AVATAR land construction progress

[Shaman]

I think to create a successful attraction these days you have to use a combination of everything. Screens are great if used in a creative manner. AAs can be fun. I personally feel that a screen-only attraction would be more popular in today's world than a standard AA-only ride. You have to use the best technology out there that creates the best experience...it has to make business sense as well (short and long term). Screens are cheap, require less maintenance (?), and the experience can easily be updated in the future with minimal downtime. Oh yea, and the general public loves them.

Push nostalgia aside is PotC a successful attraction if it premiered today? See The Little Mermaid.

That said, in most cases I think the ride vehicle is more important. Interactive elements also seem to be more of a requirement, as the crowds want to be more involved these days, instead of passively entertained.

 

[twebber55]

IN avatars case...we may get two attractions in which one is a screen and one is a ride with lots of AA's

so hopefully we get a mixture

as most here know im very pro avatar but I am worried that this will be an updated version of NFL meaning the land looks nice but the rides are just ok

tons of potential but like my coach used to tell me "all potential means is you haven't done squat yet"

 

[doctornick]

IN avatars case...we may get two attractions in which one is a screen and one is a ride with lots of AA's

so hopefully we get a mixture

That's the thing. There's a clear potential for a well rounded land that offers a bit of something to everyone. If the land delivers to its potential, it should be well received by most everyone who enjoys theme parks, even if you hate or apathetic towards the base IP.

 

[Shaman]

That's the thing. There's a clear potential for a well rounded land that offers a bit of something to everyone. If the land delivers to its potential, it should be well received by most everyone who enjoys theme parks, even if you hate or apathetic towards the base IP.

No matter what the end result is, it will be an upgrade on Camp Minnie-Mickey. Plus, it has pushed Disney to create a night-time show and extend operating hours. Visually, the land will be stunning and an attraction itself. Say what you will about the IP, it affords Disney the ability to do some cool things (ex. floating mountains, bioluminescent landscape). Hopefully the rides are enjoyable, but I'm already thinking this is a good addition.

 

[andysol]

Push nostalgia aside is PotC a successful attraction if it premiered today? See The Little Mermaid.

If a 15:30 minute Journey of the Little Mermaid appeared with great and large scenes like Disneyland's PotC ride instead of a 6 minute Little mermaid- yes. Absolutely it would be successful.

That's like saying Splash Mountain isn't enjoyed by a first time guest. It's still great.

I agree- that I think screens are great in certain areas- I just wanted to address that you can make an AA exclusive ride and make it incredible. Take the basic- a small world type ride like Sinbad's Storybook Voyage at Tokyo DisneySea.

In some scenarios though- I think rides like Mystic Manor- which implement both- relying heavily on AA and physical sets but have a screen be used as a major climax scene as well is ideal for that ride.
In other scenarios- like Ratatouille- screen heavy rides w/ some physical sets are also done extremely well.

The moral of the story is AA only (Splash), Screen heavy (Harry Potter/Ratatouille), or a nice mixture of both (Mystic Manor) can all be great- as long as they get the proper detail and attention they deserve.

 

[Mike S]

If a 15:30 minute Journey of the Little Mermaid appeared with great and large scenes like Disneyland's PotC ride instead of a 6 minute Little mermaid- yes. Absolutely it would be successful.

That's like saying Splash Mountain isn't enjoyed by a first time guest. It's still great.

I agree- that I think screens are great in certain areas- I just wanted to address that you can make an AA exclusive ride and make it incredible. Take the basic- a small world type ride like Sinbad's Storybook Voyage at Tokyo DisneySea.

In some scenarios though- I think rides like Mystic Manor- which implement both- relying heavily on AA and physical sets but have a screen be used as a major climax scene as well is ideal for that ride.

If only this was the Mermaid ride we got.

 

[Incomudro]

For the primary ride of Avatar, the attraction has to be a video based simulator.
Why?
Well, the movie itself is a CGI product.
There is no way to do the CGI product justice as far as a ride is concerned without a simulator.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

For the primary ride of Avatar, the attraction has to be a video based simulator.
Why?
Well, the movie itself is a CGI product.
There is no way to do the CGI product justice as far as a ride is concerned without a simulator.

I don't get that logic at all. Cars was also a CGI product, yet it didn't stop Radiator Springs Racers from being an experience with negligible amounts of video. The characters were animatronics, only the facial expressions like eyes (and in certain cases the mouths) were video. The characters as a whole and 99% of the scenery was all physical.

There has also been discussion of the new King Kong ride at Universal using plenty of physical sets, and even a few animatronic figures (after concerns from Universal's Creative department that the ride wouldn't be good enough with just video screens). Kong himself is heavily hinted to have a large scale AA figure, whereas he was 100% CGI in the film.

And to further compound on this, you could argue ANY cartoon (including hand drawn) they transform into a ride has to use video screens due to someone feeling it's not possible to to the animation justice using real scenery and animatronics.

There's no reason they can't build a 100% physical Avatar headliner ride. No video required at all, and it could totally do justice to the scenery/animals. The majority of fans of the film would probably even agree that the most iconic scenery from the film (besides the floating mountains which are still being constructed as physical scenery) isn't even from the flying parts. The best and most memorable scenery occurs at night and on the ground, and it involves slow shots around all the cool alien animal life and the eye flashy bioluminescent plant life eye candy. None of which would be impossible to pull off by using physical scenery (no video required). The sort of scenery used in the concept art for the boat ride (which despite my worries about its C ticket label, at least LOOKS like what I expect out of an Avatar ride).

THIS nails the look and atmosphere of Avatar's world, the release of this piece of art is the one thing that brought back my hope for the project after I had lost almost all interest (the promise of seeing this world come to life with Disney caliber imagineering building physical scenery and animatronic animal life)-

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

I'm not against a simulator, but I am against dumbing down the boat ride in favor of the sim. That's a concern I have at the moment without much info to go off except early leaked blueprints. The boat is labeled a C ticket on the plans, a label that still nags at me. It has me worried that a lot of the budget and effort could potentially be diverted away from the boat in favor of the rest of the land and simulator (I want the boat ride to live up to the art and be a good length). It is even rumored that the boat ride had been cut at some point (whether this still has merit or not is unknown). Articos said not to get too strung up about the ticket label, but I can't help but be worried.

I'm also annoyed that the budget was slashed, with a third ride having been reportedly cut. Which some insiders here have stated was intended to be the true E ticket and some kind of coaster. And I do think a Banshee ride could have been made with this type of ride.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

I've yet to see a big scale coaster (like Hulk or Dueling Dragons and such) with suitable levels of Disney caliber theming and scenery expected of a Disney quality product. So I somewhat agree. But I do think it could be done, it just hasn't been yet. It's all about the surrounding scenery and how well the track was hidden. I personally don't feel the range of motion of simulators is able to accurately emulate the feeling of fast flight, so there are issues there as well.

I'd be more ok with its loss if it was just intended to be a largely naked steel structure, assuming its loss meant they'd redirect the funds into plussing the boat ride. The problem is that the leaked plans again haven't given me much hope for the ride. It's more likely that (given trends with the company's greed) any freed up money was removed from the project outright, not redirected into different parts of the project.

 

[Incomudro]

You are correct.

The scenery and environment- and likewise, the boat ride- should all be constructed AA and physical. It should absolutely not be screened. I also agree that its the most iconic part of the movie- the night scenes.

However- the headlining ride with the banshee flight should absolutely be screen-based. You made a great argument for the boat ride and environment- and I don't think anyone would disagree with you.
But what we know is:
-There will be a Banshee ride

So how would you go about making a physical ride to recreate these scenes:

Best I could find on Youtube- unfortunately no complete scenes- which are much better than the above video.

A screen-based banshee ride is absolutely the best route to go here. I don't want a dark ride for the banshee- I want a thrill ride. And what better way to deliver that than a simulator?
And I'll say this again- I really, really hope they don't use a similar technology as Soarin's cantilever- and they use an arm-based KUKA like Harry Potter. We need partial inversions, twists, etc.

 

[Incomudro]

^^^ Exactly what you said is how I believe this should be done.^^^
It's how it's being done really.

 

[danlb_2000]

I don't get that logic at all. Cars was also a CGI product, yet it didn't stop Radiator Springs Racers from being an experience with negligible amounts of video. The characters were animatronics, only the facial expressions like eyes (and in certain cases the mouths) were video. The characters as a whole and 99% of the scenery was all physical.

There has also been discussion of the new King Kong ride at Universal using plenty of physical sets, and even a few animatronic figures (after concerns from Universal's Creative department that the ride wouldn't be good enough with just video screens). Kong himself is heavily hinted to have a large scale AA figure, whereas he was 100% CGI in the film.

And to further compound on this, you could argue ANY cartoon (including hand drawn) they transform into a ride has to use video screens due to someone feeling it's not possible to to the animation justice using real scenery and animatronics.

There's no reason they can't build a 100% physical Avatar headliner ride. No video required at all, and it could totally do justice to the scenery/animals. The majority of fans of the film would probably even agree that the most iconic scenery from the film (besides the floating mountains which are still being constructed as physical scenery) isn't even from the flying parts. The best and most memorable scenery occurs at night and on the ground, and it involves slow shots around all the cool alien animal life and the eye flashy bioluminescent plant life eye candy. None of which would be impossible to pull off by using physical scenery (no video required). The sort of scenery used in the concept art for the boat ride (which despite my worries about its C ticket label, at least LOOKS like what I expect out of an Avatar ride).

THIS nails the look and atmosphere of Avatar's world, the release of this piece of art is the one thing that brought back my hope for the project after I had lost almost all interest (the promise of seeing this world come to life with Disney caliber imagineering building physical scenery and animatronic animal life)-

Wait until you find out that this is just a stationary boat in front of a giant screen.

 

[doctornick]

A screen-based banshee ride is absolutely the best route to go here. I don't want a dark ride for the banshee- I want a thrill ride. And what better way to deliver that than a simulator?
And I'll say this again- I really, really hope they don't use a similar technology as Soarin's cantilever- and they use an arm-based KUKA like Harry Potter. We need partial inversions, twists, etc.

Agreed. I would hope the ride would have much more significant movement than what we see with Soarin'.

Also, shouldn't all this talk about the attractions be moved to the "the specifics" thread or something like that since it is not related to construction.

 

[Incomudro]

I'm also hoping - betting that the ride building itself will be well themed.
Maybe even some theming within the simulator itself - perhaps the addition of animatronics in the room, and certainly more use of scents, and other 4D effects.

 

[marni1971]

If @marni1971 confirms it was an E-Ticket that was cut from an approved budget, then I'll believe it.

I could say it was cut from the original budget and master plan .

 

[neoshinok]

Wait until you find out that this is just a stationary boat in front of a giant screen.

Explore the Rivers of Pandora, opening in 2017

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

Explore the Rivers of Pandora, opening in 2017

I think you have this confused with what's going on over at EPCOT and Worldshowcase.

 

[Daveeeeed]

I don't get that logic at all. Cars was also a CGI product, yet it didn't stop Radiator Springs Racers from being an experience with negligible amounts of video. The characters were animatronics, only the facial expressions like eyes (and in certain cases the mouths) were video. The characters as a whole and 99% of the scenery was all physical.

There has also been discussion of the new King Kong ride at Universal using plenty of physical sets, and even a few animatronic figures (after concerns from Universal's Creative department that the ride wouldn't be good enough with just video screens). Kong himself is heavily hinted to have a large scale AA figure, whereas he was 100% CGI in the film.

And to further compound on this, you could argue ANY cartoon (including hand drawn) they transform into a ride has to use video screens due to someone feeling it's not possible to to the animation justice using real scenery and animatronics.

There's no reason they can't build a 100% physical Avatar headliner ride. No video required at all, and it could totally do justice to the scenery/animals. The majority of fans of the film would probably even agree that the most iconic scenery from the film (besides the floating mountains which are still being constructed as physical scenery) isn't even from the flying parts. The best and most memorable scenery occurs at night and on the ground, and it involves slow shots around all the cool alien animal life and the eye flashy bioluminescent plant life eye candy. None of which would be impossible to pull off by using physical scenery (no video required). The sort of scenery used in the concept art for the boat ride (which despite my worries about its C ticket label, at least LOOKS like what I expect out of an Avatar ride).

THIS nails the look and atmosphere of Avatar's world, the release of this piece of art is the one thing that brought back my hope for the project after I had lost almost all interest (the promise of seeing this world come to life with Disney caliber imagineering building physical scenery and animatronic animal life)-

This is why Disney is still in business, because Disney can build epic, and mind boggling creations such as this. I just hope they continue do this at a faster rate.

 

[JCtheparrothead]

That's what I can't wait for that 4D epic stuff.
Question though. Where was your profile picture taken? Who was it? I just thought it was a little strange seeing how your profile says your a 51 year old guy. I do not mean to be in any way rude I'm just curious.

Quit trolling clown. You seem to be here to do that given your comment history.