AVATAR land construction progress

mickey v-neck

Active Member
Here is what I hearing from this thread:

1. We want quality in design, construction, detail and maintainability, but we want it built at record speed (or less).
2. We want the best that the Disney Imaginers can do, but it should not cost as much as Disney is spending.
3. Disney is cutting money from every project and not giving Disney Imaginers enough to do it right, but spending to much on this one
4. And by the way Avatar was a bad movie so we should not even build this land.
5. and our they really going to build the boat ride.

LOL yep. Welcome to wdw magic.
 

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
The actual build time is inline with a project of this complexity. The design phase took a long time because of the R&D that went into the 2 new ride systems and the architectural complexity of the floating mountains. And it was announced at the very beginning of the project. Yes, the timeline has been long. But sometimes these things take time.

Universal is looking at a similar timeline for Nintendoland. But to be fair. Universal didn't announce it. Nintendo did. Maybe it would have been smarter for Disney to, instead of announcing the land, announce the closures, and then engage their insider network to "leak" some of the project info.

As far as the FoP ride system, I heard that for the test mock-up they mounted Motorbike Coaster seats on the Pandora's Box Ride System. I think 2 person banshees, 4 banshees per side would be doable.

images


And can you imagine straddling a bashee when it does this?

Pandora's%20Box%20002_thumb%5B1%5D.png
2 persons per banshee would definitively be realistic!
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
That is a decent summary. I think I can augment it a bit:

1. We want TWDC to innovate, develop, design, & construct high quality attraction and themed lands on par with their established standards.
2. We want the talent at WDI to operate in a way that does not waste that talent or resources unnecessarily.
3. We want the lack of cost control on other projects (especially those abroad) to not interfere with original design plans and budgets for these new ground-breaking lands and attractions.
4. We want the project to shine regardless of what it's chosen theme is.
5. We want a beautifully crafted floating attraction that competes with what has been built recently in Shanghai. (This is actually what we are getting and I am still not sure why or how the "back street boy" got anyone to believe it wasn't happening.)

*1023*
I'm glad that quality should always win out, but how much of a challenge is it that every "assignment" now is linked to an IP? Isn't that discouraging?
 

1023

Provocateur, Rancanteur, Plaisanter, du Jour
I'm glad that quality should always win out, but how much of a challenge is it that every "assignment" now is linked to an IP? Isn't that discouraging?

Being tied creatively to IPs is not something you should do to artists of any stripe. Part of the creative process is coming up with a premise. For example, UP has a "bluesky" attraction on paper. The idea was based on the IP but not constrained by the movie strictly. Unfortunately, the current leads have been given directives to use existing and future IPs as their starting point. There is however, 1 attraction that is not IP based that has a real shot at making it to the real world. There are several others on paper that have nothing attached but a location.

The amount of things conceived is staggering. The amount of things built is disappointing. Sticking with something familiar is no vice though. Being able to have something established with your audience to build upon can create more depth. Sometimes it will push beyond a book report attraction and achieve something great. Indy is an example of "non book report attraction" that most everyone enjoys and is full of quality. The attractions in Pandora are not book reports and will have overwhelming quality.

*1023*
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
Being tied creatively to IPs is not something you should do to artists of any stripe. Part of the creative process is coming up with a premise. For example, UP has a "bluesky" attraction on paper. The idea was based on the IP but not constrained by the movie strictly. Unfortunately, the current leads have been given directives to use existing and future IPs as their starting point. There is however, 1 attraction that is not IP based that has a real shot at making it to the real world. There are several others on paper that have nothing attached but a location.

The amount of things conceived is staggering. The amount of things built is disappointing. Sticking with something familiar is no vice though. Being able to have something established with your audience to build upon can create more depth. Sometimes it will push beyond a book report attraction and achieve something great. Indy is an example of "non book report attraction" that most everyone enjoys and is full of quality. The attractions in Pandora are not book reports and will have overwhelming quality.

*1023*
I defend Little Mermaid, but very much encourage the "extension of the story" approach to attraction building when an IP is involved. The problem that I, and others have with IP based attractions is that so often they play off that familiarity, the budgets get slashed and quality doesn't win out. Purpose built IP based attractions and lands typically succeed. Retrofits typically do not.
 

1023

Provocateur, Rancanteur, Plaisanter, du Jour
I defend Little Mermaid, but very much encourage the "extension of the story" approach to attraction building when an IP is involved. The problem that I, and others have with IP based attractions is that so often they play off that familiarity, the budgets get slashed and quality doesn't win out. Purpose built IP based attractions and lands typically succeed. Retrofits typically do not.

It's strange, many people don't mind attractions like those built in the original Fantasyland which are largely book reports. This is an easy thing to forgive when it comes to the Fairytales, after all, they are oriented towards children. With Mermaid in MK, the attraction was lacking a bit from a show perspective unlike it's twin in California. Those shortcomings were largely remedied. The attraction itself is okay. The queue is wonderful. It's a huge waste of real estate as built.

To be clear, I agree with you that playing off of familiarity to reduce quality of show is awful. It does seem to happen. However, we do have some recent examples from WDI where quality of show wins out. Radiator Springs is a prime example.

With Avatar, (since that is our thread) we are moving beyond your concerns with this area and it's attractions. It is full of quality and it's exceeded it's initial budget. The timetable is falling inline with an opening near the planned dates (from what I hear) and we will be able to "begin" to explore the completely alien experience. If you have the time and inclination, visit a Vive test/demo site and play "Impossible Travel Agency", that is probably as close as you will get to the types of experiences/visuals you will have in this "land".

*1023*
 
Last edited:

Next Big Thing

Well-Known Member
Magic Kingdom.... or AK....

Although, there is an IP that could be tied to it in either park. The tech has been around a couple years but is not currently employed in any "current" attraction. I believe it was hinted at about 2 years ago by another.

*1023*
Hmm... MK or DAK. I can see Mystic Manor fitting in Adventureland or Asia. I also can see them trying to add Jungle Book to the ride as the IP add-on, which again could go into either land, but more suited to Asia, imo.

Total speculation there on my part, but I could see it.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom