-
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
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
I think by "inside the buildings" he meant rides, not pretty walking environments with cool lighting. Lit walkways don't have to be exclusive to the indoor sections (Future World has some areas with sparkling light effects built inside the concrete for instance). The land is in fine hands from a visual perspective, everyone expects the entire thing (inside and out) to be decked out with gorgeous bioluminescent plants and scenery.I was thinking about this too. I'm sure they will have the walkways light up when you take a step. I'm sure it will be breathe taking. So many questions - very mysterious
But as seen from New Fantasyland, having a land that is pretty to walk around with isn't even close to enough. It's wonderful and important, but you need amazing rides (substance) to go along with pretty visuals or else even a beautiful Disney environment feels half-baked. Disney has proven they're still capable of producing awesome looking environments, but it has become an unfortunate gamble as to whether the rides inside said environment are up to par with the rest of the area. At least in regards to WDW lately.
I do not feel that a simulator inspired by Soarin's tech and a boat ride (if it's even actually still being built) described as a "C ticket" on plans are acceptable. I've no interest whatsoever in a simulator as the headliner attraction of a land like this. The boat ride could absolutely be fantastic if it were some sort of awesome E ticket like Pirates, but the C ticket label on the blueprint is incredibly worrisome. Even the Mine Train and Little Mermaid are internally considered D Tickets (some people in the company even attempted to hype Mermaid as a "lite E ticket"). Mermaid is a mostly poor ride, realistically a bland C ticket at best overall (not even a good C IMHO). And Mine Train (while a decent/good ride to a certain extent) is criminally short in length, and lacking a lot of the outside and indoor scenes from the concept art (and from the layouts posted by insiders here pre-budget cuts).
So you can probably see the worry that comes when the only actual ride ("actual ride" meaning a vehicle that physically travels through different scenes/rooms using real sets/animatronics, as opposed to a limited range simulator plopped in front of video screens) is ranked two levels below the highest rank of E ticket.
Sorry for the long post. Basically I want to come out of this land saying "what a gorgeous land with amazing rides". I do not want to come out saying "what a gorgeous land with decent/subpar rides at best".
Last edited:
articos
Well-Known Member
I can't say one way or the other how to set your expectations, as one person's Pirates is another's Dino-rama, but I will say I do not think you will come out saying the rides are subpar. I also would not get too stuck on the C-ticket designations. Things change through development and this has good people working on it.
cookiee_munster
Well-Known Member
has all the land been allocated now? or is there any free land within the avatar plot to possibly have a phase 2?
matt9112
Well-Known Member
When was the last time disney actually built a phase 2 anything?
Edit: but to answer your question the short answer is no. But technically anything is possible but the entire pad is being used.
Last edited:
devoy1701
Well-Known Member
Phase 2 is code for "we've already decided to never build it...but we just don't have the heart to tell the public that..."
Tom
Beta Return
I have no proof of that, but I agree.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
I know a lot of people don't like simulators, but personally I think it's the perfect choice of ride system for this movie. Some of the greatest scenes in this movie are the flying scenes, and there is really no other ride system that can reproduce that experience then a simulator.
flyerjab
Well-Known Member
I agree with this. One other thing that a simulator is capable of that a fixed ride typically is not is the potential for variability. Now I obviously don't know this for a fact, but I am hoping that this attraction copies the concept of different experiences similar to that of Star Tours. That would really appeal to the re-ridability (new word?) and keep people coming back. Considering that James Cameron already hinted at the last D23 Expo in Japan that both Lightstorm and Disney will be able to collaborate and share digital assets regarding Avatar, one would think that there could already be pre-existing flight sequences the Cameron's company developed that Disney could look at and borrow ideas from.
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
I've never been satisfied with using mostly stationary vehicles and/or predominantly video screens in major rides. These are ok as diversionary side attractions, but not acceptable IMO as major E ticket headliner rides. It feels like the theme park industry is conceding a lack of ambition and/or budget to create real rides with physical scenery (something Universal's Creatives are lobbying to correct, we'll see about Kong's rumors). It might be hard to do those rides and physical scenery, but it's certainly not impossible. And it's always a lot more satisfying if done right. Similar to many movie makers using CGI even for shots that could and should have been done with practical effects (it's expensive and more difficult, but it still always looks better).
If I can't have a great ride that moves through physical scenery (instead plopping wobbling chairs in front of video screens), i'd rather just stay home and watch the movie (especially with the upcoming wave of virtual reality devices). I've mentioned this in other threads before, but I go to Disney World to be immersed in physical environments. An over-dominance of video screens take me out of that experience.
I also don't agree that a sim is the best way to replicate the flying scenes. I can think of at least two types of existing ride systems that would be better choices. The KUKA vehicles used by Harry Potter moves through physical space and have a ton of range of motion and thrills for flight. Or more recently Europa Park's Arthur and the Invisibles which uses a suspended coaster and dark ride hybrid (a lot of the scenes themselves are lacking, but the ride system is really cool). From what insiders here have said, the third ride (the one originally intended to be the real headliner E ticket pre-budget cuts) was also going to be some sort of flying coaster. A much better choice for replicating a flight ride.
I'm sure the bean counters are thrilled that people are ok with the third real E ticket ride being slashed and the lesser sim passed off as the headliner instead. I'm not, my hopes for this project basically died when it was revealed that the headliner was what Martin described as "Soarin 2.0". I regained a slight amount of hope when the boat ride's concept art was shown, but everything is basically hinging on that ride now...
If I can't have a great ride that moves through physical scenery (instead plopping wobbling chairs in front of video screens), i'd rather just stay home and watch the movie (especially with the upcoming wave of virtual reality devices). I've mentioned this in other threads before, but I go to Disney World to be immersed in physical environments. An over-dominance of video screens take me out of that experience.
I also don't agree that a sim is the best way to replicate the flying scenes. I can think of at least two types of existing ride systems that would be better choices. The KUKA vehicles used by Harry Potter moves through physical space and have a ton of range of motion and thrills for flight. Or more recently Europa Park's Arthur and the Invisibles which uses a suspended coaster and dark ride hybrid (a lot of the scenes themselves are lacking, but the ride system is really cool). From what insiders here have said, the third ride (the one originally intended to be the real headliner E ticket pre-budget cuts) was also going to be some sort of flying coaster. A much better choice for replicating a flight ride.
I'm sure the bean counters are thrilled that people are ok with the third real E ticket ride being slashed and the lesser sim passed off as the headliner instead. I'm not, my hopes for this project basically died when it was revealed that the headliner was what Martin described as "Soarin 2.0". I regained a slight amount of hope when the boat ride's concept art was shown, but everything is basically hinging on that ride now...
Last edited:
danlb_2000
Premium Member
The Forbidden Journey Ride System is great, just the feeling of high speed flight only comes from the sections that use the video screens. A coaster can give the sensation of high speed flight, but can't give then level of immersion into an environment that a video based ride can. For example there is a shot in Avatar of the character speeding hundreds of feet down a cliff over an ocean, that just can't be reproduced using physical sets. Personally I go to a theme park to be immersed in an environment, as long it's done well I don't care how it's actually executed.
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
No one said they have to reproduce scenes precisely like they are in the movie. The technology to put video in rides has existed for a long time now, it doesn't mean they should replicate every scene from the movie exactly. Just zooming through the environments themselves would be awesome and rely on screens to do so. You can indeed build awesome physical scenes in a coaster-like ride. It just takes more effort, money and space.
Harry Potter has actually been criticized due to its overabundance of video. And it has also contributed to some people complaining about the motion sickness some have experienced, the motion doesn't match up with what is happening onscreen. Rides moving through physical scenery do not have those artificial problems. The ride system of Harry Potter however is very cool. But I think what was apparently planned for the third Avatar ride could have been the best choice out of anything for replicating the fast paced flight.
Harry Potter has actually been criticized due to its overabundance of video. And it has also contributed to some people complaining about the motion sickness some have experienced, the motion doesn't match up with what is happening onscreen. Rides moving through physical scenery do not have those artificial problems. The ride system of Harry Potter however is very cool. But I think what was apparently planned for the third Avatar ride could have been the best choice out of anything for replicating the fast paced flight.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Video has given me experiences in a ride that I have never gotten on a ride with physical sets. I think both have their place in a theme park.
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
I can experience video at home or at the movies, nowhere on earth but a theme park like Disney or Universal however can I go on a ride and be immersed in real physical sets and animatronics. Video is an acceptable diversionary side attraction, or when used in subtle supporting roles within a ride with larger physical sets. But I don't feel satisfied when they pass this sort of thing off as the main focus.
You can do things with CGI that can't be done with physical effects as well, but too often it just never looks as good or real as a practical effect.
You can do things with CGI that can't be done with physical effects as well, but too often it just never looks as good or real as a practical effect.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
I've never ridden anything like Soarin' outside of a theme park. I don't have a VR headset at home, and even if I did I can't imagine it would provide the same experience at hanging in front of a massive screen. I also doubt I will ever have a motion base system at home that can add physical movement to what I am seeing.
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
If and when VR headsets become prevalent (may or may not happen but there's a lot of push and current popularity to make them big), I could see the eventual potential down the road for some stationary home-based vehicle of sorts. The headsets can definitely recreate the immersive video of Soarin.
The trick would be developing a seat that can move like Soarin's. And down the road I can honestly see that happening if VR tech really kicks off. Soarin's vehicles don't really have a very impressive range of motion to begin with. I could see it possible to recreate some sort of facsimile to the ride system at home. It would probably be feasible to some extent, given that it wouldn't necessitate the use of a massive theater, nor require the large quantity of seats the real thing requires.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
danlb_2000
Premium Member
But none of this is prevalent today, so going to a theme park is the only place to get this experience.
Steel City Magic
Well-Known Member
I'll pass. My seat may not move, but I can see 10 Imax movies at home and get the same experience for less $... or omnimax for that matter, which is even better