AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

Siren

Well-Known Member
I don't even have to like it. It made 3 billion dollars on its theatrical run. People spoke with their money period. If people didn't like Avatar, and it was only a special effects film, the bad word of mouth would have killed it like that Roland Emerich Godzilla remake after its opening weekend. Instead, its business was actually sustained for weeks and weeks due to massive repeat viewings, something that does not happen in the US film industry. This is all fact. The people that are claiming it wasn't a liked film are delusional.
Wow. I'm a believer! :)
 

xdan0920

Think for yourselfer
I don't even have to like it. It made 3 billion dollars on its theatrical run. People spoke with their money period. If people didn't like Avatar, and it was only a special effects film, the bad word of mouth would have killed it like that Roland Emerich Godzilla remake after its opening weekend. Instead, it's business was actually sustained for weeks and weeks due to massive repeat viewings, something that does not happen in the US film industry. This is all fact. The people that are claiming it wasn't a liked film are delusional.

It sure did make a lot of money. Anyone denying that, would, in fact, be delusional. I don't see anyone denying that though. What I see is a lot of people saying it has not stuck in the public consciousness in the way you would expect such a financially successful film to have stuck. I suppose that is a subjective matter though, so it is hard to prove one way or the other. Anecdotally I have not heard squat about Avatar since it finished it's theatrical run.
 

wm49rs

A naughty bit o' crumpet
Premium Member
It sure did make a lot of money. Anyone denying that, would, in fact, be delusional. I don't see anyone denying that though. What I see is a lot of people saying it has not stuck in the public consciousness in the way you would expect such a financially successful film to have stuck. I suppose that is a subjective matter though, so it is hard to prove one way or the other. Anecdotally I have not heard squat about Avatar since it finished it's theatrical run.
Save for delays in the sequels.....
 

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
This is just the same kind of super biased glop completely detached from all measures of objectivity you've been repeating over and over again like a broken record player. Come up with something new please. Claiming that people actually didn't like a film they went back to see multiple times to propel it to the most successful movie of all time is completely anti-logical and frankly, disingenuous.
It's what many top critics on Rotten Tomatoes have said- yes it did do so well and was so successful because of the tech and visuals, at the expense of having a good plot, script and characters. The visuals and technology are indeed what made this film so successful, and without those elements it would not have received even close to the amount of praise and money it got. The praise it DID get were predominantly focused on the tech and visuals. Many of the people who DID praise it even said flat out that the plot and characters were bland or even outright bad. And after getting over that initial wow factor, praise for the movie has died down dramatically and you don't hear people talking about it (or its looked back on as a forgettable story with some nice eye candy). On the other hand, whether you look soon after they were released or decades later, there's still people who are gaga over the likes of the original Star Wars movies, Alien/Aliens, the original two Terminator movies etc). Or in more recent times, Harry Potter (or the film versions of Lord of the Rings, though that plot and characters was already adored for many decades due to the original books).

Hell the main consensus caption on Rotten Tomatoes reads-

It might be more impressive on a technical level than as a piece of storytelling, but Avatar reaffirms James Cameron's singular gift for imaginative, absorbing filmmaking.

Numerous quotes from top critics, ones from (this first batch will exclude the "rotten" reviews and only focus on positive ones, to further emphasize that even many positive reviewers were far from impressed by anything other than the visuals and tech)-

The narrative would be ho-hum without the spectacle. But what spectacle! Avatar is dizzying, enveloping, vertiginous ... I ran out of adjectives an hour into its 161 minutes.- David Edelstein (New York Magazine)

For all the grandeur and technical virtuosity of the mythical 3-D universe Cameron labored for years to perfect, his characters are one-dimensional, rarely saying anything unexpected. But for much of the movie, that hardly matters.- Claudia Puig (USA Today)

As visionary tour guide, Cameron has no equal. Predictable story, clichéd dialogue and logical lapses aside, he's still the man we want leading us into his Pandora's box.- Roger Moore (Orlando Sentinel)

Along with the eye-popping visuals in writer-director James Cameron's sci-fi epic, there's also a lot of eye-rollingly silly stuff.- Joe Neumaier (New York Daily News)

If only Cameron, who also wrote the script, had spent as much time on the story as he did the effects he uses to tell it.- Bill Goodykoontz (Arizona Republic)

The much-hyped sci-fi actioner Avatar is the perfect showcase for Cameron's strengths...and his flaws.- Keith Uhlich (Time Out New York)

We're not here for the plot, we're here for the cool- CGI/motion capture/movie magic, and for 2 1/2 hours, this movie never disappoints.- Richard Roeper

As visual spectacle, Avatar is indelible, but as a movie it all but evaporates as you watch it.- Owen Gleiberman (Entertainment Weekly)

If your exhilaration with the (approximate) first half is undercut by an increasingly deflating pffffftttt sound, Cameron nonetheless has delivered the screen's most anticipated and persuasive blend of live-action and motion-capture animation to date.- Michael Philips (Chicago Tribute)

A movie whose effects are clearly revolutionary, a spectacle that millions will find adventure in. But it nevertheless feels unsatisfying and somehow lacks the pulse of a truly alive film.- Jake Coyle (Associated Press)

It's rare that even the top critics were praising the plot or characters. Even when they didn't outright criticize those elements, they largely glanced over it in order to rave about how technologically amazing and pretty the movie was. That's not even including the top critics that WERE initially negative and weren't as easily suckered in by the expensive eye candy-

It's a remote-control movie experience, a high-tech "wish you were here" scribbled on a very expensive postcard.- Stephanie Zacharek (Salon.com)

Cameron's signature achievement may have been to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the oldest of all Hollywood maxims: all the money in the world is no subsitute for fresh ideas and a solid script.- Tom Huddleston (Time Out)

Everyone recites their lines, awkwardly laying out exposition, speaking their clunky dialogue. None of this is supposed to matter, because we're presumably busy marveling at all the money on display.- Moira MacDonald (Seattle Times)

The genre elements are all there: What critically wounds Avatar is Cameron's inability to write better characters.- Rene Rodriguez (Miami Herald)

The muscular, coming-atcha visuals trump the movie's camp dialogue and corny conception, but only up to a point.- J Hoberman (Village Voice)
 

George

Liker of Things
I didn't like Country Bear Jamboree attraction until I was immersed in the theatrical awesomeness of the movie. Also, repeated viewings of Song of the South by many fans is what drove the success of Splash Mountain. Finally, the success of Disney pop star Michael Jackson made Captain EO awesome in the 80's and the directorial debutante of that little 3D movie was able to make a little trilogy that we're all familiar - Disney's Star Wars not to mention Disney's Indiana Jones. Further, I think that even though Avatar lends itself to a visually stunning theme park land which based on the concept art will be a beautiful theme park land in this little ole thing called reality, it will clearly be a complete failure since it didn't have the massive cultural impact of say, Cars, which every adult I talk to has gone and on about (especially after the sequel) which is the main reason anyone goes to Radiator Springs out there in DCA.
 
You can cherry pick from RottenTomatoes all you want to further your biased bologna, but the film was a critical success on all accounts. You're living in an alternate reality where the top critics didn't love the film, but everyone else doesn't have to buy into your super obvious agenda.
 

wm49rs

A naughty bit o' crumpet
Premium Member
You can cherry pick from RottenTomatoes all you want to further your biased bologna, but the film was a critical success on all accounts. You're living in an alternate reality where the top critics didn't love the film, but everyone else doesn't have to buy into your super obvious agenda.
Just who exactly are the top critics? And did they love the immersive narrative and stunning dialogue? Or were they more impressed by the special effects and CGI?
 
I didn't like Country Bear Jamboree attraction until I was immersed in the theatrical awesomeness of the movie. Also, repeated viewings of Song of the South by many fans is what drove the success of Splash Mountain. Finally, the success of Disney pop star Michael Jackson made Captain EO awesome in the 80's and the directorial debutante of that little 3D movie was able to make a little trilogy that we're all familiar - Disney's Star Wars not to mention Disney's Indiana Jones. Further, I think that even though Avatar lends itself to a visually stunning theme park land which based on the concept art will be a beautiful theme park land in this little ole thing called reality, it will clearly be a complete failure since it didn't have the massive cultural impact of say, Cars, which every adult I talk to has gone and on about (especially after the sequel) which is the main reason anyone goes to Radiator Springs out there in DCA.

Can we come up with a catch-all term to describe these people? Needs to be something like "Truthers." I got it, "Beasters." XD
 
Don't worry, Beasters, some day Avatar won't be the most profitable movie of all time, and Beastly Kingdom will finally be made. Don't give up hope. Avatar's success is a conspiracy! Don't let the man keep those unicorns and dragons down!
 

wm49rs

A naughty bit o' crumpet
Premium Member
Don't worry, Beasters, some day Avatar won't be the most profitable movie of all time, and Beastly Kingdom will finally be made. Don't give up hope. Avatar's success is a conspiracy! Don't let the man keep those unicorns and dragons down!
Yeah, that one doesn't really ring either.....
 

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
You can cherry pick from RottenTomatoes all you want to further your biased bologna, but the film was a critical success on all accounts. You're living in an alternate reality where the top critics didn't love the film, but everyone else doesn't have to buy into your super obvious agenda.
That's not cherry picking at all. You said in the other thread that it was only a couple of people on this forum who were critical of the plot. I just gave you quotes taken from 15 professional paid top movie critics, 10 of which still enjoyed the movie and gave it a positive review, who flat out said the plot and characters were either mediocre or outright bad, and stated outright that the reason they enjoyed the movie was because of its visuals and technology. The vast majority of reviews in the non-top critics section say much the same- they enjoyed the movie and it's gorgeous and technically impressive, but the plot is meh or bad.

There's no question many people enjoyed the movie and it was a massive financial success, but there is a clear reason why that is. And when they get past the hype of eye candy and expensive tech, most rational people actually admit exactly what they disliked about it just as much as liked (and with the time that has passed now, many people have come down from that high of eye candy and tech, people have cooled down about the movie a lot and are less inclined to get overly excited about it). The vast majority of objective people agree that the story and characters are just plain bad. Financial success is also hardly the core of what makes a movie good underneath either (Twilight anyone?).

A vengeful bull?
Quite possible. I had wondered if it was our old pal CountryBearFan at first (whom I haven't seen lately), though his/her posts are distinctly lacking in the "WAAH LEAVE MEG CROFTON AND TDO ALONE" department. Either way, I'm starting to smell a banning if this keeps up.
 
Last edited:

Suspirian

Well-Known Member
Just a random thought...about the eye candy thing. Are you saying the land will be mediocre because the movie is just eye candy, because a visually stunning land is exactly what I want for DAK. I have no problem with the film, I actually enjoyed it, but I can admit that the premise is slightly cliche, but it's not like every attraction in AVATARLAND will be evil humans vs navi. WDI tends to make completely different stories that just take place in the worlds of the film based attractions they make and don't usually just completely retell the story, save for a few exceptions (looking at you TLM and Finding Nemo on both coasts). Some of the best attractions are about a general experience and aren't heavily story driven like Soarin. I'm not saying I don't prefer story based attractions, just that a ride doesn't need to have a largely developed story to be a good attraction nor does the story of a film attraction have to completely rely on the plot points of the film. For all we know the attractions could have a very complex story or be more of a sensory experience and it could still be good. I just think we'll have to wait and see.
 

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
Just a random thought...about the eye candy thing. Are you saying the land will be mediocre because the movie is just eye candy, because a visually stunning land is exactly what I want for DAK. I have no problem with the film, I actually enjoyed it, but I can admit that the premise is slightly cliche, but it's not like every attraction in AVATARLAND will be evil humans vs navi. WDI tends to make completely different stories that just take place in the worlds of the film based attractions they make and don't usually just completely retell the story, save for a few exceptions (looking at you TLM and Finding Nemo on both coasts). Some of the best attractions are about a general experience and aren't heavily story driven like Soarin. I'm not saying I don't prefer story based attractions, just that a ride doesn't need to have a largely developed story to be a good attraction nor does the story of a film attraction have to completely rely on the plot points of the film. For all we know the attractions could have a very complex story or be more of a sensory experience and it could still be good. I just think we'll have to wait and see.
If you're talking to me- no I'm not saying that. The land has the potential to be great. I'm actually more positive about AVATAR Land than some other people here are (I see why people don't want it of course but I have warmed up to the concept at least, moreso after the concept art).

The movie was what I was talking about. It's relevant because the people at Disney who decided to make an Avatar land did so for financial reasons, not a creative one. They wanted a draw for Animal Kingdom that would make a ton of money due to a pre-existing IP driving attendance up. And there's a lot of issues with the choice they made when you consider how little people talk about Avatar anymore. What remains to be seen is how well the sequels will do. I assume Disney wants to coincide the new land with the release of one of the new movies, which can be tricky considering how unpredictable Cameron is with release dates...

And one does hope that the people at Disney realize what it was that people liked and disliked about the movie, focusing on the right things (the visual nature of the world) and leaving out things that didn't work (the story and characters). The land itself has enormous potential from a theming perspective IMHO. While i'd rather see something else if I was given the choice, I personally see the merits for a theme park experience if done right and think it could be cool. Again, IF they focus on the visuals of the environment and don't value engineer the hell out of it, then I'm willing to give this a chance. It's the overall execution that i'm worried about.

It's similar to my feelings on Disney's recent Oz movie- didn't care for the plot or some of the characters at all, but I would be interested in seeing some sort of well done theme park attraction of it.
 

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
I love when Rhode implied the entire land is one big attraction with everything being interactive. It's going to be mindblowing just moving your hand around plants and seeing them react with light and effects and stuff.
It'll be cool, but you know people are going to abuse the hell out of anything interactive and things are going to get dirty and broken quickly (almost certain we're going to see things vandalized). Not looking forward to that happening...
 

Siren

Well-Known Member
It's what many top critics on Rotten Tomatoes have said- yes it did do so well and was so successful because of the tech and visuals, at the expense of having a good plot, script and characters. The visuals and technology are indeed what made this film so successful, and without those elements it would not have received even close to the amount of praise and money it got. The praise it DID get were predominantly focused on the tech and visuals. Many of the people who DID praise it even said flat out that the plot and characters were bland or even outright bad. And after getting over that initial wow factor, praise for the movie has died down dramatically and you don't hear people talking about it (or its looked back on as a forgettable story with some nice eye candy). On the other hand, whether you look soon after they were released or decades later, there's still people who are gaga over the likes of the original Star Wars movies, Alien/Aliens, the original two Terminator movies etc). Or in more recent times, Harry Potter (or the film versions of Lord of the Rings, though that plot and characters was already adored for many decades due to the original books).

Hell the main consensus caption on Rotten Tomatoes reads-

It might be more impressive on a technical level than as a piece of storytelling, but Avatar reaffirms James Cameron's singular gift for imaginative, absorbing filmmaking.

Numerous quotes from top critics, ones from (this first batch will exclude the "rotten" reviews and only focus on positive ones, to further emphasize that even many positive reviewers were far from impressed by anything other than the visuals and tech)-

The narrative would be ho-hum without the spectacle. But what spectacle! Avatar is dizzying, enveloping, vertiginous ... I ran out of adjectives an hour into its 161 minutes.- David Edelstein (New York Magazine)

For all the grandeur and technical virtuosity of the mythical 3-D universe Cameron labored for years to perfect, his characters are one-dimensional, rarely saying anything unexpected. But for much of the movie, that hardly matters.- Claudia Puig (USA Today)

As visionary tour guide, Cameron has no equal. Predictable story, clichéd dialogue and logical lapses aside, he's still the man we want leading us into his Pandora's box.- Roger Moore (Orlando Sentinel)

Along with the eye-popping visuals in writer-director James Cameron's sci-fi epic, there's also a lot of eye-rollingly silly stuff.- Joe Neumaier (New York Daily News)

If only Cameron, who also wrote the script, had spent as much time on the story as he did the effects he uses to tell it.- Bill Goodykoontz (Arizona Republic)

The much-hyped sci-fi actioner Avatar is the perfect showcase for Cameron's strengths...and his flaws.- Keith Uhlich (Time Out New York)

We're not here for the plot, we're here for the cool- CGI/motion capture/movie magic, and for 2 1/2 hours, this movie never disappoints.- Richard Roeper

As visual spectacle, Avatar is indelible, but as a movie it all but evaporates as you watch it.- Owen Gleiberman (Entertainment Weekly)

If your exhilaration with the (approximate) first half is undercut by an increasingly deflating pffffftttt sound, Cameron nonetheless has delivered the screen's most anticipated and persuasive blend of live-action and motion-capture animation to date.- Michael Philips (Chicago Tribute)

A movie whose effects are clearly revolutionary, a spectacle that millions will find adventure in. But it nevertheless feels unsatisfying and somehow lacks the pulse of a truly alive film.- Jake Coyle (Associated Press)​


It's rare that even the top critics were praising the plot or characters. Even when they didn't outright criticize those elements, they largely glanced over it in order to rave about how technologically amazing and pretty the movie was. That's not even including the top critics that WERE initially negative and weren't as easily suckered in by the expensive eye candy-
Thanks for posting this. This post demonstrates exactly why Pandora is a perfect fit for AK! I could not give two flipping pancakes about the strength of a plot, script or characters -- not sure why this matters. We're talking about a theme park here, where the average attention span for guests is 20 seconds. Pandora is visually stunning & intriguing. I really can't wait to see Pandora come to fruition!
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom