Avatar Land...think Disney regrets the idea?

[Skibum1970]

Titanic "sequel" has already been done

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081400/

Terminator II was the only Terminator sequel he had any involvement in.

Aw crap. Although, I'm not sure if Judge Mills Lane would allow it as the description was a stretch.

 

[No Name]

1. If you know anything about the history of Disney and specifically the theme parks there are literally whole books of ideas that were proposed but never built. A lot of them were leaked by insiders, but some of them were even announced. Hyperion Wharf comes to mind. So announcing Avatar would certainly not stop them from later cancelling it if they had real regrets.
2. How much did they pay? You say it was a large sum of money, but I've never seen the amount published anywhere official. Is that a fact or an assumption? Its hard to tell from your posts when you are stating facts vs giving your opinion. The way I understood the contract is that it was a licensing agreement. They paid an upfront fee for the exclusive theme park rights but there would be ongoing licensing fees paid as well once the land was built Similar to how the Marvel deal at Universal works. The upfront fee is all they would lose if they walked away or didn't build the land in time. I haven't seen the contract itself, but that is how it was explained to me by people with knowledge of the specifics.
3. James Cameron couldn't stop them from walking away. The contract allowed them to walk with only losing the initial fee paid.


I can't even address the rest of your post. It would be a waste of time. You are arguing all the reasons why Avatar is a bad idea or what they could or should have done. That's not the point of this thread. There are numerous other threads debating that.

I have actually directly answered the question of what has changed, and why Disney would regret their decision now. As much as I am apparently saying why it's a bad idea (I'm actually arguing why Disney would regret it, you are confusing the two), you are giving your biased opinion on why it's a good idea. I am actually sticking to the point of the thread while 95% of other's posts are not.

But I am not going to refuse to adress you, so to respond to what you said here:
1. Okay, Hyperion Wharf is an exception, but it's a shopping center. Under Bob Iger and likely under future leadership, in this internet age, Disney has never and will never make a big announcement of and then cancel a new land. Avatar especially was not going to be cancelled because of what I said about this being an ego project. Bob would never back down like that.
2. I don't know how much they paid or how much in sales they will be giving up. The fact is that it's some amount for Avatar vs. no amount for an in-house idea, amd Avatar doesn't provide an advantage for that unknown amount.
3. Okay sure, they could've walked away. They wouldn't have though. It would've looked very very bad for Bob and for the company, and everyone would be talking about how they made such a mistake and how they made a knee-jerk reaction. It was really not an option.

Let me point out that I respect and enjoy reading everything you say, but I am frusterated that you say I'm not answering you. I'd be 100% fine if you just disagreed with me and gave reasons why, but to say I'm not answering you when I clearly am is just a weak and silly way to defend your argument.

And on top of that, you have still not answered my question! Why would Disney feel that the Avatar rights were worth spending and giving up money for? Why would Disney not regret their choice? I am very intrigued to hear your opinion but I assume you have avoided answering that for a reason. You've also avoided confronting other parts of what I said that go against your point. You'd make a good politician.

 

[Cesar R M]

im gonna take a gander and say the highest grossing film and highest grossing home market movie of all time with great adaptation to a theme park was on the market
with 3 more movies, a cirque show, new comic book series, along with book series
with the ability to keep DAK open later at night (so its not a half day)
are probably reasons at the top of the list

just my opinion of course

EDIT: let me say i get the merchandise angle of this debate because movies with high merchandise sales are typically kids movies and movies that deal with conservation and living as one with nature is probably not ideal for a 8 year old boy, but lets see what they come up with , afterall butterbeer was hardly ever mentioned in the movies and HP is very low on merch sales compared to star wars, pooh, hello kitty etc...

But We still do not have nothing of that. The only thing active, is the cirque show.
And some people complain it is less "acrobatic" and more "visual" than other circle shows.

 

[twebber55]

But We still do not have nothing of that. The only thing active, is the cirque show.
And some people complain it is less "acrobatic" and more "visual" than other circle shows.

thats certainly one way of spinning it

 

[BrianLo]

Why would Disney feel that the Avatar rights were worth spending and giving up money for? Why would Disney not regret their choice?

I feel Disney regrets the fact that in 2011 they really lacked solid viable IP options for WDW when they so clearly now have two in-house ones (Frozen and Star Wars) and a third (Marvel) that is a non-starter for WDW.

I think they regret having finally pulled the trigger on New Fantasyland at MK when one of their biggest Fantasy properties ever would bow practically after it opened.

I think they probably regret letting DHS languish for so long and not having utilized Star Wars to a fuller potential when it's done so spectacularly. That said I don't think they regret making the decision to wait to include the new trilogy as a basis for the new lands, that would have been a poor decision and reminiscent of New Fantasyland while ignoring the looming presence of the latest and greatest.

I think they regret all those things, but none of those things are a major IP appropriate to Animal Kingdom. None of those things could or would have been ready for 2017. I don't think there is any regret trying to make AK a full day park (it needs to be) and Avatar is still just about the only option left to do it other than an entirely original project. AK needed a big gun and a properly done Pandora (no matter the buzz around Avatar in 2017) can still do that. What's to regret in that case?

 

[Mike S]

I feel Disney regrets the fact that in 2011 they really lacked solid viable IP options for WDW when they so clearly now have two in-house ones (Frozen and Star Wars) and a third (Marvel) that is a non-starter for WDW.

I think they regret having finally pulled the trigger on New Fantasyland at MK when one of their biggest Fantasy properties ever would bow practically after it opened.

I think they probably regret letting DHS languish for so long and not having utilized Star Wars to a fuller potential when it's done so spectacularly. That said I don't think they regret making the decision to wait to include the new trilogy as a basis for the new lands, that would have been a poor decision and reminiscent of New Fantasyland while ignoring the looming presence of the latest and greatest.

I think they regret all those things, but none of those things are a major IP appropriate to Animal Kingdom. None of those things could or would have been ready for 2017. I don't think there is any regret trying to make AK a full day park (it needs to be) and Avatar is still just about the only option left to do it other than an entirely original project. AK needed a big gun and a properly done Pandora (no matter the buzz around Avatar in 2017) can still do that. What's to regret in that case?

The only regret I see is the spectacularly overblown budget. As in, "how the hell did we let one land get up to around $1 BILLION?!?!?!?! Who was in charge of the budget here?!?! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!!!!!"

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

The only regret I see is the spectacularly overblown budget. As in, "how the hell did we let one land get up to around $1 BILLION?!?!?!?! Who was in charge of the budget here?!?! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!!!!!"

I guess that's how Bruce Vaughn got to spend more time with his family. Hopefully with the change in leadership will get things under control and on budget. It's crazy to see what was done with Potter land and a 1/3 of the budget. We don't know how much influence Cameron had on the budget.

 

[No Name]

Okay now I will reply to some other people. Let me just say that, although I may sound like I do not like the idea, it is an expansion and I am excited about any addition.

let me say i get the merchandise angle of this debate because movies with high merchandise sales are typically kids movies and movies that deal with conservation and living as one with nature is probably not ideal for a 8 year old boy, but lets see what they come up with , afterall butterbeer was hardly ever mentioned in the movies and HP is very low on merch sales compared to star wars, pooh, hello kitty etc...

Thank you for not skirting around my (and others) argument, and instead, saying something that actually goes against our point about Avatar having troubling sales.

You are right that, in comparison to many other less kiddy movies and franchises, Avatar's sales are not horrible. You also make a good point that Harry Potter's sales weren't super strong before WWoHP opened. And as Universal made Harry Potter stuff sellable, Disney could do the same for Avatar.

I just can't imagine what Avatar-related stuff would appeal to people though. The wands, robes, books, etc. for Harry Potter make sense. Some people want to be a wizard for a day, others like the London feel, etc. But did people connect to the characters of Avatar in the same way? I don't know. And what will Disney sell? Tribal stuff, or idk, cat ears? Stuffed dragons maybe? I'm just not seeing it. I guess this is more of a personal feeling and doubt for me, because Avatar could bring in good merchandise sales and I'm sure they could come up with creative stuff to sell. I do think Navi are weird and creepy, but that's my opinion. Maybe the average theme park guest does not think they are creepy.

So you're right that Avatar could have good merch sales. It it worth giving a certian percentage of those sales away for though? Well I do not think so but that I guess that is up for opinion.

" 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.

Well, they do that weird syncing thing with their tail hair, which is like James Cameron's way of getting sex into a pg-13 movie.

I feel Disney regrets the fact that in 2011 they really lacked solid viable IP options for WDW when they so clearly now have two in-house ones (Frozen and Star Wars) and a third (Marvel) that is a non-starter for WDW.

I think they regret having finally pulled the trigger on New Fantasyland at MK when one of their biggest Fantasy properties ever would bow practically after it opened.

I think they probably regret letting DHS languish for so long and not having utilized Star Wars to a fuller potential when it's done so spectacularly. That said I don't think they regret making the decision to wait to include the new trilogy as a basis for the new lands, that would have been a poor decision and reminiscent of New Fantasyland while ignoring the looming presence of the latest and greatest.

I think they regret all those things, but none of those things are a major IP appropriate to Animal Kingdom. None of those things could or would have been ready for 2017. I don't think there is any regret trying to make AK a full day park (it needs to be) and Avatar is still just about the only option left to do it other than an entirely original project. AK needed a big gun and a properly done Pandora (no matter the buzz around Avatar in 2017) can still do that. What's to regret in that case?

Thank you for being someone to answeri my question. I think, what to regret about Avatar Land, is spending money on rights, giving up a percentage of future sales, and creating bad synergy by promoting someone else's property. A property that doesn't look to be worth those three big sacrifices. They could've gone with some movie or original idea of their own creation and avoided those negatives. That is the crux of my argument.

The only regret I see is the spectacularly overblown budget. As in, "how the hell did we let one land get up to around $1 BILLION?!?!?!?! Who was in charge of the budget here?!?! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!!!!!"

Yeah, I'd really like to check their balance sheets. I'm not buying that it's for better sound systems and structures and stuff that people like to defend their budgets by. I'm actually thinking someone is pocketing some money, and it's not Iger, Staggs, Rasulo (R.I.P), or any of the typical villainous people that I would expect to be doing this. Either that or terrible budget-management. Either one needs to be stopped and fixed ASAP.

We also don't know if it being over a billion is actually true, but all of WDW's recent projects have cost more than they should. Everest cost $100 million to build. I'd say that would cost them at least $400 million today. Something isn't right.

 

[Matt_Black]

I think they regret having finally pulled the trigger on New Fantasyland at MK when one of their biggest Fantasy properties ever would bow practically after it opened.

I think we can forgive them. This was started years before Frozen was even official, and even when it opened, the film was almost a year out, and no one knew if it was going to be a success or not.

 

[flyerjab]

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.

Excellent post!

My only opinion is that I think Pandora will be exceptional and that Disney regrets nothing. I will personally be there as close to opening day as possible because I have always been intrigued by this deal and think that the land will be an absolute grand slam. A deal that pretty much 99.9% of the forum members on this site know absolutely zero of the specifics as they have not seen it.

If someone doesn't like Avatar as a brand or franchise, or are troubled by the fact that they can't figure out how Disney can make sellable merchandise for, that is their right. I just wonder if those same people that attack this concept with such alacrity will go to see it first hand and then make those same judgements.

And why regret buying Avatar when Star Wars was there for the taking? Well, now Disney has both in their parks. To me that is not a horrible reality, in that I can take flight on a banshee, and then go over to TPFKaDHS and battle the First Order on the Falcon. How is that in any way a bad day?

To quote Hadden from the movie Contact: "First rule in government spending. Why build one when you can have two at twice the price?" Maybe more fitting for the 2 Star Wars Lands being constructed, but the point still works for the Pandora and Star Wars franchises.



@egg, you can have your opinion and that is fine. I personally feel that most of your points are just your opinion and are not rooted in any solid facts. Your argument is mainly circumstantial which doesn't always hold up in court. I have my opinion on Pandora. Maybe I will see you there…or maybe I won't. I still think that we will both win somehow.

 

[twebber55]

Excellent post!

My only opinion is that I think Pandora will be exceptional and that Disney regrets nothing. I will personally be there as close to opening day as possible because I have always been intrigued by this deal and think that the land will be an absolute grand slam. A deal that pretty much 99.9% of the forum members on this site know absolutely zero of the specifics as they have not seen it.

If someone doesn't like Avatar as a brand or franchise, or are troubled by the fact that they can't figure out how Disney can make sellable merchandise for, that is their right. I just wonder if those same people that attack this concept with such alacrity will go to see it first hand and then make those same judgements.

And why regret buying Avatar when Star Wars was there for the taking? Well, now Disney has both in their parks. To me that is not a horrible reality, in that I can take flight on a banshee, and then go over to TPFKaDHS and battle the First Order on the Falcon. How is that in any way a bad day?

To quote Hadden from the movie Contact: "First rule in government spending. Why build one when you can have two at twice the price?" Maybe more fitting for the 2 Star Wars Lands being constructed, but the point still works for the Pandora and Star Wars franchises.



@egg, you can have your opinion and that is fine. I personally feel that most of your points are just your opinion and are not rooted in any solid facts. Your argument is mainly circumstantial which doesn't always hold up in court. I have my opinion on Pandora. Maybe I will see you there…or maybe I won't. I still think that we will both win somehow.

what i find interesting is there are many people on this board who trash Disney (rightly so) for being greedy and just caring about the bottom line and then turn around and trash Avatar as a brand that cant sell merchandise...you cant have it both ways

 

[s8film40]

1. If you know anything about the history of Disney and specifically the theme parks there are literally whole books of ideas that were proposed but never built. A lot of them were leaked by insiders, but some of them were even announced. Hyperion Wharf comes to mind. So announcing Avatar would certainly not stop them from later cancelling it if they had real regrets.
2. How much did they pay? You say it was a large sum of money, but I've never seen the amount published anywhere official. Is that a fact or an assumption? Its hard to tell from your posts when you are stating facts vs giving your opinion. The way I understood the contract is that it was a licensing agreement. They paid an upfront fee for the exclusive theme park rights but there would be ongoing licensing fees paid as well once the land was built Similar to how the Marvel deal at Universal works. The upfront fee is all they would lose if they walked away or didn't build the land in time. I haven't seen the contract itself, but that is how it was explained to me by people with knowledge of the specifics.
3. James Cameron couldn't stop them from walking away. The contract allowed them to walk with only losing the initial fee paid.

The answer to why they didn't scrap the plans lies in why they decided to build the land in the first place. This wasn't some new project or new resort or simply just a regular addition to an existing park. This was a solution to a problem, the problem being that Universal built WWoHP and not only outdid Disney on a creative level but a financial level as well. This results in stock holders and the general public alike turning to Disney and wanting to know if Disney will be able to compete on that level. It's a pretty serious thing as any analyst looking at it will judge Disney's ability to compete and make predictions down the line based on it. Quite simply if Disney can't create an answer to what Universal did then it's just a waiting game as their business slips away. They desperately needed something and Avatar was the answer, to falter with that and backtrack on their plans would only indicate that they were having trouble coming up with something to counter WWoHP. It's unfortunately one of those things they just had to stick with. So absolutely I think they regret it, but I think they just really had no choice.

Also we seem to be caught up on merchandise and while this is important it's not the fact that there is little Avatar merchandise but rather why there is little Avatar merchandise is an indicator as to why Avatar land won't be popular. Harry Potter for example may not have had much merchandise before WWoHP but it had fans, kids would dress up, go to the movies, read the books and overall enjoyed experiencing the world of Harry Potter. Avatar was a very visually stunning movie, everyone just had to go see it. Everyone saw it said "wow that was very visually stunning!" and then stopped caring. Avatar didn't create the kind of world that people wanted to learn more about, people didn't want to dress up like the characters, buy merchandise or really see anything else having to do with Avatar, it was a special effects show nothing more.

 

[twebber55]

The answer to why they didn't scrap the plans lies in why they decided to build the land in the first place. This wasn't some new project or new resort or simply just a regular addition to an existing park. This was a solution to a problem, the problem being that Universal built WWoHP and not only outdid Disney on a creative level but a financial level as well. This results in stock holders and the general public alike turning to Disney and wanting to know if Disney will be able to compete on that level. It's a pretty serious thing as any analyst looking at it will judge Disney's ability to compete and make predictions down the line based on it. Quite simply if Disney can't create an answer to what Universal did then it's just a waiting game as their business slips away. They desperately needed something and Avatar was the answer, to falter with that and backtrack on their plans would only indicate that they were having trouble coming up with something to counter WWoHP. It's unfortunately one of those things they just had to stick with. So absolutely I think they regret it, but I think they just really had no choice.

Also we seem to be caught up on merchandise and while this is important it's not the fact that there is little Avatar merchandise but rather why there is little Avatar merchandise is an indicator as to why Avatar land won't be popular. Harry Potter for example may not have had much merchandise before WWoHP but it had fans, kids would dress up, go to the movies, read the books and overall enjoyed experiencing the world of Harry Potter. Avatar was a very visually stunning movie, everyone just had to go see it. Everyone saw it said "wow that was very visually stunning!" and then stopped caring. Avatar didn't create the kind of world that people wanted to learn more about, people didn't want to dress up like the characters, buy merchandise or really see anything else having to do with Avatar, it was special effects show nothing more.

so dont you think if there were millions of people saying "you have to go see this movie the visuals are incredible" those same people are gonna say we have to go to DAK to see Pandora in real time
i mean there is a reason its the highest grossing movie of all time and then turned around to become the highest home market movie of all time...people wanted to go there, the same will happen when the land opens
heck MK saw a 6% bump in attendance after NFL and that land wont be near as immersive as Pandora, no where near the same scale.... if you havent been to DAK since the mtns have been built you have no idea the size of those things, its incredible

 

[s8film40]

so dont you think if there were millions of people saying "you have to go see this movie the visuals are incredible" those same people are gonna say we have to go to DAK to see Pandora in real time
i mean there is a reason its the highest grossing movie of all time and then turned around to become the highest home market movie of all time...people wanted to go there, the same will happen when the land opens
heck MK saw a 6% bump in attendance after NFL and that land wont be near as immersive as Pandora, no where near the same scale.... if you havent been to DAK since the mtns have been built you have no idea the size of those things, its incredible

To some degree yes. I don't think it's enough to sway most peoples travel plans though. It's more of an if we're going to WDW anyway will stop by and look at it. I think most people who bought those movie tickets or home videos saw it enjoyed the visuals and stopped caring. Avatar just doesn't have a big fan following.

Instead of merchandise take for example forums like this one. They're generally a pretty good indicator of how engaged the fan community is.

WDW Magic for example has 89,779 members, the largest Harry Potter one I found has 546,930 members. As for Avatar you have to look past the other Avatar forums Avatar: the Last Airbender has 15,295 members and there's some RPG game called Shroud of the Avatar with
168,944 members. Best I could find for actual Avatar was one with 13,756 members. There are likely many other ways to evaluate how Avatar holds up in building a fan following, but I think no matter how you look at it it's easy to see no one really cares about Avatar.

 

[flyerjab]

To some degree yes. I don't think it's enough to sway most peoples travel plans though. It's more of an if we're going to WDW anyway will stop by and look at it. I think most people who bought those movie tickets or home videos saw it enjoyed the visuals and stopped caring. Avatar just doesn't have a big fan following.

Instead of merchandise take for example forums like this one. They're generally a pretty good indicator of how engaged the fan community is.

WDW Magic for example has 89,779 members, the largest Harry Potter one I found has 546,930 members. As for Avatar you have to look past the other Avatar forums Avatar: the Last Airbender has 15,295 members and there's some RPG game called Shroud of the Avatar with
168,944 members. Best I could find for actual Avatar was one with 13,756 members. There are likely many other ways to evaluate how Avatar holds up in building a fan following, but I think no matter how you look at it it's easy to see no one really cares about Avatar.

That is all well and good. The simple fact is that Disney Imagineering is building a land that seems to be on par with some of the visuals people were amazed by in that movie. I fully expect the Floating Mountains and night time glow of the land to be a huge draw into that land, a land you yourself just stated moviegoers lined up because they had to go see it. Now Disney is giving them the ability to walk into that land and experience it all over again in new ways beyond what a standard 3D film can achieve. And in the end, if the rides and attractions are done well enough, people won't need to be a fan of the movie to go on them.

What is interesting is that people that are not supporters of this expansion many times base it on the fact that the IP is not part of the cultural zeitgeist of the time. Was Space Mountain? Or BTMRR? Or PotC? Or EE? Etc. it doesn't need to be an uber hot IP for the land to be a success. Interestingly enough, that is something people push for on these boards all the time. Would Beastly Kingdom have been better? Maybe. But maybe Pandora can be just as good or better.

And another point I will make regarding fan sites like these. I like a lot of the posters on this site and I live this site tremendously. IMHO, I do not think that we are good stewards for the typical park visitors in any way. We are the elite fan boy or girl in many cases that are hyper critical of what this company does on a daily basis. I recall several posters arguing about the color of the high line in DS one time. Is that typical of the normal park goer? Ummm...no.

And that is all good. This topic is very charged with strong opinion in both directions. We just happen to be on polar opposite sides.

 

[dstrawn9889]

here is what this thread is... other than immaterial. it is almost finished, who gives a Damn if they regret it or not? enjoy it, or dont do to it.

 

[GoofGoof]

I have actually directly answered the question of what has changed, and why Disney would regret their decision now. As much as I am apparently saying why it's a bad idea (I'm actually arguing why Disney would regret it, you are confusing the two), you are giving your biased opinion on why it's a good idea. I am actually sticking to the point of the thread while 95% of other's posts are not.

But I am not going to refuse to adress you, so to respond to what you said here:
1. Okay, Hyperion Wharf is an exception, but it's a shopping center. Under Bob Iger and likely under future leadership, in this internet age, Disney has never and will never make a big announcement of and then cancel a new land. Avatar especially was not going to be cancelled because of what I said about this being an ego project. Bob would never back down like that.
2. I don't know how much they paid or how much in sales they will be giving up. The fact is that it's some amount for Avatar vs. no amount for an in-house idea, amd Avatar doesn't provide an advantage for that unknown amount.
3. Okay sure, they could've walked away. They wouldn't have though. It would've looked very very bad for Bob and for the company, and everyone would be talking about how they made such a mistake and how they made a knee-jerk reaction. It was really not an option.

Let me point out that I respect and enjoy reading everything you say, but I am frusterated that you say I'm not answering you. I'd be 100% fine if you just disagreed with me and gave reasons why, but to say I'm not answering you when I clearly am is just a weak and silly way to defend your argument.

And on top of that, you have still not answered my question! Why would Disney feel that the Avatar rights were worth spending and giving up money for? Why would Disney not regret their choice? I am very intrigued to hear your opinion but I assume you have avoided answering that for a reason. You've also avoided confronting other parts of what I said that go against your point. You'd make a good politician.

Sorry, but you actually are not answering the question asked.

The question is does Disney regret the decision to purchase the theme park rights to Avatar. You are explaining all the reasons you feel they should regret the decision, but none of that is evidence that Bob Iger and his crew actually do regret it. If the question was "do you think that Disney should regret the decision to buy the theme park rights to Avatar" then your series of posts would be a very thorough explanation of your opinion on why it's a bad idea and why they should regret it. Like I said a few times already there are literally hundreds of pages of threads on why Avatar is a bad idea. In 2011 or maybe even 2014 I would have been more than happy to engage in debate around whether Avatar is a good idea or a good fit or a good investment or even a good movie, but I just can't go through it again. There is nothing to be said that hasn't already been said 100 times at least. If you weren't around back then I suggest going back to those old threads. You may actually be surprised at how many things we agree on.

It is pretty obvious to me at this point with your bolded questions that you don't understand what the original question was. You are asking me to engage in a debate on why I think the rights to Avatar were worth spending money on. I hope from this post you can understand why I feel that's completely irrelevant to this thread. My opinion on Avatar is irrelevant to whether Bob Iger regrets his decision. The only way Iger cares about me, you and all the other guests opinions is if nobody shows up when Avatarland opens and we all know that's not going to happen. People wait 2 hours to ride a 2.5 minute mini-coaster because it's new. The crowds are going to show up and Iger will be patting himself on the back the whole time.

 

[GoofGoof]

To some degree yes. I don't think it's enough to sway most peoples travel plans though. It's more of an if we're going to WDW anyway will stop by and look at it. I think most people who bought those movie tickets or home videos saw it enjoyed the visuals and stopped caring. Avatar just doesn't have a big fan following.

Instead of merchandise take for example forums like this one. They're generally a pretty good indicator of how engaged the fan community is.

WDW Magic for example has 89,779 members, the largest Harry Potter one I found has 546,930 members. As for Avatar you have to look past the other Avatar forums Avatar: the Last Airbender has 15,295 members and there's some RPG game called Shroud of the Avatar with
168,944 members. Best I could find for actual Avatar was one with 13,756 members. There are likely many other ways to evaluate how Avatar holds up in building a fan following, but I think no matter how you look at it it's easy to see no one really cares about Avatar.

This is kinda off topic, but here goes anyway. Forget about Harry Potter. Nobody at Disney realistically looked at Avatar and said this will be bigger than Harry Potterland or we can sell as much merchandise as Universal does with Harry Potter. That's just fanboy message board rhetoric. There aren't more than a handful of franchises out there that have as much fan appeal as Harry Potter. That doesn't mean they can't be used.

The one way Universal factored into the decision is that Disney had to act before Universal bought the rights to Avatar. Universal already worked with Cameron on Terminator so they had a relationship. That may have forced their hand into acting sooner than they wanted to and partially explains the delay in construction. You know how Disney loves to spread capital expense over many years and the 2011 to 2014 timeframe already had major projects at both domestic parks and the start of a park in China.

 

[GoofGoof]

here is what this thread is... other than immaterial. it is almost finished, who gives a Damn if they regret it or not? enjoy it, or dont do to it.

The same can be said for most threads on this site. It's just a discussion. If you don't give a damn then why bother reading or posting.

 

[Matt_Black]

The same can be said for most threads on this site. It's just a discussion. If you don't give a damn then why bother reading or posting.

Why? Because we like you!