AVATAR land - the specifics

[marni1971]

I think these will be awesome, better?

I'd like to think they / it will be.

 

[twebber55]

after listening to @WED Purist im pretty excited about it

 

[twebber55]

it will be interesting to see how they use lighting....obviously they have to have it light enough to be able to walk around, so will they do this thematically?

 

[AndyMagic]

Most attractions could be awesome...

Indeed. It's frustrating that a lot of the criticism about this expansion centers around the Avatar IP instead of the seemingly lackluster E-Ticket that we're getting. To me, the boat ride is far more interesting. Had more money been allocated for that attraction to make it on a similar scale to Pirates, Disney would have had a potential classic on their hands that would stand the test of time. No matter how High-Definition the screens are in Soarin 2.0, in the end we'll all just be sitting inside a giant warehouse watching a movie while our seats shake, shimmy and rattle. There is nothing wrong with using giant screens or a motion base. Universal does wonders with both but the difference between a ride like Transformers and Soarin 2.0 is that the former uses ride vehicles that physically moves you from show-scene to show-scene like a typical dark ride. The screens in Spider-Man and Transformers only simulate movement during extreme situations like free-falling or flying through a building. The rest of the movement in those rides is very real. The vehicles accelerate, stop short, spin, and take guests on a true journey from point A to point B to point C. Rides like Soarin' are entirely simulated and as such, simply don't pack the punch that a true anchor E-Ticket should.

 

[danlb_2000]

Indeed. It's frustrating that a lot of the criticism about this expansion centers around the Avatar IP instead of the seemingly lackluster E-Ticket that we're getting. To me, the boat ride is far more interesting. Had more money been allocated for that attraction to make it on a similar scale to Pirates, Disney would have had a potential classic on their hands that would stand the test of time. No matter how High-Definition the screens are in Soarin 2.0, in the end we'll all just be sitting inside a giant warehouse watching a movie while our seats shake, shimmy and rattle. There is nothing wrong with using giant screens or a motion base. Universal does wonders with both but the difference between a ride like Transformers and Soarin 2.0 is that the former uses ride vehicles that physically moves you from show-scene to show-scene like a typical dark ride. The screens in Spider-Man and Transformers only simulate movement during extreme situations like free-falling or flying through a building. The rest of the movement in those rides is very real. The vehicles accelerate, stop short, spin, and take guests on a true journey from point A to point B to point C. Rides like Soarin' are entirely simulated and as such, simply don't pack the punch that a true anchor E-Ticket should.

But we don't know how much physical movement the Avatar ride will have yet.

 

[AndyMagic]

But we don't know how much physical movement the Avatar ride will have yet.

By physical movement I don't mean tilting, swooping, and other motions that the ride vehicle may theoretically make. I'm referring to physically moving through show scenes on a ride track. We know for a fact that the ride vehicles won't be doing that. We'll all be ushered into a large cavernous room and we won't be leaving that room. In that respect it really isn't all that different from a standard simulator. I'm sure there will be all kinds of bells and whistles to distinguish it from its younger aging brothers and sisters in DCA and Epcot but in the end we'll all be watching an enormous movie inside a warehouse.

 

[Bairstow]

This is the basis of the Avatar attraction, is it not?

 

[danlb_2000]

By physical movement I don't mean tilting, swooping, and other motions that the ride vehicle may theoretically make. I'm referring to physically moving through show scenes on a ride track. We know for a fact that the ride vehicles won't be doing that. We'll all be ushered into a large cavernous room and we won't be leaving that room. In that respect it really isn't all that different from a standard simulator. I'm sure there will be all kinds of bells and whistles to distinguish it from its younger aging brothers and sisters in DCA and Epcot but in the end we'll all be watching an enormous movie inside a warehouse.

Well even though it's not approved of here, I will wait until we know more about the ride before calling it a failure.

 

[AndyMagic]

Well even though it's not approved of here, I will wait until we know more about the ride before calling it a failure.

I'm not one to take rumors and run with them. This isn't really a case of speculation here. The site plans and showbuilding blueprints all show 4 identical theatres with giant curved screens. We might not know what the ride vehicles will look like, what the in-theatre effects will be, what the loading procedure will entail, and what the plot of the ride film will be but there really isn't any disputing the basics of the headline attraction. Everything shown and discussed at D23 fully support the Soarin Over Pandora concept as well. It is what it is. It might be the best simulator ever made and it will probably contain absolutely stunning visuals courtesy of Cameron but in the end, we'll be watching a giant movie.

 

[AndyMagic]

This is the basis of the Avatar attraction, is it not?

The blueprints are accurate but I don't believe that youtube video is a good representation of the ride system. Someone with more insider knowledge can chime in here but I believe there will be more dynamic movement than what is seen there. The loading procedure looks similar to what is rumored though.

 

[danlb_2000]

I'm not one to take rumors and run with them. This isn't really a case of speculation here. The site plans and showbuilding blueprints all show 4 identical theatres with giant curved screens. We might not know what the ride vehicles will look like, what the in-theatre effects will be, what the loading procedure will entail, and what the plot of the ride film will be but there really isn't any disputing the basics of the headline attraction. Everything shown and discussed at D23 fully support the Soarin Over Pandora concept as well. It is what it is. It might be the best simulator ever made and it will probably contain absolutely stunning visuals courtesy of Cameron but in the end, we'll be watching a giant movie.

I guess where we differ is that I don't see "watching a giant movie" as automatically a bad thing. I love Soarin' and if this ride takes Soarin' to the next level I think it will me an amazing attraction.

 

[kap91]

Indeed. It's frustrating that a lot of the criticism about this expansion centers around the Avatar IP instead of the seemingly lackluster E-Ticket that we're getting. To me, the boat ride is far more interesting. Had more money been allocated for that attraction to make it on a similar scale to Pirates, Disney would have had a potential classic on their hands that would stand the test of time. No matter how High-Definition the screens are in Soarin 2.0, in the end we'll all just be sitting inside a giant warehouse watching a movie while our seats shake, shimmy and rattle. There is nothing wrong with using giant screens or a motion base. Universal does wonders with both but the difference between a ride like Transformers and Soarin 2.0 is that the former uses ride vehicles that physically moves you from show-scene to show-scene like a typical dark ride. The screens in Spider-Man and Transformers only simulate movement during extreme situations like free-falling or flying through a building. The rest of the movement in those rides is very real. The vehicles accelerate, stop short, spin, and take guests on a true journey from point A to point B to point C. Rides like Soarin' are entirely simulated and as such, simply don't pack the punch that a true anchor E-Ticket should.

Are you implying that transformers is a classic that will stand the test of time and soarin isn't? Sorry transformers is equally no more than watching a movie in a warehouse. Just cause the car is on a track doesn't mean much. The show scenes aren't scenes at all.

Also just because a simulator uses a giant screen doesn't mean it has to feel that way. The original back to the future ride was enormously effective at making you think your car was exiting the garage you boarded in and traveling on a individual journey. The ride system has been all but confirmed to be most similar to that. Improve that tech by 30 years, maybe add some animatronics or other unexpected surprises and it could easily be waaaay more impressive than spidy or transformers. Even gringotts. It's entirely in the execution. I think it's safe to say that the theater is not going to look like the soarin theater.

 

[doctornick]

Indeed. It's frustrating that a lot of the criticism about this expansion centers around the Avatar IP instead of the seemingly lackluster E-Ticket that we're getting. To me, the boat ride is far more interesting. Had more money been allocated for that attraction to make it on a similar scale to Pirates, Disney would have had a potential classic on their hands that would stand the test of time. No matter how High-Definition the screens are in Soarin 2.0, in the end we'll all just be sitting inside a giant warehouse watching a movie while our seats shake, shimmy and rattle. There is nothing wrong with using giant screens or a motion base. Universal does wonders with both but the difference between a ride like Transformers and Soarin 2.0 is that the former uses ride vehicles that physically moves you from show-scene to show-scene like a typical dark ride. The screens in Spider-Man and Transformers only simulate movement during extreme situations like free-falling or flying through a building. The rest of the movement in those rides is very real. The vehicles accelerate, stop short, spin, and take guests on a true journey from point A to point B to point C. Rides like Soarin' are entirely simulated and as such, simply don't pack the punch that a true anchor E-Ticket should.

I agree with the general sentiment that the quality of the rides will impact the success of the land more than the longevity of the IP. That said, I don't understand how anyone can simply write off the rides based on the limited knowledge we have of them.

For starters, we have no idea how "much money was allocated" for the boat ride -- how can you possible conclude that needs (needed) more? The potential footprint for the ride seems fairly large and comparable to other decent length boat rides (especially if the white concrete area is just the indoor portion and an outdoor portion will also exist).

Second, it seems foolish to write off the "E-ticket" as just watching a movie. While I too would prefer a ride that moves along a track, the small rumors we have had seemed to indicate that this is far more than Soarin' and, with Cameron's involvement, I'm not willing to make any assumptions as to the final product. Supposedly, the WDI/Lightstorm collaboration is under very secure lock and key with strict limits on access to the designs -- suggesting that they are doing something "groundbreaking" in some sense.

Which brings me to another point. I actually don't care if an attraction is new fangled using the latest tech or somehow amazingly unique. I care if an attraction is good. And you easily make a high quality attraction using decades old tech. IMHO too many people on these pages complain about the need for Disney to make cutting edge attractions when I'd rather see attractions that simply have heart and entertain with story, music and visuals. I'm not saying that rides shouldn't be technologically advanced, but it's not the end all be all.

 

[flyerjab]

I agree with the general sentiment that the quality of the rides will impact the success of the land more than the longevity of the IP. That said, I don't understand how anyone can simply write off the rides based on the limited knowledge we have of them.

For starters, we have no idea how "much money was allocated" for the boat ride -- how can you possible conclude that needs (needed) more? The potential footprint for the ride seems fairly large and comparable to other decent length boat rides (especially if the white concrete area is just the indoor portion and an outdoor portion will also exist).

Second, it seems foolish to write off the "E-ticket" as just watching a movie. While I too would prefer a ride that moves along a track, the small rumors we have had seemed to indicate that this is far more than Soarin' and, with Cameron's involvement, I'm not willing to make any assumptions as to the final product. Supposedly, the WDI/Lightstorm collaboration is under very secure lock and key with strict limits on access to the designs -- suggesting that they are doing something "groundbreaking" in some sense.

Which brings me to another point. I actually don't care if an attraction is new fangled using the latest tech or somehow amazingly unique. I care if an attraction is good. And you easily make a high quality attraction using decades old tech. IMHO too many people on these pages complain about the need for Disney to make cutting edge attractions when I'd rather see attractions that simply have heart and entertain with story, music and visuals. I'm not saying that rides shouldn't be technologically advanced, but it's not the end all be all.

A-freakin'-men brother! Excellent post!

 

[kap91]

.

Which brings me to another point. I actually don't care if an attraction is new fangled using the latest tech or somehow amazingly unique. I care if an attraction is good. And you easily make a high quality attraction using decades old tech. IMHO too many people on these pages complain about the need for Disney to make cutting edge attractions when I'd rather see attractions that simply have heart and entertain with story, music and visuals. I'm not saying that rides shouldn't be technologically advanced, but it's not the end all be all.

This. There is an obsession on this board with "groundbreaking" technology and an attitude that it is the end all be all in making an amazing attraction. Almost all the praise rides seems to get here is based on how innovative or complex the ride system is. Frankly I just don't think how many directions a ride vehicle can move is all that impressive or useful. People here are so disappointed that that ride isn't using the Pandora's box ride system but as far as I'm concerned that system seems like a terrible choice for a ride that is supposed to taking place in the outdoors and broad spaces. Pandora's box is much more well suited to a ministry of magic elevator ride or something else that should be going up and down and sideways through an indoor multilevel space.

People are so upset that there's no trackless ride being built in Orlando but as far as I'm concerned an old fashioned bus bar vehicle with amazing visuals would be far more impressive. An attraction that makes sense is even better. These values seem to be losing their importance. As long as I'm flipped around 100 new ways and the ride takes more computers than any other it's the best thing ever.

Most of the best rides ever made have been slight evolutions or mergers of existing technology and not really that innovative at all. Was the haunted mansion innovative? Not really. It used a ride system copied ver batim from adventures through inner space, and pretty crude animatronics and effects no more advanced than pirates . It was the concept and particular execution that made it great.

The key to avatar being a success is not how innovative the tech is but how great the visuals and immersion are. How fun it is. How cool it feels. What impresses an engineer is not really important in the overall scope.

 

[GoofGoof]

This. There is an obsession on this board with "groundbreaking" technology and an attitude that it is the end all be all in making an amazing attraction. Almost all the praise rides seems to get here is based on how innovative or complex the ride system is. Frankly I just don't think how many directions a ride vehicle can move is all that impressive or useful. People here are so disappointed that that ride isn't using the Pandora's box ride system but as far as I'm concerned that system seems like a terrible choice for a ride that is supposed to taking place in the outdoors and broad spaces. Pandora's box is much more well suited to a ministry of magic elevator ride or something else that should be going up and down and sideways through an indoor multilevel space.

People are so upset that there's no trackless ride being built in Orlando but as far as I'm concerned an old fashioned bus bar vehicle with amazing visuals would be far more impressive. An attraction that makes sense is even better. These values seem to be losing their importance. As long as I'm flipped around 100 new ways and the ride takes more computers than any other it's the best thing ever.

Most of the best rides ever made have been slight evolutions or mergers of existing technology and not really that innovative at all. Was the haunted mansion innovative? Not really. It used a ride system copied ver batim from adventures through inner space, and pretty crude animatronics and effects no more advanced than pirates . It was the concept and particular execution that made it great.

The key to avatar being a success is not how innovative the tech is but how great the visuals and immersion are. How fun it is. How cool it feels. What impresses an engineer is not really important in the overall scope.

Good points. Anyone who thinks a trackless ride system makes a ride great you hasn't been to Sea World lately. Antarctica is just plain terrible.

 

[Mike S]

Good points. Anyone who thinks a trackless ride system makes a ride great you hasn't been to Sea World lately. Antarctica is just plain terrible.

While true that statement ignores the fact that when Disney does it the ride is pretty great. Hunny Hunt, Mystic Manor, and Ratatouille are all leagues better than the steaming pile Sea World built.

 

[GoofGoof]

While true that statement ignores the fact that when Disney does it the ride is pretty great. Hunny Hunt, Mystic Manor, and Ratatouille are all leagues better than the steaming pile Sea World built.

No doubt. But it's not the ride system, but the overall execution of the ride that makes them great. I'd like to see a clone of any of those rides in WDW.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

I'm sick to death of simulators, and also screen dominated rides in general (this includes Ratatouille by the way). I don't need every new ride to have the most amazing innovative ride system ever, but I want sets and animatronic figures for a change. So i'm only really interested in the boat ride, which also fits in with what the park desperately needs at the moment- something calmer without height limits or restrictions to guests or certain health conditions (hopefully reasonably efficient to load/unload and with high capacity). I'm assuming at this point that the boat ride hasn't been cut from the project, though I hope it's more elaborate than a C ticket.

 

[doctornick]

I'm sick to death of simulators, and also screen dominated rides in general. I don't need every new ride to have the most amazing innovative ride system ever, but I want sets and animatronic figures for a change. So i'm only really interested in the boat ride, which also fits in with what the park desperately needs at the moment- something calmer without height limits or restrictions to guests or certain health conditions (hopefully reasonably efficient to load/unload and with high capacity). I'm assuming at this point that the boat ride hasn't been cut from the project, though I hope it's more elaborate than a C ticket.

But DAK really doesn't have much in the way of screens (just ITTBAB really). I tend to dislike an overuse of screens in attractions, but any particular theme park should have a variety of experiences and I think this Soarin' type ride will compliment existing attractions in the park.

That said, I tend to agree that the boat ride is a sorely needed addition as both a family friendly/non-thrill/indoor ride.