AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[S.E.A.]

So, you're a troll huh?

You made a statement, I provided facts stating otherwise. You countered with bogus comparisons.

facts? you said so yourself you got that from google. Bogus comparisons? I'm just saying compared with other franchises, even in-house ones, Avatar's merchandising potential ain't all that.

And the fact that Star Wars came out 30 years ago and still makes that much only underlines the fact that Avatar's nothing special. Plus, how could a movie that made billions of dollars in box office not even make a quarter of it in merchandise?

 

[Tigger1988]

That's also over a year ago... :brick:

That's the point...

That's why you can't compare Cars to 7 months of sales and you can't compare Star Wars to 7 months of sales.

150+ million isn't chump change is the point basically.

 

[docandsix]

Lots to say on this topic...

...but I'll keep it "short."

Generally, I'm disappointed--not so much by the decision Disney has made here, but by the genuinely antagonistic response this announcement has inspired on this board.

It's been said too many times already, but it bears repeating again: Just because you didn't or don't like the source material does not mean that you won't care for the resulting attraction. Disney has dabbled in source material which didn't originate within the company for decades and the results have been almost uniformly positive.

In fact, I'd argue that purchasing intellectual property holds a sometimes lazy or cheap Disney to a higher standard than it would otherwise be inclined to keep. In this case, it should be kept in mind that James Cameron had conceived and written Avatar perhaps decades ago, but had waited until technology caught up with his artistic vision before making the film. In this respect, he is notoriously quality-conscious and detail-oriented. Though I consider him a bit arrogant as a personality, a bit dogmatic as an intellect, and a bit overrated as a filmmaker, I am expecting that he will exert creative control and demand a fulfillment of his property in the same way Rowling did at Universal--and we all know how that ended up.

Several people have commented on the franchise's narrow appeal, arguing that its target audience includes teenage to 20-year-old males only. Speaking from the perspective of someone who took five teenaged males to the movie opening night for a 3-D IMax showing and received lukewarm reviews (at best) from them afterward, I'm not so sure. I don't know what the box office statistics demonstrated, but someone (a LOT of them) saw that movie besides teenagers.

On the much-discussed subject of merchandise potential, I say, big dang deal. I'm kind of proud of Disney that (perhaps) this consideration was not their first concern here. Disney pays way too much attention to corrupting every attraction with a gift shop at the exit.

Finally, a couple of thoughts regarding how I hope the project ends up:
1. No 3-D movies. Though 3-D has added a lot to Star Tours, its time as a stand-alone attraction is up.
2. Immersive without disrupting the rest of the park. I believe that the themes of the film and the park fit well, but only if Pandora (the moon and its flora and fauna) inspire the Imagineers and not the story or plot of the film(s). I also hope the new land is visually isolated from the remainder of the park.
3. No mechs and no space ships or laser guns. Keep the focus on the life of Pandora, not on the humans who "ruined" it in the film.
4. Please, please, please call it "Pandora" and not "Avatarland." After all, the avatars were simply human replacements, right? In other words, the only pertinence of that word is that the plot of the film involved humans taking on new forms in order to walk among the Navi. One assumes that that concept will play little or no role in the sequels and thus that the word will be absent from their titles.
5. Find a way to incorporate the floating mountains.
6. Skip the suspended roller coaster. Introduce that ride configuration for the long-overdue Monsters, Inc. door-ride at DHS, where, as an indoor attraction, it will not clutter up the landscape.

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

Why are so many of you so defensive of James Cameron's Avatar?
I just don't get it, again yes this may very well be a beautiful looking land, with some exciting rides, and i could care less if it isn't a Disney property.
but again the point I'm trying to make is...

Disney could do better.

I will continue to voice my complaint of Disney Park blogs in hope they might realize this, just like they realized the Fantasyland expansion was too girl oriented.
If so many of you continue to praise and support Disney, then things never change! Its the same damn thing with Lucas and his damn Star Wars films. People and moan of him changing the movies all the time, but the fans still love everything he touches. and will go out and drop him every single dime they have.
It's the same here. Stop loving Disney so damn much, they are great, but not perfect. James Cameron's Avatar is a bad idea. There's no arguing that, we're just trying to make Disney see common sense, not dollar signs. Would you all have been so supportive if Disney had build an entire land devoted to other top grossing films? How bout a Titanic land, or an Inception land? sure watching buildings fold and flip would look cool, but would we care so much about those movies ten, twenty years from now?

Or heck you wanna really support this kinda decision? What if it was a Twilight land? Cause that's how some of us fans see it. A Twilight land, a land devoted to sparkly vampires and boring girls.

Most of us who are praising the Avatar decision have criticized Disney for many of its decisions. In our opinion, however, this is a good move. You can't say there's no arguing about whether this is a good or bad idea. Clearly lots of people think it's a good idea, and lots of people don't. It's an opinion difference.

The stupidity comes out when people say "Avatar is widely considered to be a bad film" when all of the objective measures on how a film is perceived indicate that most people really enjoyed Avatar. Then those same haters criticize the project for being solely based on dollar signs...then they complain that Avatar doesn't have big enough merchandise sales compared to Cars (oh, how every movie should strive to be like Cars or Cars 2 :brick. I just don't understand the people who have already found 100 million faults with this new land. The main criticism seems to be that Pandora isn't based on earth, and that's the only criticism that slightly resonates with me. However, Pandora is a lush environment with beautiful flora, fauna, and a culture that respects nature conservation. From that regard, it's a great fit for AK.

 

[AEfx]

That's the point...

That's why you can't compare Cars to 7 months of sales and you can't compare Star Wars to 7 months of sales.

150+ million isn't chump change is the point basically.

It is chump change when a film makes a billion bucks.

10%ish of gross as merch sales is...pathetic, for a "big franchise" (which I refuse to call this film, it's not a franchise yet). And likely, that money includes video game sales at $50/whack. Most of the films in this category make many times more on merchandise than they do on the films themselves.

People say Star Wars isn't a valid comparison...it sure is, as Disney could have also announced LucasLand. A proven franchise, EXTREMELY proven marketing (they pretty much invented modern movie merchandising), yet they pick this single movie with two sequels years away that for all we know could turn out like the Matrix (as in, fizzle). And, if you divide Star Wars merchandising over those 30 years (even though in some years it was far less than others), you still have a lot more than Avatar.

There is almost no Avatar merchandise out there. Because...people don't care. There is no break-out character, there is no knowledge of the universe outside those who saw the film, and the audience is narrow. That narrow audience sure went to go see it at it's double ticket prices repeatedly, and you can't take away the $$$ thing from Avatar, but it had almost NO cultural impact whatsoever. Yay, generic environmentalist message - yeah, a blue guy already did that, name is Captain Planet.

So the same teenage/early 20's guys that drove the box office because they were so jazzed up about the 3D, bought a bunch of video games too. 153m ancillary when your film makes over a billion is the opposite of what happens with a truly successful franchise with cultural impact.

All that said, I hope they are wonderful attractions - but in five years when these new films come out, and people are either tired of, or used to, 3D, it's hard to believe that they will be anywhere near as successful as Disney is banking on with this move. I've never once heard, "Wow, the acting in Avatar was amazing!" (Though Cameron had the nerve to try to get animated characters Oscars, ROFL, he actually tried to get them in nomination!) I've also never heard, "It was so well written," or "the characters were so compelling!" All you hear is, "WOW PRETTY!"

Which, as I said above, is great, and could be good as theme park attractions really aren't that deep; *but*...there is still virtually no cultural impact from this film, aside from it's revenues. It didn't sell more tickets than any other film (far from it), it just hit at the right time with the right technology and the right (lack of) competition for the right audience. It was a grand move. But will anyone care about Avatar in 15, 20 years? I just don't see it as likely, when I can't walk around my office without seeing Twilight, Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc. calendars and such everywhere - those are franchises. So far, Avatar is just one movie that made a boat load of money from a specific audience. And not the audience who generally goes to WDW, or at least that plans the trips.

I'm hoping for the best, but I think Disney is going to be just a little too late for anyone to give a dang about Avatar in half a decade from now. This is so "blue sky" still, as was said - and the announcement was simply for Wall Street, and of course to subject us to the next five years of talking about the dang thing...cruel!

 

[AEfx]

By the time Avatar land opens it will be a huge franchise with at least 3 movies and 1 novel (written by Cameron himself) under its belt.

3 movies and 1 book are not a huge franchise.

And with so many years between now and when the next item comes out, he's quickly losing his ability to truly make it one, as people just may not care once they get over 3-D.

 

[Captain Neo]

3 movies and 1 book are not a huge franchise.

And with so many years between now and when the next item comes out, he's quickly losing his ability to truly make it one, as people just may not care once they get over 3-D.

People still came out for the phantom menace after an almost 20 year hiatus of the franchise. Matrix reloaded, toy story 2 and 3, and dead mans chest came out years after the originals and made far more money then the originals. Why would Avatar (the highest grossing picture ever made and from a director known for outstanding sequels) be any different?

 

[TRIFORCE89]

...but I'll keep it "short."

Generally, I'm disappointed--not so much by the decision Disney has made here, but by the genuinely antagonistic response this announcement has inspired on this board.

It's been said too many times already, but it bears repeating again: Just because you didn't or don't like the source material does not mean that you won't care for the resulting attraction. Disney has dabbled in source material which didn't originate within the company for decades and the results have been almost uniformly positive.

In fact, I'd argue that purchasing intellectual property holds a sometimes lazy or cheap Disney to a higher standard than it would otherwise be inclined to keep. In this case, it should be kept in mind that James Cameron had conceived and written Avatar perhaps decades ago, but had waited until technology caught up with his artistic vision before making the film. In this respect, he is notoriously quality-conscious and detail-oriented. Though I consider him a bit arrogant as a personality, a bit dogmatic as an intellect, and a bit overrated as a filmmaker, I am expecting that he will exert creative control and demand a fulfillment of his property in the same way Rowling did at Universal--and we all know how that ended up.

Well, my problem isn't that it's an outside property. I'm fine with Star Wars and Indy. I'd love to see a full Star Wars land with several attractions. I enjoy those franchises, even without park presence. Avatar I don't, so I'm not particularly hyped about it. Had they gotten Potter way back when, I wouldn't be complaining about it not being Disney enough. Although if they put Potter in Animal Kingdom, that'd be kind of weird.

That's kind of my problem, I guess. Even if I'm not fond of Avatar, I'd like this idea better if it was at DHS. It's mostly the Animal Kingdom bit that bugs me. Is the park going to have two giant trees?

And, I agree about Cameron. I remember some interview I saw him give around the time of the film's release and he said something along the lines of when he first saw the original Star Wars in the theatre as a kid, he didn't get why everyone was blown away. He apparently had seen it all, and better, before playing out in his head. It's just... arrogant. Compare his attitude to Nolan's. I don't remember any hype for Inception coming from it's director, but I saw Cameron cheerleading Avatar all over the place.

 

[AEfx]

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.

Yup...Toy Story 3, Potter 7/8, Pirates 4...sequels that sustain a franchise. Not one single film all standing on it's own at this point. It's a sure bet that the ticket price inflation and 3-D "surcharge" helped those later entries in the franchises as well.

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).

I've already tried using the rational evidence from rottentomatoes, but the haters still insist that Avatar is widely considered to be a bad film. The academy award nomination for best picture, and the fact that this movie's box office reached the levels it did due to word of mouth, also fail to convince them that Avatar might be considered a decent film to many people. :brick:

People keep pointing to a Wikipedia article and review aggregates like Rotten Tomatoes - have any of you actually, I dunno, READ the reviews? I have.

Since it doesn't seem like some people have, I'll summarize most of the reviews for you pretty simply : "While the plot is recycled, the acting nothing to note, the dialogue pithy, it sure is a very pretty looking film with great technical merits." In fact, some reviews I recall reading that the score that the individual gave was begrudging, because on traditional merits it's simply a blase film, but they felt because of the technical expertise and the innovative use of 3-D they had to give it a higher score.

You need to look a little deeper, guys.

Funny thing is, much the same can be said about Star Wars. The difference? Star Wars captivated and SUSTAINED captivation of the audience. There were memorable characters - two years after Star Wars came out, everyone (even those who hadn't seen the films) knew who R2-D2 and Darth Vader were. Even among those who saw the Avatar, I doubt many who weren't "I'm going ten times because it's 3-D!" could even name a single character, let alone have any made it into the greater public consciousness. Culturally, the film has had very little impact.

I've never seen the movie, I wasn't interested when it came out.

But the fact is, when you look at objective criteria for determining if a movie is perceived as "good" (academy award nominations, an aggregate of critic ratings on rotten tomatoes, and box office patterns), Avatar easily fits the criteria. I don't care if you or half of this forum insist that most people thought the movie was bad (or, as someone actually said, "widely considered to be a bad [film]"). You're simply wrong. Anyone can have an opinion on whether the movie was good or bad, but to say "it was widely considered to be a bad film" requires some substantive support.

Read the reviews. /shrug

You'll find all kinds of references to technical expertise, especially as the first real studio film that was designed for 3-D from the ground up, but that's not what makes a good film. The only people who insist that it's a great, amazing overall film (beyond technical merits) are on internet forums.

It won technical awards. Oh, well, I forgot - the Golden Globe for Best Drama. The same awards that gave Madonna Best Actress Drama for Evita.

If the second movie is underwater could that possibly placate the 20K leagues under the sea fans?

If they did, I'd want the ride itself to be dry for wet (though real water at the entrance, queue would be great). The downtimes and such associated with wet for wet are just too enormous and, since they'd likely do projection effects like on Nemo in CA (which aren't that great - ours are actually more convincing at Living Seas) it wouldn't be worth it either way.

 

[AEfx]

People still came out for the phantom menace after an almost 20 year hiatus of the franchise. Matrix reloaded, toy story 2 and 3, and dead mans chest came out years after the originals and made far more money then the originals. Why would Avatar (the highest grossing picture ever made and from a director known for outstanding sequels) be any different?

Well, I wouldn't use Matrix as an example, as the third movie tanked compared to the first two (it made half what the second did). They (especially Revolutions) are also considered poorer quality films than the original.

Now, Toy Story and Star Wars - both never went away. Star Wars ebbed a bit in the late 80's, but came back in the early 90's with novels, new figures, etc., long before the prequels were ever announced. Based on it's strength as a brand, people were eating up merchandise (which is really how you judge the staying power of a franchise) long after the last film left the theater, or the new ones came in to play.

And none of those films you listed were known largely for a gimmick. In this case, "It's in 3-D!!!!" And the 3-D was good because, unlike, say, Alice in Wonderland, it was made for 3-D so it did look very good. In five years, we'll either be desensitized to 3-D because it's everywhere, or over it (because no one cares).

Avatar, as it stands, is one single film. Yes, it made a boat load of money due to several factors. I described this fully above - even just the 3-D was a big deal. In five years? Who knows who will even care about 3-D. And even more so, let's say 3-D *does* take over - Avatar won't be the only real movie in 3-D anymore, so the "OMG you have to see this technology!" thing is gone. I'd be willing to bet a lot of ticket buyers for the original went to see what everyone was talking about visually - and they won't be doing that in five years when it's old hat.

The truth is : right now, Avatar is out of the public consciousnesses. The only memorable thing about it was it's technology. No character has broken out, you'd be hard pressed for most people to explain what the film was actually about, and the compelling reason for seeing it was visual. Right time right place right tech. To assume in five years, when people are over 3-D, or immersed in it (pick your poison), the main impact of the film (3-D) will be largely irrelevant either way.

As I said, that can actually make for a decent theme park attraction - and I hope it does. But you guys are falling for exactly what Disney wanted with this announcement. "BUT IT MADE A BILILON DOLLARS!!!" means it must be a great film, right? It doesn't. Disney did this (and announced it ridiculously early - five years???) because they wanted to keep it from Universal, and because most people aren't going to look past the gross and see what really is going on.

Finally, I'd like to point out that Cameron is not known for "outstanding sequels", at least to his own projects. He has done exactly one, T2. Aliens and Rambo were not his franchises to begin with, he was brought in as a hired hand to make the second films.

 

[docandsix]

Which film franchise are you discussing?

I've never once heard, "Wow, the acting in Avatar was amazing!" I've also never heard, "It was so well written," or "the characters were so compelling!"

Because if you exchanged the words "Star Wars Series" for "Avatar," that's exactly how I feel about the property Star Tours is based on.

I'll not defend Avatar the film here, because I thought it was incredibly overrated (it was, as others have pointed out, very well received by critics across the board) and simplistic (see http://themovieblog.com/2010/01/avatar-really-just-pocahontas for more on my feelings in this regard). However, despite the fact that he strikes me as arrogant and intellectually biased, I would argue that James Cameron is a greater visionary, a better writer, and a more critically successful filmmaker (across multiple genres, by the way) than George Lucas. Yet everyone seems to think that the key for all that ails DHS, at least, in lies in the brain of Lucas, the man whose intellect brought us Episodes I, II, III, and VI, some of the most unfulfilling filmmaking of all time.

So in the end, much of my moderate enthusiasm for this project lies in the collaboration with Cameron, more so by far than in the acquisition of this one particular film. Because if Lucas's paper-thin universe can lead to useful theme park material, I have little doubt that Cameron's vision will also.

 

[R W B]

So I made it all the way to post #700 and couldn't take it anymore. I was determined to read every post and if I had the time I would, but I dont.

Most of you all complain wayyyy to much. I mean Ive only been a member here for almost a year now and I already know alot of people on here complain TDO is too cheap and never wants to do anything and more specifically AK needs some help to make it a full day park. I've even seen posts from popular members saying they would be happy with anything new and fun for that park or WDW in general.

So what happens when we get the announcement of one of the biggest partnerships in theme park history? Nothing but people complaining about how its not what they want, blah blah blah blah and so on.

People say a Star Wars Land would be 100x better....so why didn't they do it? I mean Star Tours has been there for years and years so I'm sure it has come up in conversations or meetings at WDI in the past. I mean if a lot of people on this board alone can think of a SW land I'm sure the Imagineers can too.

My personal opinion is that I love this idea. The movie was good, a bit too long but good. Put aside the actual "story" though and it was one of the best films from a graphics point of view and IMO thats why it made so much money. Someone posted that alot of people they new hated the movie but mentioned they would love to go to Pandora, well Disney is making that happen and I cant wait! Oh yea, one more thing...I personally think AK is the best fit of the 4 parks for this new land.

I cant wait to hear more news and announcements about this new expansion in the next few years. I know I'll be here on the forum checking them out when they have them.

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

I find it hilarious that, for once, Disney might give us a new experience that's entirely seperated from the terms franchise, synergy, merchandise and us FANS are complaining about that. I've said it before and I'll say it again until the point comes across: WAIT! Wait for those concept arts, wait for ride designs, wait to see how it's integrated into the park and then pass judgement. And for pete's sake, all those arguments about Avatar being a good / bad movie and/or better than Star Wars? Irrelevant for reasons stated numerous times throughout this thread. I also strongly believe that had Disney gotten a good deal out of Lucas for a land based on his franchises they would've done that, obviously they haven't though if they opted to buy out an all new property.

 

[AEfx]

Because if you exchanged the words "Star Wars Series" for "Avatar," that's exactly how I feel about the property Star Tours is based on.

I'll not defend Avatar the film here, because I thought it was incredibly overrated (it was, as others have pointed out, very well received by critics across the board) and simplistic (see http://themovieblog.com/2010/01/avatar-really-just-pocahontas for more on my feelings in this regard). However, despite the fact that he strikes me as arrogant and intellectually biased, I would argue that James Cameron is a greater visionary, a better writer, and a more critically successful filmmaker (across multiple genres, by the way) than George Lucas. Yet everyone seems to think that the key for all that ails DHS, at least, in lies in the brain of Lucas, the man whose intellect brought us Episodes I, II, III, and VI, some of the most unfulfilling filmmaking of all time.

So in the end, much of my moderate enthusiasm for this project lies in the collaboration with Cameron, more so by far than in the acquisition of this one particular film. Because if Lucas's paper-thin universe can lead to useful theme park material, I have little doubt that Cameron's vision will also.

Again, read the reviews.

"It was pretty. It was pretty. It was pretty. The characters, acting, writing, and everything else was adequate at best, but it was pretty. Did I mention it was pretty?"

All these people looking at a number score and not reading how they arrived at that score are missing the big picture, but I already described that rather fully above.

As I said, much can be said similarly about Star Wars, except for the fact that Star Wars undoubtedly had a grand, unexplainable cultural impact. Yes, the effects are what brought it out in the first place, but it created a whole universe (paper thin? LOL, no, one movie like Avatar is paper thin, six films, several television shows, dozens and dozens of novels, video games, etc. - not exactly paper thin).

Last week Star Wars came out on Blu-ray - an expensive ($80+ at retail) set of the films, and in one week became the best selling catalog title of all time on Blu-ray. That's quite a feat at that price for films that are 8-35 years old. Now, that's not just by dollars, like Cameron's record - it's by numbers of units sold. A new big budget Star Wars MMO is coming out this winter, two current TV series are on the air and another on the horizon, action figures line the shelves at Wal-mart to this day - and we are almost a decade from the last Star Wars live-action film.

Avatar was in theaters two years ago, and this announcement is the first I have heard about the film since it came out on Blu-ray last year.

Yeah, I think a Star Wars land at MGM would have been a better idea, even just financially for Disney. Basically, though, I think they went with this because : AK is in more dire need than MGM of something, they wanted to keep it from Universal, and they already sell a crap ton of Star Wars merchandise and their calculations were that more attractions wouldn't substantially increase that enough since they already sell so much.

My Grandma knows who Darth Vader is, she knows who Harry Potter is. If I asked her about Avatar, she wouldn't even know what the heck I was talking about. I would also be willing to bet that the majority of people who just went to see it once couldn't even actually name a single character. That's the difference, whereas Star Wars and Potter, etc. They are cultural phenomenons, while Avatar has yet to prove itself as anything but a box office anomaly. The last Star Wars film came out in 2003, yet I can still find Star Wars merchandise in quite a few sections at Wal-mart - can Avatar, only out two years, say the same?

 

[Lee]

Some info beginning to trickle in via sympathetic vibrations from the west coast. Trust me to share:

- The Avatar deal was Iger's baby. He wanted it and had Staggs put it together.

- Joe Rohde was not brought onboard until rather late in the game. I don't like the sound of that. He knew before last week, but was not consulted at the beginning at all. His feelings...not yet known.

- They are aiming for a late 2013 start. Not because they won't be ready before then, but for...ummm...let's just say financial reasons.

- Plans are a bit further along than they would have you think.

- Avatar is the big plan moving forward, at multiple parks. AK first, then likely DLP and HK. Other projects being pushed aside to make way for Avatar. Shanghai not on the front burner.

This info was distilled from 3 very good sources. Hopefully, more to come.

 

[zooey]

Other projects being pushed aside to make way for Avatar.

Sigh.

 

[xdan0920]

Some info beginning to trickle in via sympathetic vibrations from the west coast. Trust me to share:

- The Avatar deal was Iger's baby. He wanted it and had Staggs put it together.

- Joe Rohde was not brought onboard until rather late in the game. I don't like the sound of that. He knew before last week, but was not consulted at the beginning at all. His feelings...not yet known.

- They are aiming for a late 2013 start. Not because they won't be ready before then, but for...ummm...let's just say financial reasons.

- Plans are a bit further along than they would have you think.

- Avatar is the big plan moving forward, at multiple parks. AK first, then likely DLP and HK. Other projects being pushed aside to make way for Avatar. Shanghai not on the front burner.

This info was distilled from 3 very good sources. Hopefully, more to come.

Thanks for the info Lee.

The bolded is the main reason I am not enthused about this move. If I were to make a list of the top 50 things I would want to happen for WDW, Avatar Land would not have made the cut.

 

[devoy1701]

Some info beginning to trickle in via sympathetic vibrations from the west coast. Trust me to share:

- The Avatar deal was Iger's baby. He wanted it and had Staggs put it together.

- Joe Rohde was not brought onboard until rather late in the game. I don't like the sound of that. He knew before last week, but was not consulted at the beginning at all. His feelings...not yet known.

- They are aiming for a late 2013 start. Not because they won't be ready before then, but for...ummm...let's just say financial reasons.

- Plans are a bit further along than they would have you think.

- Avatar is the big plan moving forward, at multiple parks. AK first, then likely DLP and HK. Other projects being pushed aside to make way for Avatar. Shanghai not on the front burner.

This info was distilled from 3 very good sources. Hopefully, more to come.

I watched the film for the first time this weekend after hearing this news and wanting to see what it was all about. I was pleasantly surprised. I went in not expecting too much but received a simple but well done story, beautiful imagery, great special effects, amazing use of high quality surround sound (i'm really amazed by how many bluray features don't have great quality sound), and interesting technology portrayed in the film. There are many parts that can be taken from the film and built upon for attractions, and a land based on that scenery will be beautiful...though it's unfortunate that we won't be getting 1,000ft tall trees and floating mountains. Still, I expect what we will get will be of surpurb quality, and I see plenty of room for expansion with the Avatar Universe.

All of that being said, it is definitely sad that Disney does not have any franchises (or potential franchises) of it's own to be able to accomplish this with. Aside from princesses and pirates, this huge media conglomerate has absolutely nothing to build off of for itself.

 

[Prototype82]

yeah cause you know, the merchandise for Avatar was such a huge cash cow when the movie came out.

I was waiting for someone to say this. I'm speaking for my not-so-inner nerd. It's different for kids when they're in a theme park though. Jurassic Park is such an old franchise, yet kids always look like they're begging their parents to buy them merchandise when they're at Islands of Adventure. My point is, with a franchise like Avatar, there are loads of possibilities for merchandise. Na'vii jewlery, toys based off of the animals guests are going to see in the ride. People buy things in theme parks. It's the way of the world. And personally, I just want a 3-inch direhorse on my shelf that glows when you press a button. That'd be gnarly.

 

[WDWFREAK53]

I find it hilarious that, for once, Disney might give us a new experience that's entirely seperated from the terms franchise, synergy, merchandise and us FANS are complaining about that. I've said it before and I'll say it again until the point comes across: WAIT! Wait for those concept arts, wait for ride designs, wait to see how it's integrated into the park and then pass judgement. And for pete's sake, all those arguments about Avatar being a good / bad movie and/or better than Star Wars? Irrelevant for reasons stated numerous times throughout this thread. I also strongly believe that had Disney gotten a good deal out of Lucas for a land based on his franchises they would've done that, obviously they haven't though if they opted to buy out an all new property.

...and maybe...JUST MAYBE...once Lucas sees how incredible Avatar is (if it truly is as I'm hoping)...he'll jump at the chance to have a land for himself.