AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[drp4video]

Have never seen Avatar...:shrug:

 

[Thessair]

So what does equal good?

Not the point I was trying to make. There is no universal definition of good. What I was trying to get across is that because something makes a lot of money it doesn't guarantee quality. Yes, Avatar made a ton of money. That does not it will end up in the pantheon of the greatest films of all time. Plenty of things have been popular that have been forgotten since their heyday or simply become objects of ridicule.

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

Carsland lends itself to a great environment and the merchandise opportunities are one of the key... wait for it... drivers. Avatar doesn't have that merchandise appeal so I still wouldn't be surprised to see Lucasland and/or Carsland in DHS.

Then isn't it a good thing that Disney is adding a new property and their reasoning might not just be to increase merchandise sales?

With Cars, the whole sequel seemed to be a cash grab and an opportunity to sell more toys, let alone Carsland. If Pandora is being done even though it's not a top merchandise franchise (princesses, pirates, cars, etc), isn't that a step forward?

 

[Crockett]

The theme & scenery of this new land is going to be awesome. And if Avatar 2 & 3 are even half as successful as the original...

This is by far a huge win for our House of Mouse. I hope & pray the folks at Uni are crying in their butterbeer. :sohappy:

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

Not the point I was trying to make. There is no universal definition of good. What I was trying to get across is that because something makes a lot of money it doesn't guarantee quality. Yes, Avatar made a ton of money. That does not it will end up in the pantheon of the greatest films of all time. Plenty of things have been popular that have been forgotten since their heyday or simply become objects of ridicule.

Avatar isn't just popular - critical reception was positive, academy reception was positive, word of mouth was positive. For you to just shove those facts aside and repeat your mantra "even though it made a lot of money, that doesn't mean it's good" is ignoring all the reasoning as to why Avatar might actually be considered a good movie.

It doesn't have to be the greatest film of all time. Most films that have a representation in Disney parks don't come close. Still, I can enjoy their presence in a Disney park even if the movie isn't one of my top 5.

 

[Bairstow]

Then isn't it a good thing that Disney is adding a new property and their reasoning might not just be to increase merchandise sales?

Honestly, this is perhaps the most encouraging thing about the entire project.
For the first time in a long time it looks like the horse is in front of the cart again and Disney Parks is getting priority over merch. You can't build a vacation dynasty by selling die-cast cars (or plastic wands, for that matter) you build it by selling lasting memories.

 

[Crockett]

For you to just shove those facts aside and repeat your mantra "even though it made a lot of money, that doesn't mean it's good" is...

It's amusing how several people have that: "I personally didn't like (fill in the blank)...so it is, without a doubt, bad."

 

[wm49rs]

It's amusing how several people have that: "I personally didn't like (fill in the blank)...so it is without a doubt bad.

You mean like, say......Universal?

 

[Crockett]

You mean like, say......Universal?

Universal isn't Disney...but it's not "bad".

Yet after the Avatar announcement yesterday, it certainly is...in trouble.

 

[trr1]

Have never seen Avatar...:shrug:

here you go

 

[Hakunamatata]

here you go

:ROFLOL:

I was waiting for that Avatar.....

 

[Thessair]

I never once said that it was a patently bad film. I said I didn't like it. I also said that it cannot be taken as fact that because something made money it is automatically good. It was a caution against people who were solely equating the fact the film made money with it being good. That was the single criteria. I did not mention critical reception or the response of the public. What I said, but what seems to be too difficult for some people to grasp, is that something cannot be considered good based on the single fact it made money. That is the point I was debating. The premise that something is good SOLELY FOR THE FACT IT MADE MONEY, cannot be guaranteed.

I was not discussing any of the other factors associated with the film.

 

[twinnstar]

I never once said that it was a patently bad film. I said I didn't like it. I also said that it cannot be taken as fact that because something made money it is automatically good. It was a caution against people who were solely equating the fact the film made money with it being good. That was the single criteria. I did not mention critical reception or the response of the public. What I said, but what seems to be too difficult for some people to grasp, is that something cannot be considered good based on the single fact it made money. That is the point I was debating. The premise that something is good SOLELY FOR THE FACT IT MADE MONEY, cannot be guaranteed.

I was not discussing any of the other factors associated with the film.

I understand and agree with you, but I think its a losing battle here, just give up like i did, cause you'll never win! lets join a film forum. they will understand our plight lol

 

[Bairstow]

here you go

I see your DiMartino and raise you a Bakshi.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

I never once said that it was a patently bad film. I said I didn't like it. I also said that it cannot be taken as fact that because something made money it is automatically good. It was a caution against people who were solely equating the fact the film made money with it being good. That was the single criteria. I did not mention critical reception or the response of the public. What I said, but what seems to be too difficult for some people to grasp, is that something cannot be considered good based on the single fact it made money. That is the point I was debating. The premise that something is good SOLELY FOR THE FACT IT MADE MONEY, cannot be guaranteed.

I was not discussing any of the other factors associated with the film.

So you're debating why Avatar might be bad even though typical standard used to determine whether a movie is good (aside from box office) say it's good? Seems kind of pointless to me. It's like debating why the earth might be literally flat even though science tells us it's round.

Nobody can say whether Avatar will be a revered classic in 20 years. But Avatar did change cinema, was received very positively, nominated for some incredible awards, and it happened to set box office records due to word of mouth propelling it for weeks and weeks (much like Titanic, which similarly didn't have the best opening weekend of all time). In terms of patterns, if a movie has a stellar opening weekend and then burns out by week 2, it's probably bad. Avatar was largely the opposite - its opening weekend didn't set records, but all of the following weeks did.

And even if somehow Avatar is a bad movie (like Cars, IMO), it could still end up having a wonderful presence in the theme parks.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Cars Land is widely rumored to have used half of the 1.2 Billion Dollar DCA Extreme Makeover Budget. Or, roughly 600 Million for Cars Land. Radiator Springs Racers is widely rumored to have crested the 300 Million Dollar mark for that one Mega E-Ticket alone.

Fantasyland Expansion is rumored to have a budget of roughly 300 Million Dollars. Lee or one of the other Florida insiders can correct me if I'm wrong on that one, please.

I heard closer to $500 mil

3D is dead?? :shrug:

Yeah, people on the interwebs said it's dead so it's dead.

I love how people are talking about how great WWoHP is...and that Avatar won't beat it and that it doesn't fit the theme of the Animal Kingdom.

How does WWoHP fit the them of an island? Remember...Islands of Adventure were differently themed islands.

Marvel Superhero Island. It is an island Metropolis.
Toon Lagoon. An island where all the comic strip toons lived.
Jurassic Park. That took place on an island.
Seuss Landing. They took the world of Dr. Seuss and put the characters on an island.
The Lost Continent. An continent is essentially a large continent.

Hogwarts and the land of Harry Potter did not take place on an island...yet nobody is up-in-arms over the placement of it.

You're right. England isn't an island.

 

[Prototype82]

here you go

Let's thank God M Night Shyamalan isn't turning that into a ride. :lol: :dazzle:

 

[MissMorrow]

I never once said that it was a patently bad film. I said I didn't like it. I also said that it cannot be taken as fact that because something made money it is automatically good. It was a caution against people who were solely equating the fact the film made money with it being good. That was the single criteria. I did not mention critical reception or the response of the public. What I said, but what seems to be too difficult for some people to grasp, is that something cannot be considered good based on the single fact it made money. That is the point I was debating. The premise that something is good SOLELY FOR THE FACT IT MADE MONEY, cannot be guaranteed.

I was not discussing any of the other factors associated with the film.

Exactly!


At no point did I say because I don't like it it must be bad. I don't like turkey legs either, but it doesn't mean they're bad and Disney should stop selling them.

 

[Crockett]

But Avatar did change cinema, was received very positively, nominated for some incredible awards, and it happened to set box office records due to word of mouth propelling it for weeks and weeks

This^

And whether you love the story or hate it, it does have some splendid scenery and effects which will go well in DAK while adding to the beauty & ambience which exists in the park. It is going to be amazing to see what WDI comes up with for this new land.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Re-read my post. I never said it wasn't popular, in fact way back in the thread I acknowledged it was very popular. What I said was that not everyone who saw the movie liked it. Period.



Not everyone who saw the movie bought it on DVD. Fact. I've already said the movie was popular. The point I'm trying to make is that despite what some of the people in this thread seem to think, the final sales figures do not guarantee it is a beloved classic of a film. The majority of people may love the heck out of the film. That doesn't mean everyone does. So kindly stop acting like I kicked your dog.

Avatar = Popular
Everyone does not like Avatar
Popular does not always equal good.

And no where in my post did I state EVERYONE likes Avatar either.. I clearly stated that there are people who don't like it just like there are people who don't like Potter or Star Wars or Twilight...

And no one here is claiming Avatar is a classic... The problem here is some of the haters are making claims that EVERYONE hates Avatar because they and 5 people they know hated it... I provided the numbers to prove them wrong... At least you acknowldge Avatar's popularity... that was what I was proving, not that EVERYONE loves it... While not everyone likes the movie, there are a good number that do, hence the movie being popular...

DVD sales are one way to prove popularity... Box office business is another... Avatar remained number 1 for 6 weeks... I will venture to say that 6 weeks at number one was helped by people loving the movie so much they same it again and again... I am sure there was plenty of repeat business... In fact, one of the haters here hated the movie so much he saw it twice in the theater...

By no means am I calling you out on your hatred for the movie... I was responding to the haters who are so blinded by their own personal agendas that they don't see the real facts... You, Thesair, I do not include in that list... And I appreciate your rational responses...