AVATAR land construction progress

[flyerjab]

That seems likely, but the pictures we keep seeing of them oddly lack a sense of awe.

I couldn't agree less. My opinion of course. I don't believe that photos do this land justice. I felt the same about Diagon Alley. The online pictures only give an idea. Scale and scope aren't truly appreciable until you are standing there. Again my opinion. You may think what you wish as everyone's opinion is valid.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I couldn't agree less. My opinion of course. I don't believe that photos do this land justice. I felt the same about Diagon Alley. The online pictures only give an idea. Scale and scope aren't truly appreciable until you are standing there. Again my opinion. You may think what you wish as everyone's opinion is valid.

Just a note - my comment was that the photos don't give a sense of awe, a statement you just agreed with.

It's the job of Disney's PR to convey the most positive impression of the land possible. I don't think the relatively small rocks we keep seeing - and we see again, in these unauthorized (?) pictures - do that. I suspect this is more a failing of the PR than the land.

Cards on the table - I think the land will be very pretty and a nice addition to AK but will suffer from a poor choice of IP, I think the River Ride will be gorgeous but maddeningly short, and I think FoP will be fun but not particularly innovative, being reminiscent of other, pre-existing attractions.

 

[Kman101]

I don't agree. I don't think the movie plot itself will ultimately matter. People wanted to visit the land, shouldn't really have anything to do with the plot of the movie. People should just put it out of their minds and appreciate the land for what it is. Why are you trying to undersell it for yourself?

Most will probably enjoy it for the land it is. It's not going to go away, it's here ...

 

[TalkingHead]

Just a note - my comment was that the photos don't give a sense of awe, a statement you just agreed with.

It's the job of Disney's PR to convey the most positive impression of the land possible. I don't think the relatively small rocks we keep seeing - and we see again, in these unauthorized (?) pictures - do that. I suspect this is more a failing of the PR than the land.

Cards on the table - I think the land will be very pretty and a nice addition to AK but will suffer from a poor choice of IP, I think the River Ride will be gorgeous but maddeningly short, and I think FoP will be fun but not particularly innovative, being reminiscent of other, pre-existing attractions.

I've yet to see an image where the illusion of levitation works. The publicity photos looks grand, but they don't give a sense of floating rocks. Maybe the illusion works better in person, but I'm skeptical.

 

[Scuttle]

Is that really only two rows per ride vehicle for the river adventure? Am I seeing that correctly?

 

[Jones14]

Is that really only two rows per ride vehicle for the river adventure? Am I seeing that correctly?

That's correct. Two rows of four. Supposedly, the dispatch time will be shorter than that of Frozen Ever After, so capacity shouldn't be terrible, but a people eater this is not.

 

[Scuttle]

That's correct. Two rows of four. Supposedly, the dispatch time will be shorter than that of Frozen Ever After, so capacity shouldn't be terrible, but a people eater this is not.

Terrible news. I was hoping for 4 rows of 4.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Is that really only two rows per ride vehicle for the river adventure? Am I seeing that correctly?

Yes, that's correct, and it's consistent with the leaked blueprints as well, fwiw.

If @Alektronic or anyone else has an idea of dispatch interval or how the load stations will work I'd love to hear it. They'll need to be at 20 second dispatch times with full boats to get to 1440 an hour.

I have to assume that there won't be any triggered effects in the attraction and everything will be on a cycle longer than we can see on any one ride. Even the shaman at the end is probably more in line with Jack Sparrow in Pirates, there's a spiel but it's continuous as opposed to triggered.

 

[Scuttle]

Yes, that's correct, and it's consistent with the leaked blueprints as well, fwiw.

If @Alektronic or anyone else has an idea of dispatch interval or how the load stations will work I'd love to hear it. They'll need to be at 20 second dispatch times with full boats to get to 1440 an hour.

I have to assume that there won't be any triggered effects in the attraction and everything will be on a cycle longer than we can see on any one ride. Even the shaman at the end is probably more in line with Jack Sparrow in Pirates, there's a spiel but it's continuous as opposed to triggered.

Thanks for the update, I've been out of the Disney game and haven't seen the blueprints in a long time.

 

[doctornick]

I couldn't agree less. My opinion of course. I don't believe that photos do this land justice. I felt the same about Diagon Alley. The online pictures only give an idea. Scale and scope aren't truly appreciable until you are standing there. Again my opinion. You may think what you wish as everyone's opinion is valid.

There's two different things at play here IMHO:
1. I don't think, to date, that we've ever seen at photos or film taken from ground level looking up at the main show pieces. That's going to be the money shot and Disney has been very deliberate in holding that back until either closer to opening or perhaps for people to just discover it on their own. The stuff we have seen have been more teasers than the main course.
2. I don't think photos really aregoing to give this justice, as you indicate, even if they were showing "everything". What we've been seeing have mostly been images of some of the details of the land -- which have been IMHO impressive -- as oppose to the scale. Truly immersive environments tend to have things all around you which is impossible to properly appreciate with a photo pointed one direction.

I understand people being skeptical until seeing something in its entirety in person. But I don't quite get being dismissive based on what we have seen as there is much more that is clearly unrevealed.

Edit: I also think it is important to note that there have been pretty much no images of the land at night with all the lighting working. I think that's probably going to be when it will really shine (pun unintended) and Disney seems to be holding that back intentionally -- or perhaps it's not show ready enough yet to be as mind blowing as they want.

 

[doctornick]

That's correct. Two rows of four. Supposedly, the dispatch time will be shorter than that of Frozen Ever After, so capacity shouldn't be terrible, but a people eater this is not.

I've got to think the loading will be multiple boats at once which will help with dispatch intervals. The blueprints we have seen have a pretty long straight area that looked to be load/unload which suggested to me multiple stations to use.

 

[GoofGoof]

That seems likely, but the pictures we keep seeing of them oddly lack a sense of awe.

The pictures are being carefully released to show what they want to show. We haven't seen the full scope of the land or what the park looks like at night. I think it will also be hard to do justice in pictures. It's going to be one of those things you have to see in person and both during the day and at night. I have no doubt the land will have the sense of awe. The rides...who knows. I'm optimistic they will both be pretty good, but I get the feeling that the critics fear the land will probably attack the rides not the overall look of the land, not unlike FLE.

 

[Ismael Flores]

They have been showing a promotional video of Pandora in Regal theaters before some of the movies.
There seemed to be some pretty Interested people heard a couple say that hopefully they build it in Anaheim some day

 

[Kman101]

No, it's just one person who seems to want to find any reason to dislike the project. That's fine but it's obvious. JMO.

 

[doctornick]

I have to assume that there won't be any triggered effects in the attraction and everything will be on a cycle longer than we can see on any one ride. Even the shaman at the end is probably more in line with Jack Sparrow in Pirates, there's a spiel but it's continuous as opposed to triggered.

Hmmm, make me wonder about something... In the videos we've seen of NRJ, they keep seeming to show the same scene of some Viperwolves. But it was different -- one time having a pack looking more menacing and other having a young cub featured (this is from memory, so I might be off with the details). I wonder if the ride will have different scenes that run in the same area leading to somewhat different experiences each ride. I always thought about such randomization as possible with FoP but it's possible for the video in NRJ to do that as well.

If the show scenes are not triggered by the passing vehicle, but are more or less "continuous" then you could easily get a snippet of a much longer scene in each area requiring multiple rides to catch everything.

Not saying this is definitely happening, but I could see that being part of the ride and would be cool to make different rides more unique.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I don't agree. I don't think the movie plot itself will ultimately matter. People wanted to visit the land, shouldn't really have anything to do with the plot of the movie. People should just put it out of their minds and appreciate the land for what it is. Why are you trying to undersell it for yourself?

Most will probably enjoy it for the land it is. It's not going to go away, it's here ...

You're right. The plot doesn't matter. Lots of movies with awful plots could make good modern IP lands (Star Wars prequels, DC Universe films, etc.) and plenty of films with wonderful plots couldn't (a vast majority of the great films made prior to the advent of the blockbuster in '75, for instance).

To provide strong inspiration for a traditional land, the bare minimum an IP should do is present a unique (Avatar does) and varied (Avatar doesn't) setting that a large number of people are predisposed to want to visit (I'd argue Avatar lacks this as well, but your mileage may very).

Modern IP-based lands are not designed and built purely on their own merits, however. They are meant to be an integral component of the serialized franchises that came to dominate Hollywood in the early and mid-2000s. To do this they should be situated clearly into this narrative and, ideally, offer new, relevant story information. This was not possible for Pandora since it was based on a property with only one film that, unusually for a modern franchise film, resolved its story and left no obvious cliffhangers or hooks for further narratives. This uncertainty about the eventual shape of the narrative is a significant reason why Pandora is set hundreds of years after the close of the theoretical final film. Disney and Lightstorm are trying to ensure that the land interacts with other elements of the narrative as little as possible - exactly what an IP-land shouldn't do. Even if an incredibly interesting character appears in Avatar 2, for instance, they'll be long dead when we reach Pandora.

Such lands should also ideally feature a wide variety of goods and foods featured in other installments of the franchise. Avatar's themes specifically rule out the range of consumer goods that are vital to IP lands, adding to guest immersion and corporate profits.

Finally, such lands are intended to draw and grow existing fan loyalty via the integration of details - structures, characters, signs, etc. - that have meaning within that particular fan base. In fact, these details are often given their significance and backstory, in whole or in part, by fans. Lightstorm knew this, and intended to use fans to flesh out the underdeveloped history and details of their world, but to the best of my knowledge little came of this. The upshot of this is that Avatar remains a very broadly drawn property, with details well-defined neither by fans or Cameron and his collaborators.

The fact that Avatar is a poor IP for a modern theme-park land has little to do with either its plot or its overall quality.

On another note, you have a tendency to boil my (very long-winded and largely unnecessary) observations about Pandora down to "I don't like," which is a bit passive aggressive. I might as well say that certain folks here are determined to love the land regardless of its quality.

 

[Daveeeeed]

You're right. The plot doesn't matter. Lots of movies with awful plots could make good modern IP lands (Star Wars prequels, DC Universe films, etc.) and plenty of films with wonderful plots couldn't (a vast majority of the great films made prior to the advent of the blockbuster in '75, for instance).

To provide strong inspiration for a traditional land, the bare minimum an IP should do is present a unique (Avatar does) and varied (Avatar doesn't) setting that a large number of people are predisposed to want to visit (I'd argue Avatar lacks this as well, but your mileage may very).

Modern IP-based lands are not designed and built purely on their own merits, however. They are meant to be an integral component of the serialized franchises that came to dominate Hollywood in the early and mid-2000s. To do this they should be situated clearly into this narrative and, ideally, offer new, relevant story information. This was not possible for Pandora since it was based on a property with only one film that, unusually for a modern franchise film, resolved its story and left no obvious cliffhangers or hooks for further narratives. This uncertainty about the eventual shape of the narrative is a significant reason why Pandora is set hundreds of years after the close of the theoretical final film. Disney and Lightstorm are trying to ensure that the land interacts with other elements of the narrative as little as possible - exactly what an IP-land shouldn't do. Even if an incredibly interesting character appears in Avatar 2, for instance, they'll be long dead when we reach Pandora.

Such lands should also ideally feature a wide variety of goods and foods featured in other installments of the franchise. Avatar's themes specifically rule out the range of consumer goods that are vital to IP lands, adding to guest immersion and corporate profits.

Finally, such lands are intended to draw and grow existing fan loyalty via the integration of details - structures, characters, signs, etc. - that have meaning within that particular fan base. In fact, these details are often given their significance and backstory, in whole or in part, by fans. Lightstorm knew this, and intended to use fans to flesh out the underdeveloped history and details of their world, but to the best of my knowledge little came of this. The upshot of this is that Avatar remains a very broadly drawn property, with details well-defined neither by fans or Cameron and his collaborators.

The fact that Avatar is a poor IP for a modern theme-park land has little to do with either its plot or its overall quality.

On another note, you have a tendency to boil my (very long-winded and largely unnecessary) observations about Pandora down to "I don't like," which is a bit passive aggressive. I might as well say that certain folks here are determined to love the land regardless of its quality.

I see what you're saying, but to me, I think Disney knows that the future films are going to be powerhouses, and even if they are not, the planet seems to translate perfectly to a land. A land which actually represents the park's message.

I have zero problem with Pandora in Animal Kingdom.

 

[Mike S]

You're right. The plot doesn't matter. Lots of movies with awful plots could make good modern IP lands (Star Wars prequels, DC Universe films, etc.) and plenty of films with wonderful plots couldn't (a vast majority of the great films made prior to the advent of the blockbuster in '75, for instance).

To provide strong inspiration for a traditional land, the bare minimum an IP should do is present a unique (Avatar does) and varied (Avatar doesn't) setting that a large number of people are predisposed to want to visit (I'd argue Avatar lacks this as well, but your mileage may very).

Modern IP-based lands are not designed and built purely on their own merits, however. They are meant to be an integral component of the serialized franchises that came to dominate Hollywood in the early and mid-2000s. To do this they should be situated clearly into this narrative and, ideally, offer new, relevant story information. This was not possible for Pandora since it was based on a property with only one film that, unusually for a modern franchise film, resolved its story and left no obvious cliffhangers or hooks for further narratives. This uncertainty about the eventual shape of the narrative is a significant reason why Pandora is set hundreds of years after the close of the theoretical final film. Disney and Lightstorm are trying to ensure that the land interacts with other elements of the narrative as little as possible - exactly what an IP-land shouldn't do. Even if an incredibly interesting character appears in Avatar 2, for instance, they'll be long dead when we reach Pandora.

Such lands should also ideally feature a wide variety of goods and foods featured in other installments of the franchise. Avatar's themes specifically rule out the range of consumer goods that are vital to IP lands, adding to guest immersion and corporate profits.

Finally, such lands are intended to draw and grow existing fan loyalty via the integration of details - structures, characters, signs, etc. - that have meaning within that particular fan base. In fact, these details are often given their significance and backstory, in whole or in part, by fans. Lightstorm knew this, and intended to use fans to flesh out the underdeveloped history and details of their world, but to the best of my knowledge little came of this. The upshot of this is that Avatar remains a very broadly drawn property, with details well-defined neither by fans or Cameron and his collaborators.

The fact that Avatar is a poor IP for a modern theme-park land has little to do with either its plot or its overall quality.

On another note, you have a tendency to boil my (very long-winded and largely unnecessary) observations about Pandora down to "I don't like," which is a bit passive aggressive. I might as well say that certain folks here are determined to love the land regardless of its quality.

Shouldn't it be sort of commended that this lands biggest strong suit seems to be how well the nature themes of the movie fit with Animal Kingdom rather than how much money they could make off of it?

 

[Casper Gutman]

Shouldn't it be sort of commended that this lands biggest strong suit seems to be how well the nature themes of the movie fit with Animal Kingdom rather than how much money they could make off of it?

If that was the motivation behind the choice, sure. But every report we have is that it was essentially grabbed up because Iger was ticked about losing Potter and wanted to show they could do it better, and all the focus on the minutiae of "immersion" (cast members speaking Na'Vi, no Mickey on the band readers, etc.) is to try and compete on Potter's terms.

 

[doctornick]

To provide strong inspiration for a traditional land, the bare minimum an IP should do is present a unique (Avatar does) and varied (Avatar doesn't) setting that a large number of people are predisposed to want to visit (I'd argue Avatar lacks this as well, but your mileage may very).

I don't see why it would have to be "varied". In fact, there's a decent argument that "varied" is a problem with an IP land since you have limited space and can only provided a certain specific environment (or a limited few). This is an ongoing argument with the "difficulty" with doing Star Wars in a park due to the variety of places visited; which is why they opted for someplace entirely novel instead.

That's also why Cars Land works so well because the plot is so driven by the town which could be reproduced. It's not like anyone cares that the various race tracks or any (non-Radiator Springs) scenes from Cars 2 aren't included.

And I'd also dispute your last point, but, as you note, people can disagree. The whole selling point of the movie and why it was so incredible popular was because people wanted to see and experience the landscapes of the setting. Bringing that to life in a real place you can walk around is something that I believe would be a draw for a number of people as it is the memorable feature of the film. Heck, the Zhangjiajie National Forest has had a significant uptick in tourism since the move came out.

Modern IP-based lands are not designed and built purely on their own merits, however. They are meant to be an integral component of the serialized franchises that came to dominate Hollywood in the early and mid-2000s. To do this they should be situated clearly into this narrative and, ideally, offer new, relevant story information. This was not possible for Pandora since it was based on a property with only one film that, unusually for a modern franchise film, resolved its story and left no obvious cliffhangers or hooks for further narratives. This uncertainty about the eventual shape of the narrative is a significant reason why Pandora is set hundreds of years after the close of the theoretical final film. Disney and Lightstorm are trying to ensure that the land interacts with other elements of the narrative as little as possible - exactly what an IP-land shouldn't do. Even if an incredibly interesting character appears in Avatar 2, for instance, they'll be long dead when we reach Pandora.

Actually, I think this is actually to the detriment of an IP land. It really limits the storytelling and potential experience to just be doing book report stuff or having clear tie ins to established characters/scenes/events. I think this, for example, is why Gringotts is IMHO a much weaker attraction than Forbidden Journey. The latter has a loose narrative that lets you experience aspects of the IP, the former intentionally puts you within a specific known story.

In a sense, being free from being tied to the plot line of Avatar while being able to use the fantastic setting is near ideal for a theme park use of IP. Historically, great theme park lands often revolved on developing experiences that enhance and relate to the setting and environment without having to be a slave to a specific story.

Such lands should also ideally feature a wide variety of goods and foods featured in other installments of the franchise. Avatar's themes specifically rule out the range of consumer goods that are vital to IP lands, adding to guest immersion and corporate profits.

This one I'll give you, though personally I don't care as much about the stuff they are trying to sell me. I just hope that whatever they do have is interesting (merch) or tastes good (food). I will suggest that Butterbeer isn't just popular because it is featured in the books/movies, but because it actually tastes pretty damn great. It's not like everyone raves about Pumpkin Juice.