This thread is only slightly less ridiculous than the Lights of Winter thread. We know so little about this land - the only thing that people are basing their distaste around is what they know about the movie itself.
Having said all that, I don't know what that first choice would be for an additional land in the Animal Kingdom. It very well could be Avatar, I don't know yet. The way I look at it is Disney is likely adding a land based off of a new set of mythical creatures and this land doesn't behave the same way the lands of Earth behave. If something like that was part of the public pitch for Avatarland and the movie didn't exist we would all be incredible excited.
But for some unknown reason we're tying this back to the source franchise. The souce of the franchise has little to no bearing on the quality of the land that can be produced. If you dislike the idea of devoting an entire land to a single entity, sure that makes sense, but saying that because of the source material you'd prefer a vacant lot - that's just silly.
My only complaint with AVATAR is simple.
Disney. could. do. better.
If AVATAR was the only thing they could get a hold of then I'd be fine with it. But considering the amount of franchises out there ripe for theming, AVATAR is just the bottom of the barrel.
There is one franchise that they currently control that could be expanded outwards and would potentially generate Potter level excitement. That's Star Wars, and they did that to a degree. However, like everything Disney does lately it was marketed fairly poorly.
At this point, I would say LoTR would be a level below Harry Potter or Star Wars, but probably slightly ahead of Avatar. I would actually say a Toy Story Playland (although these have looked rather cheap) would also be a welcome addition to DHS.
Then prove to me, why AVATAR is a much more lasting and profitable franchise?
Tell me how AVATAR toys will fly off souvenir store shelves.
Cause the clearance isle at Kmart doesn't count.
Merchandise does not equate to good theme park land. No way you can slice this for me to agree.
Knowing what something is doesn't mean that it is a valuable franchise going forward. Especially when we are talking about bricks and mortar.
Merchandise offerings for AVATAR are awful right now, that's a big thing for Disney but less important if they're trying to create a great environment.
The Pandora argument is overdone. Just search the boards for a bit. I could bang my head against a wall for an hour and it would be more fun then to rehash... Especially without concept art or really any knowledge whatsoever of what the expansion would contain.
The constant statement espoused from Disney Fans is "Disney could do so much better." "They should pick a better franchise."
I have yet to hear a viable big available franchise named other then Star Wars... which interestingly enough is property of Lucasfilm.
Ignore the unsophisticated story. I don't believe anyone can honestly watch that Avatar movie and not believe it would be a stunning theme park land if the right budget and design talent were applied.
I stick by my theory; most of the rabid dislike for the Avatar / Pandora expansion at Animal Kingdom is based on the fanboy obsession with one canceled project or another. Avatar is the nail for many of our favorite dead projects. Mine too.
Pretend for a moment that Mysterious Island, Beastly Kingdom, or Avatar/Pandora never existed. If Disney presented these three ideas to the public as the three possibilities for the Animal Kingdom I truly don't know what people would prefer.
Mysterious Island: Fan boys would love that a version of 20K was coming back because they know what 20K is, they would also likely criticize Journey to the Center of the Earth not knowing what it was and just assuming it was a Test Track clone
Beastly Kingdom: We would complain that either the park doesn't need a new roller coaster, or "Dragon Roller Coaster... real original" or "really, you expect us to get excted about a hedge maze"?
Pandora: "Wait, the flowers move that's pretty cool..." or "They create their own imaginary animals? That sounds intriguing" or "floating mountains... I gotta see this"
:wave: I can.
Nope, not in my case at least. I'd take the vacant land over Avatar.
Agreed. Vacant land wouldn't cost a fortune, and vacant land can be developed into something better then %&*@#$ Avatar.
That's just silly.
Lord of the Rings...PERIOD
I've never seen Lord of the Rings, but I think it's fair to say that the mass appeal for visiting the world would be greater than the mass appeal for Avatar. But I don't think it's a slam dunk, nor do I believe that one is guaranteed to be better than the other, LoTR just has the potential right now for a longer lasting appeal based on the franchise.
If Disney didn't want to deal with JK for Harry Potter just wait until they have to deal with the Tolkien estate. :zipit:
Plus, I'm pretty sure UNI has a much better chance at snagging the LOTR rights than Disney, if they haven't already.
Probably not that relevant - it sounds like Cameron isn't exactly easy to deal with.
I've quoted the segments of your post that I feel deserves mention.
I've tried to put my finger on the reasons why Avatar in AK makes me squirm and I feel your post really crystalized what I've been feeling for months.
Avatar is a great, stunning, visual movie. However, as a movie, it's missing key elements that make it fit in Disney properties. When we talk about immersive themes/movies, it's not just that the theming is rich, lush. That misses the mark. To be immersive it is absolutely *essential* that the story bring the viewer/reader into the world and make them part of it.
Think about what you said about Star Wars. How many children since 1977 until today have gone into their backyards with play lightsabers and imagined themselves as Jedi Knights. Literally billions of play hours by children all over the world have been invested in fighting a Sith alongside Luke Skywalker or Han Solo. The fact of the matter is that they've imagined themselves *IN* the world they were watching in the movie. The mentally transported themselves, as they are, into these movies. There are other movie franchises that accomplish this. My kids do this with the pirates movies. I've had to install a huge Calico Jack pirate flag on my backyard swing set, because it's really a pirate ship, it's not a swing set and it hasn't been for 2 years. Let's take Harry Potter. Every stick outside becomes a wand....and my kids fight Lord Voldermort alongside each other and alongside Harry Potter at least once a week.
Now, lets talk about Avatar. you said it yourself. "Unsophisticated Story." I'll take it one step further. It's not just unsophisticated. Its not imersive!! Now before people challenge that. Yes, it's richly themed, its very lush. But it does *NOT* drag the viewer into the movie. Think about it. Harsh conditions. You can't breathe there. Every animal is going to eat your eyeballs for jujubes. The Navi don't like humans, they don't look like humans...and it took half the movie for the main character to get close to the Navi.
That's not an environment or story line that draws children inward. It's not a story that draws fantasy-minded adults in. I loved avatar, but for every second I watched it, I was FIRMLY aware that I was sitting in my living room, watching Dances with Wolves in outer space. My children don't want to fight alongside Jake Sully. They don't want to mate with a Navi. They don't want to breathe that air. It's not immersive. It doesn't pull the viewer in.
I seriously doubt that people have a problem with Avatar because it won't allow our pet projects to be developed. That's silly. If Avatar were truly a great idea, we'd all embrace it. The reason we're not is because there's this intangible that makes the Avatar project *very* un-disney. For me, the above description is what I don't like about it. Perhaps its the same for others. But the fact of the matter is most people are not comfortable with this idea because it makes our Disney Parks less Disney.
Given the likely cost of this expansion, I'm still scratching my head why they couldn't attract George Lucas instead. An entire theme park could have been developed around the Star Wars mythology...and this entire theme park could have easily been a very deadly blow to the huge momentum Universal has created for itself with WWOHP. It still boggles the mind.
I really don't buy into the story argument. You can have the greatest backstory to a land and the land can still be lousy (Dinorama is a prime example). Admittedly, I'm far more intrigued in the visuals of Avatar than I am the story - I assume most people are also really only captivated by the visuals over the story.
Why does the story of the land have to be the same story of the movie? That doesn't always happen in Disney attractions, why does it have to happen in this one?
Look at The Wizarding World of Harry Potter - how many people that visit that land know that we're visiting on the day of the tri-wizard tournament? If you don't go into Dragon Challenge you probably don't know that, and more importantly, I'm guessing most people didn't think that they would even have that specific a backstory. Forbidden Journey is an incredible attraction but the story of the attraction is so-so. They made it that way so they could make the ride a best of.
Disney and Lucas did the same thing with Star Tours. Yes the time frame is meant to be between Episode III and IV, but Lucas knew that people didn't just want to visit Hoth, they wanted to see the At-Ats. This is missed by the overwhelming majority of guests.
