AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[Tom]

Great post. Some parts I agree with more than others. For example, Marvel doesn't bother me. And I think it had more to do with making the Disney brand palatable to boys then just purchasing a revenue stream.

And I don't think the purchase of the Muppets was as pure-hearted as you portray. (From my understanding, Eisner originally pursued the Muppets largely because he wanted to "own" Henson too.)

But I really agree with this last part. You can only view "timelessness" through a historical perspective. In 1982, we all thought ET would be a timeless classic. But today, it's a nostalgic memory for most. Only time will tell how well Potter and Avatar fare.

I suspect Potter will be timeless in as much as any franchise is. The books will likely remain popular works of fiction for generations. The movies, probably not so much. But they will run on cable for at least a generation or so. But, I figure there is so much money tied up in Potter that eventually, Rowling or someone else will start telling new stories in the Potter universe. And that, like Star Wars, will extend its life beyond most franchises.

There was a time in the late 80s and early 90s when the Star Wars franchise was dying out. Before those Zahn books, there wasn't a lot of Star Wars merchandise out there. Anything you could find was probably in a clearance bin. It wasn't until new stories breathed some life back into the franchise that Star Wars became truly timeless.

I think most of us (myself included) have doubts that Avatar will ever be timeless in the same way. But as you pointed out, if Disney does a great job creating a fantastic immersive land, it will be timeless even if the source material is culturally irrelevant.

I try to ignore the demonic motives of Eisner. Looking at it today, Disney is trying to do the Muppets justice. I hope the movie helps (the numbers aren't giving me hope), and it would be nice to at least see them utilized in the parks.

You're right about the secondary motive for Marvel. I'm just a traditionalist and know it's not Disney, and has nothing in common with Disney. I hate to see a brand be diluted. But, as long as they don't go throwing Marvel stuff into the MK or Epcot, I guess I don't care what they do with them.

Ultimately, we'll all just have to see if Fantasyland and Avatar can combat Potter phases 1 and 2. I have faith in the Disney brand (i.e. Fantasyland will work), and I have a renewed faith in the current WDI team, as they've been developing some pretty impressive stuff lately (and FINALLY). Regardless of the novelty of Avatar, the land is going to be pretty cool.

 

[lebeau]

Ultimately, we'll all just have to see if Fantasyland and Avatar can combat Potter phases 1 and 2. I have faith in the Disney brand (i.e. Fantasyland will work), and I have a renewed faith in the current WDI team, as they've been developing some pretty impressive stuff lately (and FINALLY). Regardless of the novelty of Avatar, the land is going to be pretty cool.

On the Muppets - I think they will endure in some form regardless of the relatively disappointing box office performance of the movie. Even Mickey has been through long periods of cultural irrelevance.

On Marvel - It's not the best fit. And I don't relish the idea of Marvel at MK or Epcot. But that's really unlikely to happen soon if ever. So, I'm not worried about. My primary concerns are for Disney hurting Marvel. Not the other way around.

I don't really think FLE or Avatar can or will compete with Potter in the short term. And I don't think Disney really expects them to. Potter's not going to kill Disney. Universal is just managing to make some good money which probably dips into Mickey's pocket a little. And I'm sure it burns some people up. But, Disney will still be #1 and they know it.

These projects will fetch Disney some headlines. But they won't have the same impact as Potter phases 1 and 2. It's apples and oranges. But I think FLE fixes some problems with MK. And any land would be a welcome addition to the attraction-starved AK. Avatar certainly lends itself to being an excellent addition to that park if done properly.

I'm not as optimistic as you that Disney will right the ship. But I do look forward to whatever they have coming down the pike. I'm going to check it out no matter what.

 

[stitch2008]

Thought id pop back with a little update.

It looks like Cameron is going to start shooting some of Avatar 2 very very soon. Not exactly with actors in frame. But Cameron has said he wants to film the Mariana Trench for the film. Well now he has the sub to do this and it looks as if he's going to take the dive very soon. There have been news reports that have been going around that he's diving and filming out there right now. Additionally, they have their location set for mocap filming in California. And there are many who are starting to believe that Avatar 2 will actually be out in December 2015. So thats the update on the movies. Keep in mind that Avatar was in post production for just about 2 years and they just barely finished it on time. So now they have two films to do. It wouldnt surprise me if they started principle photography and motion capture later this year early next.

As for the land, as others have said, everything is under heavy security. I rechecked with my friend who I had gotten some previous bits on Avatar and he says no one knows any of the specifics. Disney apparently isn't going to come out and announce anything until they are good and ready to. From what he's heard, WDI is cranking along with all the designs. And he reaffirmed what he has said to me every time I ask about it. "Ive said it once and I'll say it again, there are doing this as planned. They are gonna break ground some time next year." You know, he was actually agitated when I asked him if it possibly would be delayed. He said, "they all want this. It's going to take something drastic to stop this from happening." I trust my friend. He wouldnt tell me stuff like that if he didn't have good reason to say so. So there you are I guess. Thought we could use an Avatar update.

 

[Captain Neo]

Maybe if John carter does well at he box office hey will scrap avatar land for JC?

 

[Duckberg]

Just GrEaT

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

Sorry to be a broken record but to all those who are worried this won't be a timeless attraction because the franchise might be dated or have a weak story: The timeliness of the franchise is irrelevant! Need you look no further to the likes of ToT, Splash Mountain (which wasn't a timeless franchise to begin with), Mr. Toad over at Disneyland, Rock n Rollercoaster, half the stuff included in The Great Movie Ride, Jurassic Park River Adventure, Popeye's raft ride... It's all about execution. If the ride is done well and can appeal to the masses, the rest is unimportant.

 

[dxwwf3]

Maybe if John carter does well at he box office hey will scrap avatar land for JC?

If I thought that might happen, there is no way I would spend money to see John Carter.

 

[wm49rs]

Maybe if John carter does well at he box office hey will scrap avatar land for JC?

Disney is not going to scrap their plans or investment in Avatar for John Carter....

 

[Hakunamatata]

Disney is not going to scrap their plans or investment in Avatar for John Carter....

I agree. They might put a John Carter lunch box in a gift shop in Avatar Land......

 

[jjharvpro]

I've come to realize that this project will 99% happen. But I'm mostly okay with it now. Yes, I would have loved for them to invest in something different, but Avatar was a visually REVOLUTIONARY and INCREDIBLE film. I can trust WDI and James Cameron in making this land both revolutionary and incredible, in ways only they can pull off. This will bring so many more people to DAK and can you imagine this land at nighttime?? I'm excited and itching to see the first bit of concept art or at least more details!

 

[WDWFREAK53]

If you want to put the Muppets back on the map...give it the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse treatment. Maybe throw the MuppetBabies into the CGI machine and see how it plays out.

 

[dcibrando]

I just wish they would call it something else... don't call it "Avatarland"... however the whole land could be based on mythical (or beastly) creatures and Avatar among other things

 

[WDWFREAK53]

I just wish they would call it something else... don't call it "Avatarland"... however the whole land could be based on mythical (or beastly) creatures and Avatar among other things

I would imagine that it would be called Pandora.

 

[GLaDOS]

Sorry to be a broken record but to all those who are worried this won't be a timeless attraction because the franchise might be dated or have a weak story: The timeliness of the franchise is irrelevant! Need you look no further to the likes of ToT, Splash Mountain (which wasn't a timeless franchise to begin with), Mr. Toad over at Disneyland, Rock n Rollercoaster, half the stuff included in The Great Movie Ride, Jurassic Park River Adventure, Popeye's raft ride... It's all about execution. If the ride is done well and can appeal to the masses, the rest is unimportant.

I like how you say it doesn't matter if the franchise is timeless or not, and then list basically all timeless stories, save for RNRC.:lol:

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

I like how you say it doesn't matter if the franchise is timeless or not, and then list basically all timeless stories, save for RNRC.:lol:

Really? I dare you ask the average kid what the Twilight Zone is, or who Mr. Toad is. Better yet, show me a single kid that has seen Song of the South (beyond the Zip-a-dee-doo-da scene). Jurassic Park's time as a hit franchise is long gone. Popeye is timeless only in name, for all intents and purpose any existence of him in shorts or (gasp!) a movie has long disappeared. I'm not arguing against these rides, or against the properties themselves. I happen to be a huge fan of all the listed properties, however having said that to claim all these have the relevance that they had way back in their hay-day is a ridiculous and a somewhat uneducated notion. These aren't good attractions because they have a hip or relevant tie in, they are because they were executed properly. I believe the same can be done for Pandora, if given the proper financial and creative support.

 

[GLaDOS]

Twilight Zone

Everyone knows the Twilight Zone music. And the "ask kids" argument is tired and foolish. Of course kids don't know about old stuff yet. They need to grow and discover things.

Mr. Toad is

...a character who's been around for over 100 years. Pretty timeless if you ask me.

Better yet, show me a single kid that has seen Song of the South (beyond the Zip-a-dee-doo-da scene).

Putting caveats like "except for this scene" don't help your argument. One memorable scene is all something needs to be considered timeless. And even then the Uncle Remus stories have been around since the 1880's. The overall narration of the book's appropriateness may be a mark of contention, but the fables are indeed something that has been passed down through generations.

Jurassic Park's time as a hit franchise is long gone.

Jurassic Park is easily still one of the most recognizable, loved, and iconic movies in recent memory. The sequels may not have been of the same caliber, but saying the original isn't a timeless piece of cinema is being fairly ignorant.

Popeye is timeless only in name, for all intents and purpose any existence of him in shorts or (gasp!) a movie has long disappeared.

There's a new Popeye movie in the works now, as it were.

You go on to talk about some hogwash about being "hip" or "as relevant as day 1" which wasn't the conversation. It was timeless. Timeless properties aren't ones that keep their day 1 popularity (of which Avatar has floundered). They're properties that have penetrated the cultural fabric to the point where even a small piece of music or scene can remind you of them.

 

[JustInTime]

Everyone knows the Twilight Zone music. And the "ask kids" argument is tired and foolish. Of course kids don't know about old stuff yet. They need to grow and discover things.



...a character who's been around for over 100 years. Pretty timeless if you ask me.




Putting caveats like "except for this scene" don't help your argument. One memorable scene is all something needs to be considered timeless. And even then the Uncle Remus stories have been around since the 1880's. The overall narration of the book's appropriateness may be a mark of contention, but the fables are indeed something that has been passed down through generations.



Jurassic Park is easily still one of the most recognizable, loved, and iconic movies in recent memory. The sequels may not have been of the same caliber, but saying the original isn't a timeless piece of cinema is being fairly ignorant.



There's a new Popeye movie in the works now, as it were.

You go on to talk about some hogwash about being "hip" or "as relevant as day 1" which wasn't the conversation. It was timeless. Timeless properties aren't ones that keep their day 1 popularity (of which Avatar has floundered). They're properties that have penetrated the cultural fabric to the point where even a small piece of music or scene can remind you of them.

I think he is trying to say that you don't have to make a classic movie to make a classic attraction. And he is right. There are tons of not so classic films with great attractions. Perhaps the member just didn't give the best examples but he is correct...

 

[GLaDOS]

I think he is trying to say that you don't have to make a classic movie to make a classic attraction. And he is right. There are tons of not so classic films with great attractions. Perhaps the member just didn't give the best examples but he is correct...

I know what he meant. I was just pointing out that the poster gave some of the worst possible examples.

And even then I agree that a ride doesn't have to be based off of the most timeless movie. Look at things like MIB and Mummy.

But if you're gonna base a whole LAND off a flavor of the month franchise, you're gonna be in trouble.

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

Everyone knows the Twilight Zone music. And the "ask kids" argument is tired and foolish. Of course kids don't know about old stuff yet. They need to grow and discover things.

Yes except I'm not sure Disney's management is really in the let-'em-grow-and-appreciate-it-franchise team.

...a character who's been around for over 100 years. Pretty timeless if you ask me.

Say whaa? So by this logic if a character is around long enough he's timeless...? I'm probably just missing your point but the majority of people today haven't a clue to who Mr. Toad is.

Putting caveats like "except for this scene" don't help your argument. One memorable scene is all something needs to be considered timeless. And even then the Uncle Remus stories have been around since the 1880's. The overall narration of the book's appropriateness may be a mark of contention, but the fables are indeed something that has been passed down through generations.

Yes it does, because it proves that despite the general public knowing close to little about the movie the ride still holds its own. People probably won't remember exactly what Avatar was about in 30 years (heck I doubt many remember now), but they'll remember those blue creatures and a cool world, and that will be enough to attract people to the land, regardless of how many people remember every plot specific point that happened in the movie. It could still succeed in pulling in the big numbers much like Splash Mountain does today.

Jurassic Park is easily still one of the most recognizable, loved, and iconic movies in recent memory. The sequels may not have been of the same caliber, but saying the original isn't a timeless piece of cinema is being fairly ignorant.

Never said the first movie isn't timeless cinema, but it's far from being considered a relevant franchise today. Yet it still pulls in those numbers because the experience is good. I'm pretty certain that Avatar could have that exact effect. I'm making this argument against those claiming that the franchise is no longer relevant thus making the concept worthless already. Jurassic Park is living proof that despite not being as relevant today it still pulls in the crowds because the land as a whole really delivers on the idea the original novel and movie set out to explore.

There's a new Popeye movie in the works now, as it were.

That's interesting! I guess we'll see how that pans out. I could be proven wrong.... I hope so because he's longer overdue receiving some love from the general public.

You go on to talk about some hogwash about being "hip" or "as relevant as day 1" which wasn't the conversation. It was timeless. Timeless properties aren't ones that keep their day 1 popularity (of which Avatar has floundered). They're properties that have penetrated the cultural fabric to the point where even a small piece of music or scene can remind you of them.

And you really think Avatar hasn't penetrated cultural fabric at least a bit? How many people today WON'T recognize the design of the N'avi or the unique look of Pandora? I'm betting most people won't remember even a single name from the movie, sure, but that doesn't mean it didn't have any long lasting impact. Not all impact is measured in how the franchise sells plush toys or how big a fanbase it has. There are many criteria for measuring a lasting franchise. You mentioned one in the form of music, but that's not the only way for a franchise to remain in people's consciousness.

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

I think he is trying to say that you don't have to make a classic movie to make a classic attraction. And he is right. There are tons of not so classic films with great attractions. Perhaps the member just didn't give the best examples but he is correct...

THANK YOU, and yes that is exactly my point. I stand by my list of examples, ask the general crowds today and most will know close to nothing about the franchises I mentioned at best.

Outside our little online community and enlightened movie goers and animation fans, most people are completely clueless to these characters and stories. Heck I heard someone, just the other day, using a metaphor of eating spinach as a way to get stronger like Popeye does and everyone just had the most confusing look to them. I'm not saying these characters aren't timeless to me, you this community or our families that have probably grown up recognizing them. But most people today are missing out on great stuff in favor of poor generic junk that studios are churning out. To claim these are "timeless" franchises as they were once considered just because we're aware of said franchises is being a bit in denial.