AVATAR land construction progress

[rioriz]

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.

In short yes there are different scenes that are triggered by that are continuous but kinda like ST in that you could ride over and over and stl see the same thing...

 

[Casper Gutman]

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.



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.



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.

I'll concede the variety thing. You make a good point. Maybe it would be better to speak of a variety of structures within the land, which we will have to wait and see if Pandora delivers.

As to the matter of Avatar's popularity, the advent of successful 3-D was the biggest tech shift in cinema exhibition since widescreen. I'd point at the difference in box office between Alice in Wonderland and its 2016 sequel to suggest just how much that tech impacted the box office when it was new.

As to the plot integration thing, lots of folks don't like it, but its key to the thinking that drives the modern entertainment industry and a big part of the IP-Land revolution.

 

[Mike S]

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.

By the time the deal was struck I think it was already known that Avatar wasn't a big merch seller. Yes they went for it to compete with Potter but I think somewhere they knew it wasn't going to compete on a merch/food level. On theming, heck yes.

 

[Kman101]

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.

Well said post.

And it's not really passive aggressive. I've said I believe you don't like the movie and are finding ways to argue about it. But I like what you have to say so I'd rather not keep it going ... lol

And no, that's not true about "loving it regardless". I've expressed my concerns about style over substance with the rides, so that's not really accurate. I do think the land looks incredible and I feel like you aren't giving it it's due, but if you don't like it, that's fine. You just seem awfully quick to compare it to other lands and dismiss it when you haven't experienced it yet. Floating mountains, bioluminescent (I'm sure I misspelled that) at night and walkways, odd looking plants ... none of that will be at all impressive? I mean, it does come off as hating the movie so you're determined to hate the land. That's fine but, again, I don't know that you're giving it it's due.

None of this impresses you at all?

 

[Casper Gutman]

Well said post.

And it's not really passive aggressive. I've said I believe you don't like the movie and are finding ways to argue about it. But I like what you have to say so I'd rather not keep it going ... lol

And no, that's not true about "loving it regardless". I've expressed my concerns about style over substance with the rides, so that's not really accurate. I do think the land looks incredible and I feel like you aren't giving it it's due, but if you don't like it, that's fine. You just seem awfully quick to compare it to other lands and dismiss it when you haven't experienced it yet. Floating mountains, bioluminescent (I'm sure I misspelled that) at night and walkways, odd looking plants ... none of that will be at all impressive? I mean, it does come off as hating the movie so you're determined to hate the land. That's fine but, again, I don't know that you're giving it it's due.

None of this impresses you at all?

RJ looks very impressive. I want so much more of that from both Disney and Uni.

In all fairness, this, more than a lot of lands, will be one sold as a whole. Right now, a lot of that looks like plastic bits added to the foliage. Because of the lack of major structures, this will be a land that works or doesn't in totality. At the moment, as I've mentioned, the problem may be the images PR is showing us.

My dislike for the movie is really immaterial (and I don't dislike it - my reaction is far more "meh"). I don't like Cars very much and love the land - I loathe the current DC movies but would be incredibly excited about a Gotham or Thermyscira land based on them. If I'm less than willing to be very optimistic about the land, it's much more about the fact that WDW hasn't wowed me since AK opened 19 years ago. I like E:E, NFL, even the Dinoland additions, but those have been spread over two decades and matched by horribly thought out changes that have destroyed elements of the parks that I loved. Even if Pandora turns out to be great, the decisions behind its construction reflect a lot of the bad ideas and decision-making processes at the highest level of Disney management that have resulted in things like Epcot 2017. Had Pandora opened in 2001 or even 2009, I'd have been willing to overlook any weak PR images and negative info. At this point, I have a pretty good idea of how Iger's Disney operates and I'm inclined to take the pictures and info at face value and add only a limited amount of "Disney touch" points.

 

[msteel]

Sooo....About that construction progress....

 

[DisneyDrew]

Sooo....About that construction progress....

Not really anything to cover. Now we're just waiting until May 2 for Cast Previews and then there will be more to talk about.

 

[Soarin' Over Pgh]

As impressive as I think the 'floating' mountains are, in my humblest of humble opinions- they still don't look "floating" to me. Maybe they will when I'm standing under one.

Regardless, the land so far looks absolutely amazing. Just not sold on the floating part.

 

[DisneyDrew]

As impressive as I think the 'floating' mountains are, in my humblest of humble opinions- they still don't look "floating" to me. Maybe they will when I'm standing under one.

Regardless, the land so far looks absolutely amazing. Just not sold on the floating part.

There are giant metal "vines" coming out of the ground that make them floating. So basically it's a giant sad face from vines on each side and the mountains in the middle.

 

[DisneyDrew]

You can see in the bottom right of this photo early on.

 

[Soarin' Over Pgh]

There are giant metal "vines" coming out of the ground that make them floating. So basically it's a giant sad face from vines on each side and the mountains in the middle.

I remember seeing the building of the mountains and metal structures. I'm just personally not of the "yep these are floating" mind. To each their own. Not to say they're not impressive- the scale alone is something to be marveled at- I just don't bite at the floating part.

 

[motox7]

You can see in the bottom right of this photo early on.

Always love looking back at old photos. It's amazing what they have created.

 

[matt9112]

Went to DAK last night and shot these. Testing of bioluminescent and animal sounds. Sounded great and looks fantastic. Remember that these are long exposure and looks different from what it actually looks like in real life.View attachment 198117 View attachment 198110 View attachment 198112 View attachment 198116 View attachment 198118 Looks to me like they have used UV paint on parts of the mountain. But hard to tell.

Sorry to kick dust but I always find it funny when people take amazing photos with DSLR and the right lense ect BUUUUT it doesn't look like that in real life....its like Photoshop without Photoshop....

 

[djkidkaz]

I remember seeing the building of the mountains and metal structures. I'm just personally not of the "yep these are floating" mind. To each their own. Not to say they're not impressive- the scale alone is something to be marveled at- I just don't bite at the floating part.

I agree. Maybe it's because I've watched them build it from day 1 but yeah, I don't bite on the whole floating thing either yet. Hopefully it's a different effect when I'm under it.

Also, I'm curious to see how the floating rocks on a stick will eventually look.

 

[OvertheHorizon]

I agree. Maybe it's because I've watched them build it from day 1 but yeah, I don't bite on the whole floating thing either yet. Hopefully it's a different effect when I'm under it.

Also, I'm curious to see how the floating rocks on a stick will eventually look.

I believe any portion of the "stick" that might show above the rock face wall has been enhanced with vine-like material.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I believe any portion of the "stick" that might show above the rock face wall has been enhanced with vine-like material.

The rocks look cool. I think that's fair to say. The problem is, they don't read as floating - more as what they are, a very detailed sculpture. It seems like some kind of gentle bobbing movement might help this, but to the best of my knowledge they aren't going to move.

 

[twebber55]

im at least going to wait until i walk in the land to determine whether or not they look floating

 

[flyerjab]

im at least going to wait until i walk in the land to determine whether or not they look floating

I have a feeling that this is going to be a common complaint from a lot of people. Statements will be well they look cool and all of that, and the cascading waterfalls look great, but they don't look like they are actually floating.

They could have taken an easier road and kept the floating mountains on the perimeter of the land and above the large showbuilding, like some of them are currently. I laud them for taking this on and making them front and center. I will appreciate them from having watched them be constructed from the ground up - that alone and seeing the degree of complexity alone creates a feeling of awe for me. I don't know, people can certainly feel however they want to about this project. The aesthetic of the land itself from what has been shown already has blown me away. May 17th can't get here soon enough!

 

[Goofyque']

I think people are forgetting that even as you are walking and looking up, there is often a great illusion of movement. This happens even with large stationary buildings. You don't get that same feeling looking at a picture of a building. Even the movement of clouds will contribute to that. I re-iterate, OH BOY, Oh Boy, oh boy!!! Will be there May 27th. Will let you know how disappointed I am.

 

[sedati]

My take on the floating mountains is that this is an ambitious bit of engineering even if the the mountains are not "free" floating. I've said before, I put this up there with the construction of Spaceship Earth.

I am worried about the amount of vines and roots and how thick some appear, but I will consider it a success if they look like they are hanging from the rocks and not supporting them. From the photos I've seen the sag of the roots and vines seems believable enough.

It could be hype, but there was a quote (from Rhode I think) a while back about some people getting genuinely emotional when they stood beneath the rocks. It was said to be almost like a cathedral of nature. Cameron said when you approach them your brain begins to register the sense of weight and mass hung high above. As others have stated, this is really something you'll have to see in person to judge.

I also think the best views have not been shared yet. There's a bridge set between the floating mountains and the valley wall that I think will offer and amazing 360 degree view. There's also that one big standalone rock by the river journey entrance that I haven't seen a good pic of, but it seems we will go right below that one as well.