-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
AVATAR land construction progress
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
brb1006
Well-Known Member
Same here, I never seen Avatar but I'm excited for this area.
Kman101
Well-Known Member
I know it's not steeped in pop culture and I doubt it will get a massive amount of them, but people seem to forget that there was a whole thing about fans of the movie wanting to visit the land ... it was supposedly a "thing" ... I think there's more fans out there for it than given credit for.
I also think we'll see Avatar 2. It's just a matter of when. Cameron won't let it go IMHO.
Why are some of you so determined to see it all fail?
I also think we'll see Avatar 2. It's just a matter of when. Cameron won't let it go IMHO.
Why are some of you so determined to see it all fail?
It's not hated, except rabidly by anti-previous-movie-IP purists.
On Rotten Tomatoes it has a critical rating of 7.5 out of 10. It's 83% fresh (i.e., recommended, go see it). And among the self-selecting RT user base it.s 4.5/5.0 and 82%. And one of the top grossing movies of all time (at least in the top 15 depending on how you scale for inflation). That doesn't happen without a lot of repeat viewing, even taking into account the extra cost for 3D.
So, no, it's not generally hated.
If you're ever going to Pandora, I recommend seeing it. Even if it's not to your liking. I went out of my way to see Hocus Pocus before the Halloween party and it was pretty cheesy, but, it allowed me to really enjoy the stage show which was excellent.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
It's not hated, it's just forgotten and, when recalled, viewed largely with ambivalence. It was undoubtedly a TECH landmark - it began the "blockbusters are shown in 3-D" thing that's still going on. I suspect that the freshness of the 3-D was central to many of those positive RT reviews.
Look at articles about the Cirque show... or the Disney land. They tend to have as their central premise that Avatar made a huge amount of money but no cultural footprint. That is not a "fringe" viewpoint - it is even central to the positive Orlando Sentinel piece regarding the new land posted in this thread.
I'm not an "anti-previous-movie-IP purist." I love and follow pop culture and am immersed in various fandoms. I love Cars Land and HP Land (even though I'm not a huge fan of the original properties) and am looking forward to SWL. It would be nice if you got original lands and attractions interspersed with the IPs, but for various reasons at the industrial level of Hollywood, that's not going to happen. Avatar is just a really lackluster IP. Iger picked it out of petty pique when Uni got HP, it wasn't chosen on it's narrative or aesthetic merits.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
Of course not - one of the two largest entertainment companies in the world has brought the full might of their PR department to bear in its support. Much of that media coverage has come on ABC or in publications Disney owns, of course, or in outlets friendly to Disney for other reasons like the Orlando Sentinel. The reaction to that coverage, however, is not particularly enthusiastic, and it hasn't become a minor phenomenon the way HP Land did (or SW Land likely will).
The tone of the non-Disney owned coverage (even in the OS) echoes the first several paragraphs of the LA Times review of the Avatar Cirque show: "James Cameron's Avatar is a movie everybody saw but nobody remembers," later adding "Avatar doesn't have the kind of pop-culture stickiness of films like "Star Wars" or "The Matrix" or anything on Marvel's blu-ray shelf."
The most memorable thing about Avatar is how non-memorable it was (beyond the use of 3-D). Put it this way, if Cameron retired tomorrow and Disney hadn't invested a billion dollars in it, it would be one of the only IPs on the market no studio would be rushing to continue.
Scuttle
Well-Known Member
It's not that bad a movie it's just not the magic that JC usually delivers. If Most any other director made it it'd probably be their best work. My two complaints about Avatar are.... 1. No Character development/attachment. 2. No Bill Paxton.
Last edited:
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
I love Cameron, but characters in Cameron films are always a bit thin and require distinctive actors to make them fully-rounded - hence the huge value of Paxton. Avatar features a really bland lead and supporting characters either covered in CG makeup or played by bland folks themselves - except Weaver, who was a strong enough actress to make her role interesting.
Scuttle
Well-Known Member
Agreed.... I wish Weaver had an even bigger role and was the one character we grew attached to. Jake was a weak lead.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
It's been years since I've seen Hocus Pocus, but I remember hating it.
Did you just link to the images in the post already linked to here?
http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/avatar-land-the-specifics.804238/page-258#post-7657479
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
The pictures are quite nice, but they all feel like things we've seen quite a bit before. It would be nice to get a sense of scale and variety from the land.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
I really think the floating mountains are going to be one of those things that people have never experienced before when they are standing right under them.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
That seems likely, but the pictures we keep seeing of them oddly lack a sense of awe.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
The one's Disney has released are that way because the land isn't, or wasn't finished yet so they are being closely cropped so you do don't see incomplete areas or equipment like you see in those recent backstage pictures. I also think the sense of awe from the mountains is going to be hard to convey in photos.
interesting choice of words because i guy i know who stood in front of them actually used awe when describing them to me