, more recently, Planet of the Apes — worked. That means that while there’s supplemental merch and other cinematic accoutrements, the movie was the main attraction, the endpoint."

Its an IP that transcends all that stuff because its not meant be a large merch driver, the movie itself IS the cultural impact and it ends there. And so while Disney will build out lands and attractions at Disneyland and other Disney Parks, which will be successful. Its not the large merch driver that traditionally is considered to be "culturally impactful" but yet it still will be due to just the movies themselves.

Whoever wrote that knew very little of Aliens or Planet of the Apes. (They said more recently, so I guess they tried to speak of the remakes)
The Kenner toys for Aliens. Alien vs Predator and a bunch of other spin offs of apparel and merch and masks going back to Planet of the Apes and figures were not just there,. But we're very popular.

I have seen more people wear Wayland Utani corp merch than I have ever seen anyone wearing Avatar.

We can even move away from the merch and find cultural impact elsewhere.
Twilight Zone. Huge cultural impact. Not a tone of merch outside of the super fandom or collector market, but to the point where the icon that it is has visuals associated in common reference and parody. When someone would have something weird happen they would cue the Twilight Zone theme. The Twilight
Zone entered zeitgeist as when you feel something surreal and strange occuring.




Besides "I see you" there are not quotables. There are not these specific moments. There is no "Frankly my dear or "tomorrow is another day"
There is no bolder moment like Indy, or Trench battle in Star Wars comparison
There are no crossing the streams or theme song.

It is great that you find the movie is the event, and are right. It is an EPIC.

But guess which things last better as theme park attractions? Ultimately the cultural ancillary impact.

It's an epic in a world.of.elics often on the screen again, so it has even less impact.

Top Gun 2 has more cultural impact when you consider the connection and standing on its own from the first.

What I am saying is you are both right. It's not a bad thing.

 

[No Name]

Aside from its box office success, the land resulted in the largest attendance increase for a Disney theme park. There’s no doubt it was a wise decision to invest in, and it continues to be.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Aside from its box office success, the land resulted in the largest attendance increase for a Disney theme park. There’s no doubt it was a wise decision to invest in, and continues to be so.

I think that your post has merit but it also helped turn DAK into a half day park for most into a full day park. I would say that had a larger impact on the jump in attendance than the source material for the expansion

 

[TP2000]

I think you missed the point of the article my friend. That Avatar actually breaks the traditional measure/what we've been taught as having "cultural impact", ie the merch sales and your Halloween costume metric.

Avatar, the movie franchise, doesn't have a huge merchandising or "cultural" footprint because it's not about the characters,

Well, if you say so kids.

But it seems very odd to me to spend all this money on park expansion for a franchise that doesn't sell chunks of plastic (LE Collectible!) and pajama sets and t-shirts and stuffed animals. Usually Disney/Pixar/Marvel/Star Wars stuff is all over that merchandise sales and plastic made in Communist China that you just gotta have or else your vacation is pointless.

I think that your post has merit but it also helped turn DAK into a half day park for most into a full day park. I would say that had a larger impact on the jump in attendance than the source material for the expansion

One single E Ticket and a 5 minute long D Ticket boat ride did that?

I've never been a big fan of DAK and never spent much time there after my first two visits twenty years ago because I've been a member of the zoologically superior San Diego Zoo for decades, but if all it took to turn from a half-day park into a full-day park was one E Ticket and a D Ticket about a movie that doesn't sell merchandise, then what does that say about the park in general? Yikes!

 

[celluloid]

Well, if you say so kids.

But it seems very odd to me to spend all this money on park expansion for a franchise that doesn't sell chunks of plastic (LE Collectible!) and pajama sets and t-shirts and stuffed animals. Usually Disney/Pixar/Marvel/Star Wars stuff is all over that merchandise sales and plastic made in Communist China that you just gotta have or else your vacation is pointless.

One single E Ticket and a D Ticket boat ride did that? I've never been a big fan of DAK and never spent much time there after my first two visits twenty years ago because I've been a member of the zoologically superior San Diego Zoo for decades, but if all it took to turn from a half-day park into a full-day park was one E Ticket and a D Ticket about a movie that doesn't sell merchandise, then what does that say about the park in general? Yikes!

Well it may have turned it into a full day park for some at opening year due to the capacity being really low for WDW motion simulator standards.
And the boat ride terrible capacity for WDW boat ride standards.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Well, if you say so kids.

But it seems very odd to me to spend all this money on park expansion for a franchise that doesn't sell chunks of plastic (LE Collectible!) and pajama sets and t-shirts and stuffed animals. Usually Disney/Pixar/Marvel/Star Wars stuff is all over that merchandise sales and plastic made in Communist China that you just gotta have or else your vacation is pointless.

One single E Ticket and a 5 minute long D Ticket boat ride did that?

I've never been a big fan of DAK and never spent much time there after my first two visits twenty years ago because I've been a member of the zoologically superior San Diego Zoo for decades, but if all it took to turn from a half-day park into a full-day park was one E Ticket and a D Ticket about a movie that doesn't sell merchandise, then what does that say about the park in general? Yikes!

I didn’t claim that the addition of Pandora has turned it into a full day park, I said for some. Especially in its opening year, some may have chosen DAK over Epcot for example. DAK still needs more attractions

 

[TP2000]

I didn’t claim that the addition of Pandora has turned it into a full day park, I said for some. Especially in its opening year, some may have chosen DAK over Epcot for example. DAK still needs more attractions

Ah, got it.

Yes, DAK still needs at least a dozen more rides just to approach DCA levels. Even though it's got some good zoo exhibits.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Ah, got it.

Yes, DAK still needs at least a dozen more rides just to approach DCA levels. Even though it's got some good zoo exhibits.

I don’t even think DCA is a good example of a full day park. Domestically I can only think of Disneyland Park for sure and MK dragging behind. The other 4 domestic parks severely lack capacity and attractions.

 

[TP2000]

I don’t even think DCA is a good example of a full day park. Domestically I can only think of Disneyland Park for sure and MK dragging behind. The other 4 domestic parks severely lack capacity and attractions.

Well, that's true if you use Disneyland Park as the barometer for "Full Day Park". But absolutely nothing can come close to Disneyland Park for ride count and attraction capacity.

Using just the basic ride counts between the two Anaheim parks versus the four Orlando parks, the Orlando parks are weak and sorry.

Even Card Walker's Magic Kingdom Park, which only beats DCA in its ride count. I mean, if you have to breathe hard to beat DCA, what's the point?

 

[Professortango1]

When you are discussing an IP's pop cultural impact on children, the lack of children wearing that IP as Halloween costumes is an excellent metric.

The financial box office success of Avatar 1 in 2009 is undeniable. But then it never broke through as a thing kids cared about; Halloween costumes, Christmas wish lists, birthday party themes, colorful twin-size sheet sets made of scratchy poly-blend fabric, etc.

Avatar 1 in '09 didn't sell much merch.

Is Avatar 2 in '22 selling a lot of merch, especially for kids? I'm not seeing it, but then I don't hang out around playgrounds because they'd call the cops. Which is why I wait for the kids to visit me on Halloween instead.

So if some parents here can tell us that Avatar 2 is all the rage with the kids or even teens, I'm happy to hear it.

Also look at the fact that Avatar 2 isn't doing the business of Avatar 1. It is still doing great box office for a variety of reasons (no competition, event movie, simplicity, etc) but for a sequel to sell fewer tickets than than the original is pretty rare for successful franchises. Usually, regardless of quality, the sequel sells better because the first one's cultural impact. Avatar is two films in and the interest is already starting to wain.

 

[TP2000]

Also look at the fact that Avatar 2 isn't doing the business of Avatar 1. It is still doing great box office for a variety of reasons (no competition, event movie, simplicity, etc) but for a sequel to sell fewer tickets than than the original is pretty rare for successful franchises. Usually, regardless of quality, the sequel sells better because the first one's cultural impact. Avatar is two films in and the interest is already starting to wain.

Well, all of that is true. But you can get away with saying something truthful like that. I can't.

 

[Professortango1]

I don’t even think DCA is a good example of a full day park. Domestically I can only think of Disneyland Park for sure and MK dragging behind. The other 4 domestic parks severely lack capacity and attractions.

The only Full Day park at WDW for me is Epcot. When we visited a few summers ago, we would get done with each park around 1/2, and that was even seeing shows and riding filler rides that I likely would only ride once every decade or so (Belle Meet and Greet, Frozen sing-a-long, Primeval Whirl, etc). Of course, this was just prior to Pandora and GE/TSL, however I don't see these making a huge impact.

DHS just really needs some love. Still. AK at least is gorgeous to walk around and animal watch, but the empty faux soundstages of DHS don't add much when bouncing between TOT and ROTR.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

The only Full Day park at WDW for me is Epcot. When we visited a few summers ago, we would get done with each park around 1/2, and that was even seeing shows and riding filler rides that I likely would only ride once every decade or so (Belle Meet and Greet, Frozen sing-a-long, Primeval Whirl, etc). Of course, this was just prior to Pandora and GE/TSL, however I don't see these making a huge impact.

DHS just really needs some love. Still. AK at least is gorgeous to walk around and animal watch, but the empty faux soundstages of DHS don't add much when bouncing between TOT and ROTR.

I guess we could say to each their own. I spend the least time in Epcot.

 

[TP2000]

DHS just really needs some love. Still. AK at least is gorgeous to walk around and animal watch, but the empty faux soundstages of DHS don't add much when bouncing between TOT and ROTR.

But, but... Alien Swirling Saucers!

What passes for just one of a dozen random C Tickets in DCA is a major offering in DHS! And if you pay extra for Genie+ you can even get on Alien Swirling Saucers via Lightning Lane! That has to mean it's a really good ride. Genie+ doesn't lie!