AVATAR land - the specifics

[doctornick]

This would be just so typical if they remove or tweak it just satisfy a few people who find it offensive. How about those people suck it up and move on. It's arguably the most groundbreaking AA WDI has ever done and some people are gonna ruin it for everyone else, potentially. Like I said, typical in this day and age.

Why don't we wait until Disney actually does something before complaining about them doing something hypothetically.

 

[RSoxNo1]

So I've thought a lot (too much) about the AA in RJ - and Kong, and to a lesser extent LM. All of them have been bothering me, and I've been trying to articulate why.

AAs are a tool, an element to be integrated into an overall whole in order to further a narrative or mood. They are used as such in the best rides in the world - PoC and HM. None of those AAs in those are particularly mechanically spectacular by modern standards - what makes them remarkable is their art design (particularly their brilliantly caricatured faces) and the way they fit together to form the attraction as a whole.

The Shaman, Kong, to a lesser extent Ursula, exist almost entirely as pure spectacle. They are positioned at the end of the ride, the payoff. They sit alone in a scene, the sole point of interest, rather than grouped with other characters - the set design screams "hey, look at this." Instead of being integrated into the rest of the attraction, they stand apart from it, mechanical marvels that exist for their own sake rather then for the mood or story of the ride.

This seems to be a problem in modern ride design - attractions are conceived of as a collection of individual "cool" elements rather than as an integrated whole. As I said earlier, I'm fairly convinced RJ would have been better off with a wide collection of basic AAs rather then the single, admittedly amazing Shaman.

Hope this made sense.

It's an interesting and well thought out analysis. Did this originate with the Yeti or perhaps even the Lava Monster? I think Elsa in FEA doesn't fit into your category, nor would I say the Little Mermaid AA's. Yes, some more elaborate ones may be the focal points, but I don't think any single animatronic in Little Mermaid are regarded as the anchor any more than the auctioneer or Jack Sparrow in Pirates.

I think people expected that when the Hatbox Ghost was added to the Haunted Mansion in DL, and perhaps it garners that attention because it is a novelty and was installed as such. I also think that the Hatbox Ghost as currently constituted isn't an optical illusion or anything impressive. It's focus is derived from the initial mystery around it.

 

[RSoxNo1]

True, but there has to be a happy medium.

Imagine a scene in which the Shaman figure is set a bit back from the ride, sitting at the base of a large and very impressive tree set, and surrounded by reveling Na'Vi represented by stationary figures or AAs with very minimal movement. There, she would be integrated into a whole scene - the ceremony you're supposedly going to see.

Instead, she sits isolated on the rivers edge, positioned in a way that says "Look at how much I move! Look at how technologically advanced I am! Look at how much money Disney spent!" rather than being a part of the narrative climax of the rides simple story.

Again, this is not a problem isolated to RJ. It also ties back into the idea that bleeding-edge tech and tech that makes a good attraction may not be the same thing. TT and M:S were both state-of-the-art attractions - but not really great ones. To paraphrase an off-brand IP, modern Imagineers spend so much time thinking whether they can do something, they don't stop to think if they should.

To your follow up point, I think an argument can be made that we should only see the Yeti once. But with the Shaman, I don't think it's unreasonable to have had it featured elsewhere in the attraction, but with the final one being the best version of it.

 

[danlb_2000]

Why don't we wait until Disney actually does something before complaining about them doing something hypothetically.

That would illuminate about half the posts to these forums.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I guess the one slightly nice thing (apart from the night time stuff, which is hopefully pending) is it is more or less what we expected.

Diagon Alley blew past expectations for the land and Hogwarts Express, but completely dropped the ball on the headliner.

But Pandora and Diagon Alley to me are opposite ends of the newish land spectrums. One is the purely atmosphic akin to Mysterious Island. The second is the amalgamation of taking the shopping, dining and interactivity and making it an attraction in itself. Really Diagon Alley is a complex walk through.

I've long stated Pandora (the land itself) is a plused up version of Mysterious Island. I think Star Wars is what you should look towards for Disney's plussed up version of Potter. The only thing this land was truly going to break into first place for is being the prettiest... sounds like the reaction towards that is great so far. I'm soft avoiding the ride stuff.

Considering that Escape from Gringotts is only a "so-so" E-ticket, I'd argue that Diagon is more about atmosphere as well. I think for most people that's why they get emotional in that land.

As for Mysterious Island, I think that's a great analysis. DisneySea in general is virtually flawless thematically but there are stateside attractions I would take over the best rides in that park. For DisneySea it's the entirety of the experience that makes me want to go back tomorrow.

I too have made the Mysterious Island to Pandora comparisons. I think we tend to inflate Mysterious Island's rides over the entirety of the land. It's an awesome themed environment, but I wouldn't trade Africa for Mysterious Island.

I'm guessing most would call 20K a D-ticket with Journey to the Center of the Earth being an E-ticket (Although admittedly a short one). It sounds like Pandora will have a very solid C, and by all accounts a very solid E.

 

[Goob]

Why don't we wait until Disney actually does something before complaining about them doing something hypothetically.

I was commenting on the people complaining about the creep factor.
Why single me out?

 

[TalkingHead]

One might be tempted to say that it looks like Disney has decided to cut its losses with Avatar.

We know the two E-tickets were downsized to an E and a C, and that the E is less "ambitious" than most of the other E's that Disney has opened at other resorts in the last five years, especially in Asia. (Or was the original plan for three attractions?)

The previous talk about having walk-around characters, more interactive plants and trails, more groundbreaking nighttime tech...

Plus the fact they've jettisoned plans to build Avatar at other resorts...

All of that - plus some of the other critiques -- suggests Disney on some level phoned this in and decided to do the minimum, maybe the minimum that James Cameron would approve.

 

[DisneyJayL]

I wish it were as easy as that. I don't think it would stop the posts regardless.

Why don't we wait until Disney actually does something before complaining about them doing something hypothetically.

 

[RSoxNo1]

If I recall, they live inside the tree.

And yes, the story is that the Na'Vi don't want to hang out with us. But that story was created so the designers wouldn't have to worry about integrating the Na'Vi into the land more thoroughly - if they had wanted to, they could have developed a different story.

It's odd because the Na'Vi are the distinguishing element of the film - they have more screen time then the humans. Presumably, someone who likes the film Avatar likes Na'Vi and would like to hang out with them. They would presumably be more interested in seeing where the Na'Vi live then seeing a dilapidated military Quonset hut.

I find the Na'Vi off-putting, so I'm fine with minimal Na'Vi interaction. But it would be very strange if Disney built the land to accommodate people who didn't like the primary feature of the IP.

Is the amount of times we see the Na'vi and/or an Avatar of a Na'vi any real different than the amount of times we see Harry Potter in the two worlds?

 

[Bairstow]

One might be tempted to say that it looks like Disney has decided to cut its losses with Avatar.

We know the two E-tickets were downsized to an E and a C, and that the E is less "ambitious" than most of the other E's that Disney has opened at other resorts in the last five years, especially in Asia. (Or was the original plan for three attractions?)

The previous talk about having walk-around characters, more interactive plants and trails, more groundbreaking nighttime tech...

Plus the fact they've jettisoned plans to build Avatar at other resorts...

All of that - plus some of the other critiques -- suggests Disney on some level phoned this in and decided to do the minimum, maybe the minimum that James Cameron would approve.

That's a pretty expensive "minimum", then.

What was this second E-ticket you refer to?

 

[doctornick]

We know the two E-tickets were downsized to an E and a C, and that the E is less "ambitious" than most of the other E's that Disney has opened at other resorts in the last five years, especially in Asia. (Or was the original plan for three attractions?)

I don't get the sense at all that FoP is not being "ambitious". In fact, they seem to have gone all out in trying to convincingly simulate what was probably the seminal experience of the film -- having an Avatar join with a banshee to fly around Pandora.

As for the second attraction, it seems that it is a C the way it always has been. There was never a third attraction or multiple E's or any of that -- any concept in that vein was blue sky and never approved for funding. The leaked blueprints which was before final approval only called the two rides an E and C.

 

[dreamscometrue]

That would illuminate about half the posts to these forums.

Eliminate? Illuminate...bioluminescence. I see what you did there.

 

[twebber55]

One might be tempted to say that it looks like Disney has decided to cut its losses with Avatar.

We know the two E-tickets were downsized to an E and a C, and that the E is less "ambitious" than most of the other E's that Disney has opened at other resorts in the last five years, especially in Asia. (Or was the original plan for three attractions?)

The previous talk about having walk-around characters, more interactive plants and trails, more groundbreaking nighttime tech...

Plus the fact they've jettisoned plans to build Avatar at other resorts...

All of that - plus some of the other critiques -- suggests Disney on some level phoned this in and decided to do the minimum, maybe the minimum that James Cameron would approve.

i actually think the total opposite of this
three reasons
1.the cost of the land says they never phoned it in
2.The amount of advertising
3.Boat ride was upgraded during the construction
JMO

 

[FigmentJedi]

i actually think the total opposite of this
three reasons
1.the cost of the land says they never phoned it in
2.The amount of advertising
3.Boat ride was upgraded during the construction
JMO

I can't imagine the "All animals larger then a helicopter lizard are CGI projections" idea was always part of the boat ride plans. There were definitely downgrades on that boat ride to beef up the Shaman figure.

 

[solidyne]

Instead, she sits isolated on the rivers edge, positioned in a way that says "Look at how much I move! Look at how technologically advanced I am! Look at how much money Disney spent!" rather than being a part of the narrative climax of the rides simple story.

This. She looks like Elsa to me.

 

[Thanks phoenicians]

Man people are complaining about Avatar I can't wait to see the level of anger come TSL time.

 

[BubbaQuest]

Reading some of the YouTube comments on the River Journey....

Have we as a species devolved our attention spans so drastically, that it takes non-stop thrills, explosions, or being shaken up in front of simulators to keep us entertained? What is so wrong about a simple, slow-moving boat ride through forests..letting the detail & immersion do the work rather than having to always involve us as part of the experience? I don't need a sudden drop or a "You're the star" moment on every ride / attraction I go on. Sometimes a journey through a unique atmosphere with elaborate details is the only story needed.

If only there was some way people could enjoy a leisurely trip down a river on a raft looking at the landscape and foliage. Thank goodness Disney is here so that can happen (with only a slight administration fee).

 

[Bairstow]

I can't imagine the "All animals larger then a helicopter lizard are CGI projections" idea was always part of the boat ride plans. There were definitely downgrades on that boat ride to beef up the Shaman figure.

This is speculation, right?

 

[FigmentJedi]

Man people are complaining about Avatar I can't wait to see the level of anger come TSL time.

Avatarland had high expectations attached to it, even with all the heckling that's been going on through its entire development cycle.

I don't think anybody really cares about Toy Story Land. Everybody's already expecting a cheap piece of crap because that's all these Toy Story Lands have ever been.

 

[twebber55]

This is speculation, right?

yes