-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom
- Thread starter DocMcHulk
- Start date
There is one huge difference and his name is James Cameron.
jt04
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure this will be done like Carsland. I'd bet money that the land will function as a system of interconnected parts to create the immersive environment they are aiming for so it will need to open as a mostly complete land. And I predict that if construction starts "by 2013" that it will open by late 2015. The FLE will be complete by 2014. So something new every year for awhile starting next spring.
I think this has been the goal for awhile but they had so many other issues to deal with.
dxwwf3
Well-Known Member
I must say this expansion is the most excited I've been about a new Disney attraction/addition since the 94/95 New Tomorrowland. I think this is going to be amazing and will more than likely bring the best change in park history to DAK: extending park hours to nighttime every night. That park is quite possibly the best of the 4 parks at night and now that they don't have EMH Evenings there anymore, you really never get to see it.
Can't wait!
Can't wait!
S.E.A.
Member
so Joe Rhode supposedly did not know about this... http://www.disneybymark.com/2011/09/21/news-avatar-at-animal-kingdom/
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Uh-huh. That's what I mentioned earlier, when I said it had "no ancillary to speak of". Heck, as far as I can tell there aren't even novels out there - just a few "making of" books.
That's why this seems like a really poor idea, and more like the "let's keep this from Universal" plan of attack than anything else. Simply for the cache of "an attraction based on the #1 highest grossing film", which as I and others have stated is nice and all but it's largely because of the nearly doubled ticket prices in many venues because of 3-D, and the fact that it was the rabid teenage fanboys going back over and over (much like the teenage girls kept Titanic afloat). Cameron is very, very good at capturing that audience who goes to see a movie not once, but 2, 3, or many more times. However, those are also likely to not be the same folk planning a Disney vacation.
It's funny, because I made a comment a few days ago here about for all we know Avatar sequels could turn out just like the Matrix ones, and I've been noticing others making the exact comparison in blog posts elsewhere since. We are years away from sequels, the 3-D fad is already fading again (though the manufacturers and studios are doing their damnedest to pretend it isn't because they make so much more money with it), and you can't catch lightning in a bottle twice. A lot of the lookey-loo's won't go back, and those teenage boys will (hopefully) be in college or the work force. Unlike Lucas and Star Wars, the upcoming kids won't be bred like they are now (Lego Star Wars TV show as kiddos, Clone Wars for the tweens/teens, etc.) on Avatar. It's just one movie. And widely considered a rather bad one, at that.
Hey, if this gets us all kinds of new, exciting attractions - that's great. I'll be tickled. I would have much rather had just about anything else, but if they end up being great, fun attractions, more the merrier (and I'm one of the biggest critics of AK, so I welcome a big budget addition). It just seems like a business move not a "this would do great for our parks" move. It was worth the price for Disney to make sure no one else did it, even if they were sticking themselves with 500M worth of attractions based on a single non-Disney movie that has two untested sequels in the second half of the decade we just began.
I mean, in 2030, I have a feeling Star Wars and likely Potter will continue strong, and recognizable - but to be honest, many people have already forgotten about Avatar. If anything, the announcement feels dated - anyone I have mentioned it to has said some variation of, "Really? Oh yeah, I took my kids to see that. Pretty pictures, but otherwise pretty terrible," or "No, I don't take my kids to go see violent films like that". Will anyone care about Avatar in 2030? People barely care about it now. It's a big gamble they are taking that somehow the sequels will be successful, when there are very few sequels that surpass the original, and most don't even approach them.
S.E.A.
Member
actually that's not entirely true, Avatar doesn't have rabid teenage fanboys. Teenagers normally wouldn't care for big preachy movies about blue aliens like Avatar. Plus if it did have rabid teenage fanboys then it would still be prevalent in public culture, not virtually non-existent.
The people who did see it over and over are the James Cameron fanboys who went in trying to convince themselves that their idol's big pet passion project was the greatest movie ever.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
LOL, oh sure, it's more complex but I don't think it was only Cameron fans. Basically I was referring to the teenage/young adult boys who go gaga over 3D. It's that it was the first "real" 3D studio movie, the time it hit, the lack of competition, etc.
I get what you are saying, though. People who truly think it was the greatest film ever made, and the same people think in a few years every movie will be in 3D. Sure, there have been a ton of them - but the fad is already starting to fade. Studios will keep pushing out cheap conversions of 2D films (most films in 3D weren't actually shot in 3D) because they get twice the ticket price. But it's a novelty.
It will be interesting to see if years from now, when people have already largely forgotten about the film, if the sequels do even nearly as well. He definitely created a strong visual environment, but that is really all the film is about shiny/pretty.
That said, to be honest, it could make a really great theme park attraction. Theme park attractions aren't known for being terribly "deep", so it actually might be a decent fit. The point I was making above was, I really don't see the general public getting all excited five years from now about a land based on a film that, as pointed out above, hasn't even seemed worth merchandising. That's the other thing that confuses me about the decision - Avatar merchandise doesn't do much, and as we hear, the main feat Potter has performed at Universal has been the incredible merchandise sales. That's why it all seems like, as Eddie Soto put it, for "Wall Street", 'cause it just looks good right now on paper.
I look forward to whatever they do - new attractions at DAK are sorely needed. I just hope that they really do go all out if they do this - if it's some flying coaster and a "4-D" film/show, I'm going to be mightily disappointed.
El Grupo
Well-Known Member
I can appreciate an argument about Avatar being an unproven franchise. However, the points you are making about the box office returns for Avatar apply to all blockbusters in the last two or three years, including Toy Story 3, Harry Potter, Transformers, Pirates, etc.
I'm guessing you do realize that the last Harry Potter premiered on more 3D and IMAX screens than any other movie in history. And, that movie has also benefitted from repeat viewings from rabid fans of that franchise.
Based on estimates from the NY Times, Avatar had roughly 56 million admissions after accumulating $555 million domestically. Though a movie typically produces less per attendee the longer it stays at the theatre, let's assume for conversation that Avatar continued to average the same same revenue per attendee throughout its stay in the box office. That would mean the domestic admissions total was in the neighborhood of 86 million.
Based on that, it appears that Avatar may have still had almost as many ticket sales as Deathly Hollows I and II combined.
Now, is that any indicator of potential success of an Avatarland? No. However, we should not be to quick to dismiss its success at the box office.
ShookieJones
We need time for things to happen.
First i want to say that:
1. im pleased with the love ak is getting
2. I liked avatar - didnt love it
3. Thought it was an amazingly groundbreaking film
4. Disney will do a great job creating this world.
With all that being said, i dont think this was the best idea. Avatar as a franchise to support an entire land in a park? Ehhhh not really. A dark ride of some sort something that could be easily rethemed at some point, yes.
I think about back to the future in uni - a great movie, a decent franchise and something pretty significant in pop culture is long gone and since been repurposed.
With my humble opinion out of the way i want lastly say that....
Im still totally psyched to see this someday
1. im pleased with the love ak is getting
2. I liked avatar - didnt love it
3. Thought it was an amazingly groundbreaking film
4. Disney will do a great job creating this world.
With all that being said, i dont think this was the best idea. Avatar as a franchise to support an entire land in a park? Ehhhh not really. A dark ride of some sort something that could be easily rethemed at some point, yes.
I think about back to the future in uni - a great movie, a decent franchise and something pretty significant in pop culture is long gone and since been repurposed.
With my humble opinion out of the way i want lastly say that....
Im still totally psyched to see this someday
NoChesterHester
Well-Known Member
If the theme park land and associated rides are compelling then they will sell plenty of merchandise to people at the theme park just based on the experience. I understand that Potter and Star Wars already have a merchandise crazed fan base, but the potential is there. The potential is great for merchandise if Disney gets creative (personalized avatars, cool plastic weapons for the little boys, fun jewelry for the little girls). I can see lots of potential that could really be tailored to a theme park environment.
Prototype82
Well-Known Member
Is this certain? It makes sense. I'd love to get a taste of this place early. (meaning 2015, etc)
jt04
Well-Known Member
...luminescing plants for Kevin Yee.....
Seriously though, all those cool flying machines should be easy to market. Not to mention computer games and other software, music etc.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Actually it makes no sense. The FLE is opening in phases because it has to. Similar to the DCA situation. Avatarland will be seperate from other areas while being constructed no matter which pad is used. IMO.
FutureCEO
Well-Known Member
people need to keep in mine of higher ticket prices for movies. If you count inflation, Avatar isn't close, its number 14
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
the article says the 2011 average ticket price is $7.97. I know a ticket to the movies during late night hours near my house is $11 and $15 for 3D.
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
the article says the 2011 average ticket price is $7.97. I know a ticket to the movies during late night hours near my house is $11 and $15 for 3D.
Kamikaze
Well-Known Member
It makes perfect sense. The quicker they can get parts open, the faster capacity increases for the park, and the faster guests can come and see those sections.
Kamikaze
Well-Known Member
Keep in mind that list is US only.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Would they have ever opened the omnimover at the Living Seas before opening the hydrolaters?
No, no they wouldn't.
If the land they are creating is similarly immersive it will open as an entire system.
spaceghost
Well-Known Member
I am not going to disagree with most of what you wrote, but the bolded section is, IMHO, factually inaccurate (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(2009_film)#Accolades). It is one thing to not like the movie or the decision, but let's try to keep the arguments rational.
Anywho, my $.02 - The movie was successful because it was something that had never been seen before, at least to that level of technical mastery. I enjoyed the movie, but I do not think it holds the same sort of cultural sway that Star Wars or Harry Potter does (but then again, not many franchises do).
As for the comparison to The Matrix, it may be apt in the movie sense, but I say who cares when it comes to being in a theme park? Just because the last 2 Matrix movies stunk doesn't mean that I wouldn't want to experience a Matrix attraction or land...that would actually be super cool. Plus, it's not like Disney hasn't taken a movie that very few people in their target audience have seen and then created a spectacularly themed (and popular) environment/attraction out of it (see Splash Mountain).
I think if the new land is referred to as "Pandora" not "Avatarland," and then they do a great job of creating an immersive, fantastically themed environment with some state of the art attractions, even if the guests have no idea what Avatar is, it won't matter as it will be an epic win (in a park that very much needs what is being planned).
imagineer boy
Well-Known Member
I think you hit the nail on the head here.