Avatar Land...think Disney regrets the idea?

[s8film40]

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.

The point is millions of people went to see this movie and even after breaking box office records it failed to garner a true fan following. The reason you license an IP for a theme park attraction isn't just because it looks visually stunning, you could do that without licensing it. There's nothing stopping Disney or any other theme park operator from building a generic land with floating (with physical supports) mountains and glowing forest. You license an IP to allow the public to visit a world they've developed a strong affection to. Diagon Alley is very visually stunning in it's own way but when people walk in there and are blown away it isn't really because it's visually stunning but rather they have a connection to it and for a brief moment can pretend that they're in the very same place their favorite characters were and in turn feel a connection to the world that was created in those movies or books. Avatar was more about the visuals mostly because it was so dramatically different than other movies, this theme park land on the other hand is the exact opposite. It's pretty much your safe bets when it comes to theme parks a boat ride and a simulator. The glowing forrest will be something interesting but again I just don't see that being enough to make people really want to go there.

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.

I have an extremely hard time believing Universal had any interest at all in licensing Avatar. I will agree though that if Disney was misguided enough to think it was a good idea they could have been incorrectly worried about that.

 

[GoofGoof]

The glowing forrest will be something interesting but again I just don't see that being enough to make people really want to go there.

You seriously don't think people will show up when Avatarland opens? It's gonna be packed and years later it will still be packed.

 

[s8film40]

You seriously don't think people will show up when Avatarland opens? It's gonna be packed and years later it will still be packed.

I think it will be very busy the first day maybe even the first week, then I expect 15 minute waits for the rest of it's existence. Like I said before I think this is something people will want to go see if they're there, I just don't expect this to be any kind of driving force to get people to go. I think the average park goer will walk in look at it ride the ride and be done with it.

I think for very different reasons this will be Animal Kingdom's version of Stich's great Escape, theoretically they both should be huge successes they're based of a movie that did well, but the general public just doesn't care other than checking it off their list so they can say they did everything.

 

[Marlins1]

I don't agree but at least you are taking an actual position instead of the posts that say the land will be a success in attendance terms but will still be a failure because of merchandise or whatever. I don't think Splash, TOT, Soarin' or EE move a lot of merchandise but they certainly are not regrettable expansions. If you are right about the wait times yes this thing will be a massive regret for Disney. I think the park is going to be very crowded and I think having new nighttime options will make overall Disney vacation experiences better.

 

[flyerjab]

I think it will be very busy the first day maybe even the first week, then I expect 15 minute waits for the rest of it's existence. Like I said before I think this is something people will want to go see if they're there, I just don't expect this to be any kind of driving force to get people to go. I think the average park goer will walk in look at it ride the ride and be done with it.

I think for very different reasons this will be Animal Kingdom's version of Stich's great Escape, theoretically they both should be huge successes they're based of a movie that did well, but the general public just doesn't care other than checking it off their list so they can say they did everything.

Man I couldn't disagree with you more on this point.

 

[GoofGoof]

I think it will be very busy the first day maybe even the first week, then I expect 15 minute waits for the rest of it's existence. Like I said before I think this is something people will want to go see if they're there, I just don't expect this to be any kind of driving force to get people to go. I think the average park goer will walk in look at it ride the ride and be done with it.

I think for very different reasons this will be Animal Kingdom's version of Stich's great Escape, theoretically they both should be huge successes they're based of a movie that did well, but the general public just doesn't care other than checking it off their list so they can say they did everything.

We shall see. FLE was completed 2 years ago and Mine Train still gets really long waits. Do the 7 dwarfs have a huge following that I'm not aware of that keeps the ride busy? I think you underestimate the new ride factor. Not everyone who visits Disney parks lives locally or plans a trip for the grand opening. There will be people going 5 years after the ride opens who still have never seen it.

I hate to do this, but Splash Mountain still regularly gets 60 minute plus waits in the off season and upwards of 2 hours at peak times. Song of the South must have one heck of an underground following since the success or failure of a theme park attraction is based solely on the popularity of the IP. The same can be said for Twilight Zone. ToT has longer waits and is the anchor for the park now despite being based on an IP that is way more irrelevant than Avatar.

I do agree that Avatar will not be a major driving force to get people to go to WDW just like FLE wasn't. It won't be the sole reason someone books a trip to WDW. In this case it's part of a plan to make AK a full day park, driving food and merchandise sales and keeping people on property longer. WDW doesn't need help pulling people in. This is not the same situation Universal was in when they build Potterland. The hotels are above 90% occupancy and the parks keep having record attendance almost every quarter. What they do need is to spread the crowds more evenly between the 4 parks and provide more for guests to do to keep people happy. MK is grossly overcrowded during peak times and especially at night. Sometimes freighteningly overcrowded. So much so that they redesigned the hub and built an alternate exit path to try to accommodate the crowds. Making AK an all day park and rebooting DHS should spread the crowds out, especially at night. Disney Springs and MM+ are also part of that plan. They can't grow the business anymore by just cramming more people into MK.

 

[MagicGoofy]

I think it will be very busy the first day maybe even the first week, then I expect 15 minute waits for the rest of it's existence. Like I said before I think this is something people will want to go see if they're there, I just don't expect this to be any kind of driving force to get people to go. I think the average park goer will walk in look at it ride the ride and be done with it.

I think for very different reasons this will be Animal Kingdom's version of Stich's great Escape, theoretically they both should be huge successes they're based of a movie that did well, but the general public just doesn't care other than checking it off their list so they can say they did everything.

This isn't even an opinion, you're just assuming things that can't really be known for another year... I guess you think people are gonna go in the morning and they aren't gonna want go back to the land at night? Lmao. Nobody is gonna wanna walk around the LAND?!! Its called a land not some c ticket ride. If the land is great than people will want to go back. Then again you already went to the land and rode the rides, so I should be listening to you!! I haven't had to do this to someone is a while. Thought we were over this.

Cars Land didn't make me want to go to DL again until it opened... Word of mouth and great reviews, etc can go a long way..

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Zootopia
Domestic Opening Weekend: $73.7 million
Rotten Tomatoes score: 98% (critics) 95% (audiences)
CinemaScore: A

Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

Man I couldn't disagree with you more on this point.

Could you give us an idea of how big the mountains are? I haven't been there since the project started and pictures don't do it justice. I am excited to step foot into a land that we have never seen before. From what I've seen so far, WDI has hit a home run.

 

[s8film40]

I don't agree but at least you are taking an actual position instead of the posts that say the land will be a success in attendance terms but will still be a failure because of merchandise or whatever. I don't think Splash, TOT, Soarin' or EE move a lot of merchandise but they certainly are not regrettable expansions. If you are right about the wait times yes this thing will be a massive regret for Disney. I think the park is going to be very crowded and I think having new nighttime options will make overall Disney vacation experiences better.

Part of my thinking is I expect these to be fairly high throughput rides, especially the boat ride. The simulator as I understand it is supposed to have four theaters. I think this is being built to handle large crowds, that coupled with Avatars unpopularity I think will create short wait times. That's not a bad thing though. All the examples you mention are generally considered to be thrill rides, people will wait for roller coasters and other thrill rides I just don't see them wiling to wait that long for a boat ride and a Soarin' type ride based on Avatar.

Man I couldn't disagree with you more on this point.

To be fair I think I could be leaning little to the extreme side of that, I think it could do better but I think what I suggested is a very real possibility.

We shall see. FLE was completed 2 years ago and Mine Train still gets really long waits. Do the 7 dwarfs have a huge following that I'm not aware of that keeps the ride busy? I think you underestimate the new ride factor. Not everyone who visits Disney parks lives locally or plans a trip for the grand opening. There will be people going 5 years after the ride opens who still have never seen it.

I hate to do this, but Splash Mountain still regularly gets 60 minute plus waits in the off season and upwards of 2 hours at peak times. Song of the South must have one heck of an underground following since the success or failure of a theme park attraction is based solely on the popularity of the IP. The same can be said for Twilight Zone. ToT has longer waits and is the anchor for the park now despite being based on an IP that is way more irrelevant than Avatar.

I do agree that Avatar will not be a major driving force to get people to go to WDW just like FLE wasn't. It won't be the sole reason someone books a trip to WDW. In this case it's part of a plan to make AK a full day park, driving food and merchandise sales and keeping people on property longer. WDW doesn't need help pulling people in. This is not the same situation Universal was in when they build Potterland. The hotels are above 90% occupancy and the parks keep having record attendance almost every quarter. What they do need is to spread the crowds more evenly between the 4 parks and provide more for guests to do to keep people happy. MK is grossly overcrowded during peak times and especially at night. Sometimes freighteningly overcrowded. So much so that they redesigned the hub and built an alternate exit path to try to accommodate the crowds. Making AK an all day park and rebooting DHS should spread the crowds out, especially at night. Disney Springs and MM+ are also part of that plan. They can't grow the business anymore by just cramming more people into MK.

As I said above Splash Montain ToT etc. are thrill rides, I don't really see the Avatar rides that way. Possibly to a small degree the simulator ride. Although outside of Soarin' simulators really don't get that long of waits.

I do agree that Avatar, the new nighttime show and the night safari will all help to round out DAKL into being closer to a full day park. I don't think Avatar itself is a factor in that though, it could have been any other IP or a generic land and still accomplished that.

 

[s8film40]

This isn't even an opinion, you're just assuming things that can't really be known for another year... I guess you think people are gonna go in the morning and they aren't gonna want go back to the land at night? Lmao. Nobody is gonna wanna walk around the LAND?!! Its called a land not some c ticket ride. If the land is great than people will want to go back. Then again you already went to the land and rode the rides, so I should be listening to you!! I haven't had to do this to someone is a while. Thought we were over this.

Cars Land didn't make me want to go to DL again until it opened... Word of mouth and great reviews, etc can go a long way..

It's not an opinion it's called speculation. I don't think I've stated anything as fact. What's going to be in this land is pretty well known as well as Avatars unpopularity. This is merely what I expect to happen based on the countless attractions that I have seen open over the years. That fact that this thread even exists shows there's reason to believe this land at least potentially won't perform as expected, you won't find a "do you think Universal regrets HP thread" for a very good reason.

 

[Andrew C]

Could you give us an idea of how big the mountains are? I haven't been there since the project started and pictures don't do it justice. I am excited to step foot into a land that we have never seen before. From what I've seen so far, WDI has hit a home run.

I was there last week and they were much larger in person than I would have expected by just looking at the pictures. Also a lot higher than I thought. Pretty cool all around.

 

[dstrawn9889]

well, if you look at the sections, each vertical mast section is ~ 20' tall...

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I don't doubt that the land will be well-done and successful. The plans sounded interesting no matter whether it was based on a movie or not, and/or whether I liked the movie or not. (I saw it weeks after it came out, bargain matinee LOL, and it was OK. I honestly don't remember much except the big flying things and the jerk at the end, and Sigourney Weaver was in it.)

But for all the people saying it "died out" or comparing it to the success of Potter and Star Wars - all that can (and hopefully will) change with the sequels. Cameron had a lot of work to do with all the effects on the first one. Now those effects are all in place, and maybe he can better focus on a more compelling story that will engage people more. Also, out of sight, out of mind. It's been a long time since that movie came out. The whole franchise can be reignited just as Star Wars was, however, again - it's one movie compared to two franchises with multiple installments over time.

The only reason I have mentioned Star Wars in previous posts was as legit curiosity - had the Star Wars deal been done first, would they have even bothered with Avatar? Given the financial straits they seem to be in now, cutting everything they possibly can, I think they could have let Avatar go, if that decision had come up in the last year or two vs. whenever the decision came up.

 

[No Name]

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.

The question of this thread does not have a factual answer. We do not know what is going on inside the mind of Bob Iger. Therefore, yes, I am giving my opinion as to why Disney would regret this. You are also giving your opinion as to why Disney wouldn't regret it. If you'd like me to point out everywhere where you are giving an opinion, I can do that. I am no less factual here than you are, and it is impossible not to bring opinion into this because none of us know what Disney is feeling. It's just our best educated guesses.

You are saying why this will be a great addition, how other things don't fit in AK, etc. All true. But you have still not said why it was worth paying money and royalties for Avatar instead of going with free options such as Lion King Land or Beastly Kingdom. If it was not worth paying that money for Avatar, then Disney regrets their choice.

So my question is the absolute essence of this thread. It is the reverse question of what this thread is asking. I am not asking if you think it's a good idea, I'm asking you to defend why Disney would think it's a good idea, which my question makes very clear. I fully understand what this thread is about, and I've read every one of the 260ish pages of the original Avatar Land thread. It's hilarious that since you seem to not have a good answer to the question, you are throwing false criticisms at me. It could not be any more related to the thread, but you seem to have trouble seeing that.

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

By the way, that question is open to everyone, and thank you BrianLo for answering.

If you can't answer my question, which is the exact question of this thread in the reverse form, then you have lost the argument. It's as simple as that.

 

[MagicGoofy]

It's not an opinion it's called speculation. I don't think I've stated anything as fact. What's going to be in this land is pretty well known as well as Avatars unpopularity. This is merely what I expect to happen based on the countless attractions that I have seen open over the years. That fact that this thread even exists shows there's reason to believe this land at least potentially won't perform as expected, you won't find a "do you think Universal regrets HP thread" for a very good reason.

Again. Cars wasn't a critically acclaimed movie and didn't make a pop culture dent but was the land successful? Yes it was... Pandora just needs to be a great land and thats it. It doesn't need the film to do its job. Like others have said, the land doesn't need to bring more people to the resort, It just needs to help spread people out. If people don't come to AK after rivers of light, nighttime safaris, nighttime events and Avatar land.. They most likely won't be coming ever quite frankly.

 

[twebber55]

I think it will be very busy the first day maybe even the first week, then I expect 15 minute waits for the rest of it's existence. Like I said before I think this is something people will want to go see if they're there, I just don't expect this to be any kind of driving force to get people to go. I think the average park goer will walk in look at it ride the ride and be done with it.

I think for very different reasons this will be Animal Kingdom's version of Stich's great Escape, theoretically they both should be huge successes they're based of a movie that did well, but the general public just doesn't care other than checking it off their list so they can say they did everything.

quoting for posterity and sheer wackiness

 

[s8film40]

Again. Cars wasn't a critically acclaimed movie and didn't make a pop culture dent but was the land successful? Yes it was... Pandora just needs to be a great land and thats it. It doesn't need the film to do its job. Like others have said, the land doesn't need to bring more people to the resort, It just needs to help spread people out. If people don't come to AK after rivers of light, nighttime safaris, nighttime events and Avatar land.. They most likely won't be coming ever quite frankly.

I would say Cars was far more relevant and popular amongst the general public prior to Cars land than Avatar is. After all it's a kids movie and like any good kids movie gets played on repeat in millions of homes. By the time Cars land opened there had already been a sequel and TV series of shorts, I would venture to say it's a safe guess that total Cars merchandise probably far outpaced Avatar merchandise prior to Cars land opening. I really have no idea how you are getting the idea that Cars didn't make a pop culture dent.

I agree the land doesn't need to bring more people to the resort and that spreading people out will be great, however to accomplish this it didn't need to be "Avatar" land and that's the point, that Disney probably and in my opinion regrets licensing Avatar. I don't think they regret additions to Animal Kingdom.

 

[MagicGoofy]

I would say Cars was far more relevant and popular amongst the general public prior to Cars land than Avatar is. After all it's a kids movie and like any good kids movie gets played on repeat in millions of homes. By the time Cars land opened there had already been a sequel and TV series of shorts, I would venture to say it's a safe guess that total Cars merchandise probably far outpaced Avatar merchandise prior to Cars land opening. I really have no idea how you are getting the idea that Cars didn't make a pop culture dent.

I agree the land doesn't need to bring more people to the resort and that spreading people out will be great, however to accomplish this it didn't need to be "Avatar" land and that's the point, that Disney probably and in my opinion regrets licensing Avatar. I don't think they regret additions to Animal Kingdom.

"it didn't need to be 'Avatar'" you're acting like its a burden that they had to license avatar, almost as if its painful lmao. They won't regret licensing Avatar if they keep bringing in record numbers. More guest satisfaction in terms of attractions and things to do won't hurt also.

In my opinion Pandora was a breathtaking and Immerseve world in the film. So it being avatar was beneficial, they could make a land that was just as recognisable (at least I think the mountains and Navi are) and had that "wow" factor. Its not like they bought an IP that had no theme park translation..

 

[GoofGoof]

The question of this thread does not have a factual answer. We do not know what is going on inside the mind of Bob Iger. Therefore, yes, I am giving my opinion as to why Disney would regret this. You are also giving your opinion as to why Disney wouldn't regret it. If you'd like me to point out everywhere where you are giving an opinion, I can do that. I am no less factual here than you are, and it is impossible not to bring opinion into this because none of us know what Disney is feeling. It's just our best educated guesses.

You are saying why this will be a great addition, how other things don't fit in AK, etc. All true. But you have still not said why it was worth paying money and royalties for Avatar instead of going with free options such as Lion King Land or Beastly Kingdom. If it was not worth paying that money for Avatar, then Disney regrets their choice.

So my question is the absolute essence of this thread. It is the reverse question of what this thread is asking. I am not asking if you think it's a good idea, I'm asking you to defend why Disney would think it's a good idea, which my question makes very clear. I fully understand what this thread is about, and I've read every one of the 260ish pages of the original Avatar Land thread. It's hilarious that since you seem to not have a good answer to the question, you are throwing false criticisms at me. It could not be any more related to the thread, but you seem to have trouble seeing that.

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

By the way, that question is open to everyone, and thank you BrianLo for answering.

If you can't answer my question, which is the exact question of this thread in the reverse form, then you have lost the argument. It's as simple as that.

Last I checked I thought we were having a discussion not an argument, but it is getting kinda old so I'll try one last time to explain this then I'm done.

Title of thread: Avatar Land...think Disney regrets the idea?
The original post you made that I responded to:

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?

The question is does Disney regret Avatarland. You answered yes and it's hardly debatable. That's what I originally responded to. Now you are saying that the question has no factual answer since we don't know what is going on in Iger's head so you are giving your opinion as to why they should regret the idea. At last we finally agree on something in this thread. Of course the bold and underlined section above completely contradicts your original post that the answer is definitely yes. I'm not sure why you can't see the difference between whether they have actual regret or whether you think they should.

The only fact we have to go on is that the project did not get cancelled and the budget wasn't cut and they had plenty of time to do both between when the deal was signed and 2014 when ground was broken. Everything else is just speculation or opinions.

You keep asking me the same bolded questions and I keep not answering them. It's not because I don't have a good answer it's just that my opinion is irrelevant when discussing whether Bob Iger regrets anything. You place far to much value on my opinions