DAK Avatar Land...think Disney regrets the idea?

[Mike S]

I just noticed that you had the most awesomest avatar in history.

Thanks. If you search it there's some sites that will sell you a T-Shirt with that on it. I haven't done it yet.

 

[erasure fan1]

ok i really think that the minority of people who disliked the movie are trying to control the conversation about avatar land and are using this thread (and SO MANY others) to try to manipulate others and make them believe it that "most people hated the movie", that the "land will be a failure", and that "disney regrets the decision to create the land". This was the most successful movie of all time. If you're concerned that the movie lacks enough fan base, keep in mind that 3 additional sequels are coming almost immediately after the land opens, which give it's storyline and fanbase a chance to grow larger. It's so unfair for the few people who didn't like the film to ruin the excitement of the clear majority by assuming any kind of failure.

While I do believe that if done right, Pandora will be very cool, but I really do see why people complain about Disney using Avatar. Do I think that a land that was based off of no IP would have been a better choice? Heck yea I do. Why? Because the movie was very average and I think an original land ie beastly kingdom would have better staying power and make more sense in AK. That said I do see the potential of Pandora. The hard thing about Avatar is you really can't bet on the sequels growing the fan base. You really don't see films hit pop culture status because of a 2nd film. That happens with the first movie and Avatar has almost no pop culture impact even though it made a grunt load of money. There is as good of a chance for the next movie to be an absolute bomb as it does to be a hit. The easy answer to this, is if Disney hits the theme out of the park and the rides are awesome, no one will care what the IP is. If the land ends up like new fantasyland, then most will consider it a fail.

 

[A foolish mortal]

They sure regret the $1Billion+ overblown budget though

Not if it will attract more guests to AK

 

[Mike S]

Not if it will attract more guests to AK

Even with more guests it would take quite a while for them to recoup their investment.

 

[A foolish mortal]

Even with more guests it would take quite a while for them to recoup their investment.

True. It will take a while, but dont think they'll regret it. When the land is done I'm sure they'll not regret the result if it is as beautiful and unique as the concept art. This will be nothing like any other land in any other parks so I'm sure they'll not regret the money spent on the land

 

[s8film40]

Even with more guests it would take quite a while for them to recoup their investment.

The real question is will this really generate any extra revenue? This is where I think the idea of using the Avatar IP is seriously flawed. I don't think it's going to be the type of thing to make people choose to visit WDW. So without creating a surge in attendance the other way it could create extra revenue would be to increase guest spending, I somehow also have a hard time seeing people flocking to this new land to purchase Avatar merchandise. I think it's very fortunate that this will be followed up by Star Wars land to compensate for the losses this will create.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

If they had locked up Star Wars first, Avatar never would have happened, right?

 

[Cesar R M]

If they had locked up Star Wars first, Avatar never would have happened, right?

We probably would have had Endor at AK I suppose?

 

[Figment2005]

We probably would have had Endor at AK I suppose?

Endor doesn't share the same values that make Avatar a fit into Animal Kingdom. With that said, in an alternate universe, I doubt Star Wars would have had any presence in AK.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Endor doesn't share the same values that make Avatar a fit into Animal Kingdom. With that said, in an alternate universe, I doubt Star Wars would have had any presence in AK.

I more or less agree with that. But why pay for the property rights to avatar after you have secured those to Star Wars? There were much cheaper ways to put mythical creatures into animal kingdom.

 

[Matt_Black]

I more or less agree with that. But why pay for the property rights to avatar after you have secured those to Star Wars? There were much cheaper ways to put mythical creatures into animal kingdom.

They didn't. Avatar deal was struck in 2011, Star Wars was bought in 2012.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

They didn't. Avatar deal was struck in 2011, Star Wars was bought in 2012.

My point, exactly! My original post was postulating if they had done the Star Wars deal first, Avatar probably wouldn't have happened.

 

[No Name]

The answer is yes. It's hardly debateable. Tom Staggs and Bob Iger (the two responsible for making the deal) would both tell you they regret it. Well they'd both lie to you, but inside, they both regret it. And can anyone on here seriously argue that that's not true? Can anyone honestly say that Disney does not regret it?

They know that Avatar is not a big toy seller. They know that relatively few people care for the movie anymore and that it's largely forgotten. I'm not at all saying the land can't be a success. Disney just now knows it will take a lot more to make this as successful as their other options could've been, but they thought the opposite at the time.

This thread has become more about whether people here like the idea or think it will work out. But the answer to the original question is a big fat YES.

 

[Marlins1]

Sorry, but it seems like people are hedging their bets with "the land could be a success but they will regret it anyway". If AK attendance increases dramatically over the next few years the regrets if any will be that they spent too much but I don't think they will lose much sleep over that. They won't care if people are buying Avatar merch or spending elsewhere in the park. If the attendance bump is small yes there will be major regret. Personally I'm expecting big crowds at AK for a long time starting this summer.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Sorry, but it seems like people are hedging their bets with "the land could be a success but they will regret it anyway". If AK attendance increases dramatically over the next few years the regrets if any will be that they spent too much but I don't think they will lose much sleep over that. They won't care if people are buying Avatar merch or spending elsewhere in the park. If the attendance bump is small yes there will be major regret. Personally I'm expecting big crowds at AK for a long time starting this summer.

and better viewing spots for Illuminations! LOL.

 

[Marlins1]

and better viewing spots for Illuminations! LOL.

Yes for sure!

 

[GoofGoof]

The answer is yes. It's hardly debateable. Tom Staggs and Bob Iger (the two responsible for making the deal) would both tell you they regret it. Well they'd both lie to you, but inside, they both regret it. And can anyone on here seriously argue that that's not true? Can anyone honestly say that Disney does not regret it?

They know that Avatar is not a big toy seller. They know that relatively few people care for the movie anymore and that it's largely forgotten. I'm not at all saying the land can't be a success. Disney just now knows it will take a lot more to make this as successful as their other options could've been, but they thought the opposite at the time.

This thread has become more about whether people here like the idea or think it will work out. But the answer to the original question is a big fat YES.

Why would they suddenly regret it? What changed? Avatar wasn't a big toy seller when they bought the rights. People's feelings about the movie haven't changed since they bought the rights. It hasn't become any more or less popular. Nothing has really changed so why would they have a change of heart and regret it now? Why would Avatar toy sales even matter? They don't own the rights to all of Avatar, just the theme park rights. If Avatar became the top toy on the market it isn't going to directly benefit Disney, but I don't see how that matters anyway for the theme park land. They built Star Tours long before they owned the rights to Star Wars movies and merchandise.

I can maybe buy the argument that if they knew they would be buying Star Wars they would have never bought the rights to Avatar. The only problem with that argument is that they are already building Star Wars Land at DHS and they needed a big addition at AK also to help make it a full day park. Not adding Star Wars to DHS and instead locating it at AK would have been a massive mistake given how much that park needs. Could they have done 2 Star Wars themed lands one in each park? Maybe, but most likely they wouldn't want to build 3 domestic Star Wars lands. So that would still leave a huge need at AK. They could have built Beastly Kingdom or a Lion King land or Jungle Book land or whatever other things the "armchair engineers" can dream up, but all of those options were available to Iger and Staggs anyway before they signed the Avatar deal. So I say again, what changed that makes them regret the decision now?

 

[networkpro]

It'll make the bunny-huggers happy. Ya know if they removed the super hippy smurfs, and replaced it with a more relevant population it would have been a pretty good movie anyway, more like Alan Dean Fosters Midworld.

 

[No Name]

Ooh, a challenger! Welcome, but be warned, I will chop your post to pieces! No, literally, I am quoting you in pieces to better organize what I'm saying. Relax and enjoy me attacking everything you say.

People's feelings about the movie haven't changed since they bought the rights. It hasn't become any more or less popular. Nothing has really changed so why would they have a change of heart and regret it now?

Umm, the movie has certainly become far more forgotten and less popular. Unless you are arguing the popularity was already low in 2011. But it's definitely close to rock bottom now, definitely less popular than in 2011. I really don't know how you can argue that nothing has really changed.

But a low popularity aint so bad, eh? I mean a bunch of other rides aren't based off of some super popular franchise and they do excellent, because they are great rides and lands based on great concepts, right?
But keep in mind Disney didn't get Avatar rights for free. They had to pay a big wad of cash. Plus they lose out on some money from sales which I go on about below. So what advantage is Disney getting by spending and giving up money for the rights to Avatar? Why is Avatar that much (or even any) better than the other options they had? Feel free to explain, for I am intrigued.

Oh, and also, once something dies, it's extra hard to revive it. I don't know if that makes sense to y'all but lots of things/trends are one and done. They are massively popular for some time and then fade away. That's what Avatar is, and it concerns me that Avatar has already died once, as opposed to new concepts which haven't even been born yet. I feel like people are done with Avatar. They don't care about it enough anymore. It was nice 8 years ago but now it's over, time for something new.

Avatar wasn't a big toy seller when they bought the rights. Why would Avatar toy sales even matter? They don't own the rights to all of Avatar, just the theme park rights. If Avatar became the top toy on the market it isn't going to directly benefit Disney, but I don't see how that matters anyway for the theme park land. They built Star Tours long before they owned the rights to Star Wars movies and merchandise.

Theme parks sell things. Sure, they won't be making money on sales outside of the parks (if those even exist), but Disney will be selling Avatar stuff in the land and they will be keeping the majority revenue from whatever they sell. Maybe they keep 85% and JC and Jon get 15% (or maybe JC keeps that percent all for himself, wouldn't surprise me). Anyhow, it's a massive concern, especially for execs at Disney who are so focused on where the sales are coming from. The forecast for Avatar-related merch sales is very stormy, and if that forecast is correct, Disney's not gonna be looking at Avatar land on a whole in the brighest light. Therefore, saying that toy and merchandise sales have no bearing is wrong. Happy Potter, Cars, and Star Wars merchandise currently flies or will fly off the shelves in those lands. Avatar... well, it's going to take a real lot of creativity and smart ideas to make that happen. Again, Disney not only has to give a % away, but it's a bigger and worse risk than many of the other concepts would've been.

I can maybe buy the argument that if they knew they would be buying Star Wars they would have never bought the rights to Avatar. The only problem with that argument is that they are already building Star Wars Land at DHS and they needed a big addition at AK also to help make it a full day park. Not adding Star Wars to DHS and instead locating it at AK would have been a massive mistake given how much that park needs. Could they have done 2 Star Wars themed lands one in each park? Maybe, but most likely they wouldn't want to build 3 domestic Star Wars lands. So that would still leave a huge need at AK. They could have built Beastly Kingdom or a Lion King land or Jungle Book land or whatever other things the "armchair engineers" can dream up, but all of those options were available to Iger and Staggs anyway before they signed the Avatar deal. So I say again, what changed that makes them regret the decision now?

They bought the rights to Avatar because it was supposed to be their "potter swatter." Originally, in around 2010, as you may know there were plans for an Australia-themed land and other original ideas. But once Harry Potter was a big success at Universal, Disney put on their tunnel-vision goggles and couldn't clearly see what made Potter successful. It wasn't about how much money the movies made in the box office, it was about the lasting popularity that Harry Potter had and how people of all ages wanted to become a wizard for the day. People love Harry Potter. And they love the quality experience. It all combines to spell success.

People love dragons. Unicorns. Lion King. Jungle Book. Cars. Ghosts. Dwarfs. Australian life such as Kangaroos. All ages can connect to these in some way. Blue glittery cat sex people do not have the same longetivity and appeal to all ages as everything I mentioned above, and we know that because Avatar's failed in that regard already. Sure, Disney could make it work out in the end, but is it worth that extra money and extra risk vs. something like dragons and unicorns which are basically risk-free?

Disney thought they chose the next Harry Potter in 2010. They thought, since Universal boughts rights to an outside francise, that's what they had to do. They felt like their deal with Lightstorm was, I don't know, necessary in some way. Disney no longer had faith in their own work and devalued all of their other ideas. But now that Avatar is practically dead, they realize they made the wrong choice. And if they haven't realized, well, they are ignoring reality then.

The chariot looked as thought it were winning the race, but then it crashed into the wall. And the racer, who got ejected from his seat, is still flying forward, but knows that the landing won't be pretty.

 

[Skibum1970]

If I had to place a bet, I would venture that Disney won't regret anything until they see if the land brings the crowds or doesn't. Ultimately, World of Avatar will be judged by its ROI. If attendance soars, it will be lauded as a "we knew it all along" great decision. My own thoughts, which aren't worth much, are that Avatar was an unlikely stretch and that Disney would have fared better developing their rides on their own IP or, perish the thought, rides built on concepts independent of movies. If Disney added a ride to AK every two years as well as other attractions (based upon animals), the park would grow. They left it stagnant and felt that they had to do something BIG to give it a jolt. Of course, I also read in a different post that people who want rides at AK are just ignorant.

I would still have to say, "Whoa, what is going on?" if I were the top dog and spent more than $500 million for two rides. I get that the immersive quality costs but also think that you should get three or four rides for that much spending.

Again, just my thoughts which, given the time value of money may be worth two cents in about a hundred years.