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
) 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.
Okay, here you go:
What has changed between 2011 or 2014 and now?
1. Avatar is less popular now. Sure, it was past its peak in 2011, but how can you seriously argue it isn't less popular? It is dead in a way that nobody in charge at Disney could foresee.
2. Avatar has proven to have no lasting impact or fanbase
3. Now the sequels will come out after the land, and so the land will have no "momentum" when it opens
Why didn't they scrap the plan?
1. It was already announced.
2. They already paid a large sum of money for Avatar rights and it would look bad not to use them.
3. James Cameron would not have allowed it.
Why were the plans not severely cut between 2011 and 2014:
1. Disney was still believing or hoping that JC would get his act together and release a sequel before the land opened. That sequel would, they hoped, make Avatar popular again and provide momentum for the land.
2. James Cameron pushed for them to not cut. I don't know if anything specific was in the deal but JC played a role in what will be the final product
3. Bob Iger has a big ego, which I expand on below.
I guess I shouldn't have used the term "potter swatter" because it means something different to everyone. But Avatar Land was a clear reaction, and the only reaction, to Harry Potter. It was most definitely an attempt to top it. Bob Iger felt like he was being outdone and so this was a statement, a comeback, and it came right from his ego.
Why did they not rush to build it? Because it had to open after a sequel! There had to be another boost of popularity! Avatar land couldn't simply open with little hype surrounding it (even though that's exactly what's going to happen now). The cirque du soleil and traveling tour things will have a small effect, but the sequel is what needed to happen first, and James Cameron has failed to do his part in that regard.
Also, the announcement was a statement. A declaration of war. A way for people to say that Disney was fighting back. That way, every time an article talked about WWoHP, it could mention that "oh but hey, Disney is working on Pandora in AK," which is exactly what happened.
But why didn't they go with Star Wars? They had the rights, after all. But that's the exact reason, they HAD Star Wars already. Again this was a reaction, an ego thing and a statement. Iger saw the glowing theater numbers for Avatar and thought "haha Universal, you can't have this one." It was about preventing the enemy from getting and making a success of the next big francise. He bought it because he felt like he was stealing gold at the time. Turns out that he stole pyrite.
And Bob knows Universal would laugh at him if he and co. didn't move forward with full force.
I hope I have now answered the question well. And destroyed your argument. That part is always important to me.
You end by saying that it is designed to spread out crowds. To add capacity. To make the park greater. Sure, that's true, but any other, free-to-use idea could do that. Why is spending money and giving up future revenue on Avatar worth it over the other options? As much as you claim I failed to address the question of the thread, you have also failed.
So I will repeat my question for you: Why would Disney feel that the Avatar rights were worth spending and giving up money for? Why would Disney
not regret their choice?
