Avatar Land...think Disney regrets the idea?

Seabasealpha1

Well-Known Member
If anything, if I were Disney, I'd be hardcore elbowing James Cameron in the ribs about "where the H E double hockey sticks are my sequels!?" I think the success of the land will still hinge somewhat on the movies getting out there...but it seems like every time they should have started filming, he pushes the friggin' date back.

By the time I have grandchildren, we'll get the sequel...and it will done in memoriam of James Cameron...

I really would have rathered they spent the change on Beastly Kingdomme. We probably could have gotten at least 3 attractions maybe four and really great immersion for the same bucks...and they wouldn't owe for the rights to diddly squat...

$.02 delivered.
 

twebber55

Well-Known Member
If anything, if I were Disney, I'd be hardcore elbowing James Cameron in the ribs about "where the H E double hockey sticks are my sequels!?" I think the success of the land will still hinge somewhat on the movies getting out there...but it seems like every time they should have started filming, he pushes the friggin' date back.

By the time I have grandchildren, we'll get the sequel...and it will done in memoriam of James Cameron...

I really would have rathered they spent the change on Beastly Kingdomme. We probably could have gotten at least 3 attractions maybe four and really great immersion for the same bucks...and they wouldn't owe for the rights to diddly squat...

$.02 delivered.
Starting to film in april
3 sequels that will make billions
Since every other person was giving nothing but opinion i might as well
 

Seabasealpha1

Well-Known Member
692263
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
If anything, if I were Disney, I'd be hardcore elbowing James Cameron in the ribs about "where the H E double hockey sticks are my sequels!?" I think the success of the land will still hinge somewhat on the movies getting out there...but it seems like every time they should have started filming, he pushes the friggin' date back.

By the time I have grandchildren, we'll get the sequel...and it will done in memoriam of James Cameron...

I really would have rathered they spent the change on Beastly Kingdomme. We probably could have gotten at least 3 attractions maybe four and really great immersion for the same bucks...and they wouldn't owe for the rights to diddly squat...

$.02 delivered.

Disney knew what they were getting into in relation the sequels. Cameron has a long history of taking longer then originally expected to make his movies.
 

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
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.



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.



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.



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.

" Blue glittery cat sex people" LOL.

What makes them sex people? It's been a long time since I saw the movie once and was underwhelmed.

I agree this can turn out well for them if the sequels do well, and there are combined forces of interests to push the sequels to do well.

With that said, it's just my guess they wouldn't have bothered had they secured Star Wars first, regardless of the success of the sequels.
 

twebber55

Well-Known Member
couple points
Disney already had theme park rights to star wars
They re not putting star wars (a film which has nothing to do with the themes of DAK) in DAK
question to all, if disney were to build a theme park with just star wars would it be more popular than a theme park built with star wars, marvel, and avatar?
 

No Name

Well-Known Member
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.
Very well said.

Disney knew what they were getting into in relation the sequels. Cameron has a long history of taking longer then originally expected to make his movies.

Yes, that is true, but Disney's intention was undoubtedly for the movie to be released before the land opened. And this was perfectly reasonable in 2011. The original release date for Avatar 2, when they signed their deal, was 2014, and Avatar Land was supposed to be completed in 2016. It's funny how, after the movie got pushed back to 2015 and then 2016, Disney delayed the groundbreaking of the land by about 6 months (from summer 2013 to Jan 2014), again so that the land would open after the movie. But then the movie got pushed to Dec 2017. And hmmm, soon after that, we heard rumors that Disney might push the opening of the land back 8 months. Obviously that's a rumor and someone could've just made it up, but it could've been grounded in reality. Now that the movie isn't coming till 2018, Disney's thrown in the towel in this regard.

And here's another fun thought (which is very possibly going on). What if Cameron, who mainly cares about how well his movies do, is intentionally trying to release the sequels after the land opens? Just as Disney wants the movies to create popularity for the land, Cameron wants the land to create popularity for the movies! So now it's a game of who can delay their part more.

And this is another reason why working with an outside person is, dare I say, dangerous. Disney can't control what Cameron does. There appears to be nothing in the deal about when the sequels have to be released. Now the land isn't going to have any "momentum" as they were expecting it would. And even so, it's just generally not good to have an outside person potentially controlling Disney's image or future. What if Avatar 2 is such an obscene movie that everyone looks at Disney for building the land and says "ewww yuck"? There are so many potential problems.

On that note, does Disney want the movies to do well? They are directly competing in the movie realm, and yet they need Cameron's success for the theme park division. And if Avatar Land does do well, do they really actually want it to help out the movies? Avatar Land's success could hurt the movie division. This is bad synergy here, bad synergy.

But Iger and Co. were blinded to these realities when they made the deal. I can't imagine they're still blind now.
 
Last edited:

GoofGoof

Premium Member
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.



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.



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.



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.

The whole point of my post is that I don't see how you can claim that Iger and Disney definitely regret buying the rights to Avatar. If they regretted the plan we would most likely have seen a budget cut. Maybe the boat ride would have been cancelled. Instead they are now rumored to be over the original budget and still going full steam ahead. That's not the Disney we all know. They are quick to slash budgets and remember they didn't break ground until 2014 so they had plenty of time (3 years:confused:) to slam on the breaks before construction even started if they were regretting their decision. So I ask this question: what has changed from 2014 until now that makes them regret their decision?

I get you don't like the idea of Avatar land, but that wasn't the question originally posted or the one you said you were answering. You missed the whole point of my post. None of the things you have listed have changed since they bought the rights to Avatar. Its fine if you think a lot of other things could have been built instead of it like unicorns and dragons but that was the case when Iger paid for the Avatar rights too. It's not like they bought Avatar and then later realized they could have built Beastly Kingdom and now they regret it. Whether Avatar is a better idea than some of the other arm chair imagineering ideas you list is completely irrelevant. The question was whether Disney regrets the idea not whether fanboys think there were better options.

Avatar came out in 2009. By the time Disney bought the theme park rights it was long past its theater run and long past home video sales as well. It wasn't at its peak popularity when they bought the rights, wasn't any more or less popular in 2014 when they broke ground and that really hasn't changed much since then either. Did people really forget the movie existed? I don't think that's the case. The sequels are supposed to come out some time in 2017 so if anything you can probably say people's interest will be higher in 2017 when the land finally opens than in 2011 when they bought the rights. In any case I don't see Iger regretting his decision because Avatar has lost popularity.

The "Potter Swatter" argument is kinda tired too. Every new thing Disney builds isn't only designed to be a Potter Swatter. That's just fanboy rhetoric. New Fantasyland was a failed Potter Swatter, now Avatarland is and soon Toy Story and Star Wars will be too. The fact is there is no Potter Swatter and never will be. Nothing Disney does will ever put Potter back in the box. If Disney was really that worried about building a Potter Swatter you could have fooled me. They don't seem to be in any rush to do anything in FL. The reality is that FLE wasn't a Potter Swatter but a way to add much needed capacity to a park that had to shut the doors on a regular basis during peak times. Avatar, the Rivers of Light show and the night safaris as well as other nighttime entertainment options are designed to make AK a full day park not to make people forget about Harry Potter Land. Avatarland is not some attempt to best Universal's Harry Potter stuff. It serves the purpose of keeping people in the park longer. The same will eventually go for DHS when they clean up that mess. They are hopefully going to change 2 parks that were not necessarily full day experiences into full day parks and they will also draw crowds away from the overstuffed MK and more evenly distribute guests around the parks.
 

twebber55

Well-Known Member
The whole point of my post is that I don't see how you can claim that Iger and Disney definitely regret buying the rights to Avatar. If they regretted the plan we would most likely have seen a budget cut. Maybe the boat ride would have been cancelled. Instead they are now rumored to be over the original budget and still going full steam ahead. That's not the Disney we all know. They are quick to slash budgets and remember they didn't break ground until 2014 so they had plenty of time (3 years:confused:) to slam on the breaks before construction even started if they were regretting their decision. So I ask this question: what has changed from 2014 until now that makes them regret their decision?

I get you don't like the idea of Avatar land, but that wasn't the question originally posted or the one you said you were answering. You missed the whole point of my post. None of the things you have listed have changed since they bought the rights to Avatar. Its fine if you think a lot of other things could have been built instead of it like unicorns and dragons but that was the case when Iger paid for the Avatar rights too. It's not like they bought Avatar and then later realized they could have built Beastly Kingdom and now they regret it. Whether Avatar is a better idea than some of the other arm chair imagineering ideas you list is completely irrelevant. The question was whether Disney regrets the idea not whether fanboys think there were better options.

Avatar came out in 2009. By the time Disney bought the theme park rights it was long past its theater run and long past home video sales as well. It wasn't at its peak popularity when they bought the rights, wasn't any more or less popular in 2014 when they broke ground and that really hasn't changed much since then either. Did people really forget the movie existed? I don't think that's the case. The sequels are supposed to come out some time in 2017 so if anything you can probably say people's interest will be higher in 2017 when the land finally opens than in 2011 when they bought the rights. In any case I don't see Iger regretting his decision because Avatar has lost popularity.

The "Potter Swatter" argument is kinda tired too. Every new thing Disney builds isn't only designed to be a Potter Swatter. That's just fanboy rhetoric. New Fantasyland was a failed Potter Swatter, now Avatarland is and soon Toy Story and Star Wars will be too. The fact is there is no Potter Swatter and never will be. Nothing Disney does will ever put Potter back in the box. If Disney was really that worried about building a Potter Swatter you could have fooled me. They don't seem to be in any rush to do anything in FL. The reality is that FLE wasn't a Potter Swatter but a way to add much needed capacity to a park that had to shut the doors on a regular basis during peak times. Avatar, the Rivers of Light show and the night safaris as well as other nighttime entertainment options are designed to make AK a full day park not to make people forget about Harry Potter Land. Avatarland is not some attempt to best Universal's Harry Potter stuff. It serves the purpose of keeping people in the park longer. The same will eventually go for DHS when they clean up that mess. They are hopefully going to change 2 parks that were not necessarily full day experiences into full day parks and they will also draw crowds away from the overstuffed MK and more evenly distribute guests around the parks.
this should end this debate and thread, please lock
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Just because you don't cut the budget doesn't mean you don't regret the project. Once your financially and contractually invested you can't just take a huge loss. I'm sure they're trying to salvage what they can out of this and maybe try to break even on the whole thing.
They had 3 years from buying the rights until they broke ground. They could have cancelled at any point along the way without being financially invested. If they regretted it they had an easy out. If they suddenly decided this year that they regret the idea then yes, it's too late to turn back.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom