Avatar Land...think Disney regrets the idea?

[GoofGoof]

Iger could be juggling other things to keep the value higher.

Remember its not the first time that Iger as dodged questions about Shangai and other projects overrunning their budgets.

With the issues at ESPN and delays in China Iger would be thrilled if analysts focused more attention on Avatar or even WDW. Just wait until the land opens, the following earnings call will be a glowing report of how its pushing attendance to record levels. Of course there will be no evidence given that Avatar is actually the driving force behind the attendance but that won't stop them from claiming it. They did when FLE opened.

 

[Marlins1]

That I think must be one of the biggest WDW regrets ever. Barely had the first spade entered the ground for NFL, or Tangled and Frozen burst onto the scene. Meanwhile BatB and Mermaid were already served quite decently in DHS.

Not that personally I mind that much. Disney properties are timeless, it doesn't matter that they build the movies of last generation's the formative period. I'd still love for them to build a 101 Dalmatians or Steamboat Willy ride.
Also, the idea is not that the parks serve 'whatever IP is hot (Frozen) or need pushing from the marketing department (Toy Story)', but that the IP's serve the parks. There is no necessity for WDW to build anything Frozen. Only to build great theme parks.

I agree that is a much bigger regret because it was a huge missed opportunity. Imagine if NFL had been a Tangled boat ride, Frozen dark ride and Be Our Guest (the most impressive part of what was built). MK would have blown past 20 million easily and they could have left Snow White's Scary Adventures alone.

 

[No Name]

What I still believe you are asking is whether I think they should regret it.

You make asbolutely zero sense.

I clearly asked why you think they do regret it, not why you like it or why you think they should regret it. But you continue to misread or misunderstand what I blatantly asked. My question isn't up for interpretation, it's clearly worded in a way that captures the entire point of this thread.

And since there is no factual answer, we both have to give opinion, so please do not criticize me for including opinion when you are doing that as well. There is no way to NOT give our own opinions because we are not in their heads. But anway, are some places where you've given opinions (or been flat out wrong):

wasn't any more or less popular in 2014 [than 2011] when they broke ground and that really hasn't changed much since then either.

I highly disagree. Prove it.

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.

Again, your opinion. Well expect for the part about the sequels coming in 2017, that's plain wrong. No, they will come out in 2018 after the land opens.

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.

Opinion. Also, you likely have a different opinion on what a Potter Swatter is.

Whether Avatar is a better idea than some of the other arm chair imagineering ideas you list is completely irrelevant.

First of all, they're not "arm chair imagineering ideas" at all. They are ideas that were proposed and drawn out by real imagineers. Your multiple incorrect statements throughout the thread are really showing how much knowledge you have of the topic. And whether Avatar is a better idea is 100% relevant. If Avatar Land is not a better idea, than it was not worth spending money on and giving royalties for, and therefore Disney regrets their decision.


I'm not going to go on, you get the point. Or at least I would hope you'd get it, but that seems to be the issue.

Just please answer my question, and stop saying what you (incorrectly) think I'm asking when I stated it in a very clear way. My question is the esssence of this thread. Just give an answer or point me to where you did answer and we can actually have a meaningful discussion. And if you can't answer, well then, you are refusing to discuss the topic of this thread, and you're basically saying that the thread's question cannot be discussed. And if you misread or refuse to answer, there is no hope of intelligent conversation, so I will take my gold medal and leave. This is distracting and probably unbearable to everyone else on this board.

***Sorry to everyone else who has to deal with this. I would like to have a good conversation but goof is not allowing that to happen. I cannot leave though before he either answers my question, or acknowledges that he can't answer or has no good one. It would be lame and ignorant of me to walk away but that is what I might have to do if this goes nowhere.***

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

I guess I will wait till the Pandora opens to reserve judgement on the land.

 

[No Name]

I guess I will wait till the Pandora opens to reserve judgement on the land.

Yes, that's what I plan to do and that's what we all should all strive to do. I believe the land will be amazing. The budget is high, but to be honest, the new technology they are creating could very well be fully worth that billion dollars. We can't judge until we see.

I think the topic of whether Disney regrets it or not would be a much more interesting and solid conversation in at least 3 years from now. Right now it's a lot of spitballing, and while I may think inside that I'm right, there is absolutely no way to prove it and so everyone can criticize everyone else and nobody can truly emerge a winner as of now. When there are actual stats on how well the land is doing, then we can come to better conclusions.

And with that, I think I am done here for now. The boiled egg has fried the rest of the carton, and it will take time for the others to feel the burn.

 

[unkadug]

...And with that, I think I am done here for now. The boiled egg has fried the rest of the carton, and it will take time for the others to feel the burn.

Jr high? Certainly not a High School argument.

 

[No Name]

Jr high? Certainly not a High School argument.

Huh? Oh c'mon, you don't appreciate my metaphorical endings? How could you?

But this egg also has a hard shell, and your words cannot crack it.

 

[GoofGoof]

@egg If people are annoyed by this back and forth they can put us both on ignore. No need to apologize for having a discussion or an argument if you prefer to call it that. Since you keep asking I'll try to answer your question. I assume this is the one you want me to try to answer:

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

To answer question #1, in my opinion Disney probably decided to buy the rights to Avatar for some of the following reasons and there are probably others I'm forgetting:

• It was the highest grossing film of all time with sequels on the way
• The deal affords Disney the opportunity to work directly with James Cameron and his Lightstorm Entertainment people as creative consultants
• The movie was known for having stunning visual effects (especially 3D) which translate well into a theme park ride
• The movie had a highly recognizable setting that if done correctly should be visually stunning in a theme park environment
• The movie has some underlying themes of conservation which is one of the core themes of AK
• AK needed an addition with several people eating rides that could be enjoyed at night as well as during the day to anchor its expansion to a full day park.
• This deal blocked Universal from buying theme park rights to Avatar and potentially building it down the road from WDW

For question # 2 in my opinion they probably don't regret the decision so I'm not sure how to answer that. I'll say that they probably don't regret the choice because none of the items listed above have changed. I'm trying to avoid further frustrating you or not making sense but in my view something usually has to happen or change for you to regret a decision. Kraft foods regrets having Bill Cosby as its spokesperson for Jello Pudding pops because the allegations against Cosby became public. Pete Carrol regrets not running the ball in the Super Bowl since the pass got picked off and they lost the game. People get drunk or just do stupid spontaneous things all the time and regret it, but this was not a spontaneous move it was thought out and vetted by the people involved. I'm sure they considered alternatives at the time. Obviously, if the land bombs like @s8film40 thinks and nobody shows up then I'm sure they will regret the decision but as of right now, as I sit here typing this, there is nothing that has changed that would cause regret (budget overruns aside).

There are literally hundreds of possible alternatives Disney could have picked instead of Avatar. Those same alternatives existed in 2011 and 2014 and still do now. I have a hard time believing that any of those alternatives would cause Iger to regret the decision now because he could have just picked one of those in 2011 with no money down and no formal announcement. The one exception could be Star Wars since Disney didn't buy Lucas Films until a year later, but I think they are happy with Star Wars anchoring the DHS reboot.

So hopefully that qualifies as an answer to your question.

 

[Cesar R M]

I guess I will wait till the Pandora opens to reserve judgement on the land.

You could always get a bit of the taste in the Avatar construction threads.
Because some parts are looking pretty impressive already.

 

[Cesar R M]

@egg If people are annoyed by this back and forth they can put us both on ignore. No need to apologize for having a discussion or an argument if you prefer to call it that. Since you keep asking I'll try to answer your question. I assume this is the one you want me to try to answer:

To answer question #1, in my opinion Disney probably decided to buy the rights to Avatar for some of the following reasons and there are probably others I'm forgetting:

• It was the highest grossing film of all time with sequels on the way
• The deal affords Disney the opportunity to work directly with James Cameron and his Lightstorm Entertainment people as creative consultants
• The movie was known for having stunning visual effects (especially 3D) which translate well into a theme park ride
• The movie had a highly recognizable setting that if done correctly should be visually stunning in a theme park environment
• The movie has some underlying themes of conservation which is one of the core themes of AK
• AK needed an addition with several people eating rides that could be enjoyed at night as well as during the day to anchor its expansion to a full day park.
• This deal blocked Universal from buying theme park rights to Avatar and potentially building it down the road from WDW

For question # 2 in my opinion they probably don't regret the decision so I'm not sure how to answer that. I'll say that they probably don't regret the choice because none of the items listed above have changed. I'm trying to avoid further frustrating you or not making sense but in my view something usually has to happen or change for you to regret a decision. Kraft foods regrets having Bill Cosby as its spokesperson for Jello Pudding pops because the allegations against Cosby became public. Pete Carrol regrets not running the ball in the Super Bowl since the pass got picked off and they lost the game. People get drunk or just do stupid spontaneous things all the time and regret it, but this was not a spontaneous move it was thought out and vetted by the people involved. I'm sure they considered alternatives at the time. Obviously, if the land bombs like @s8film40 thinks and nobody shows up then I'm sure they will regret the decision but as of right now, as I sit here typing this, there is nothing that has changed that would cause regret (budget overruns aside).

There are literally hundreds of possible alternatives Disney could have picked instead of Avatar. Those same alternatives existed in 2011 and 2014 and still do now. I have a hard time believing that any of those alternatives would cause Iger to regret the decision now because he could have just picked one of those in 2011 with no money down and no formal announcement. The one exception could be Star Wars since Disney didn't buy Lucas Films until a year later, but I think they are happy with Star Wars anchoring the DHS reboot.

So hopefully that qualifies as an answer to your question.

The only thing I see a problem for Disney right now.. is that both James Cameron and Iger are going one on one with delays lol.

 

[GoofGoof]

The only thing I see a problem for Disney right now.. is that both James Cameron and Iger are going one on one with delays lol.

Yep, it would be pretty damn hypocritical for Disney to come down on Cameron fro delays given their track record

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

You could always get a bit of the taste in the Avatar construction threads.
Because some parts are looking pretty impressive already.

Trust me I've seen them and very impressed!

 

[No Name]

@egg If people are annoyed by this back and forth they can put us both on ignore. No need to apologize for having a discussion or an argument if you prefer to call it that. Since you keep asking I'll try to answer your question. I assume this is the one you want me to try to answer:

To answer question #1, in my opinion Disney probably decided to buy the rights to Avatar for some of the following reasons and there are probably others I'm forgetting:

• It was the highest grossing film of all time with sequels on the way
• The deal affords Disney the opportunity to work directly with James Cameron and his Lightstorm Entertainment people as creative consultants
• The movie was known for having stunning visual effects (especially 3D) which translate well into a theme park ride
• The movie had a highly recognizable setting that if done correctly should be visually stunning in a theme park environment
• The movie has some underlying themes of conservation which is one of the core themes of AK
• AK needed an addition with several people eating rides that could be enjoyed at night as well as during the day to anchor its expansion to a full day park.
• This deal blocked Universal from buying theme park rights to Avatar and potentially building it down the road from WDW

For question # 2 in my opinion they probably don't regret the decision so I'm not sure how to answer that. I'll say that they probably don't regret the choice because none of the items listed above have changed. I'm trying to avoid further frustrating you or not making sense but in my view something usually has to happen or change for you to regret a decision. Kraft foods regrets having Bill Cosby as its spokesperson for Jello Pudding pops because the allegations against Cosby became public. Pete Carrol regrets not running the ball in the Super Bowl since the pass got picked off and they lost the game. People get drunk or just do stupid spontaneous things all the time and regret it, but this was not a spontaneous move it was thought out and vetted by the people involved. I'm sure they considered alternatives at the time. Obviously, if the land bombs like @s8film40 thinks and nobody shows up then I'm sure they will regret the decision but as of right now, as I sit here typing this, there is nothing that has changed that would cause regret (budget overruns aside).

There are literally hundreds of possible alternatives Disney could have picked instead of Avatar. Those same alternatives existed in 2011 and 2014 and still do now. I have a hard time believing that any of those alternatives would cause Iger to regret the decision now because he could have just picked one of those in 2011 with no money down and no formal announcement. The one exception could be Star Wars since Disney didn't buy Lucas Films until a year later, but I think they are happy with Star Wars anchoring the DHS reboot.

So hopefully that qualifies as an answer to your question.

Yes, yes, yes! I feel as though we have entered a new age of communication. The question... and the answer. After many tries, we have finally succeeded, and instead of criticizing each other's delivery, we can have a more meaningful discussion.

I think your second, third, maybe fourth, and sixth bullets represent a big lack of faith in imagineering to do something original themselves. I do not have that lack of faith, but whether you and I do or do not is indeed irrelevant. Because I think we can both agree that Bob Iger and other execs have shown that lack of faith through their words and actions (look at some of Tom Staggs's early Avatar comments when it was announced if you disagree). And since the question is whether Disney regrets their decision, those points are very very good ones. I can picture Bob and Tom still thinking Avatar provides a huge advantage in those areas. So yes, you have given a good answer, thank you!

Before, I was staring at the bottom of the mountain, wondering how we could ever reach new heights. But now we are at the top, and over the horizon I can see a whole vast land of new topics which are waiting to be debated. I see a great future.

Also, sure the ignore option is there, but I'd hate to be put on ignore for any reason, especially this. That's why I felt the need to apologize.

So it's late in my realm and I have to go. Tomorrow, I can give some reasons as to why I disagree (not personally but from Disney's perspective) with certain things you said, if you'd like. But today, I don't have time, and it's not necessary. Today, I am glad to end on a high note and start the week in a new light. You have answered the question and made my day. I hate to say it, but it is true, today will be a day long remembered.

 

[RonnieHare]

No sequels coming out is a blow. But they will come out ... gives the attraction a long term future. If you can find one solitary downer over Harry Potter at Universal is that the once they finished it, only one movie was left to be released. The books are ever lasting, but the hype around those early years was unparralleled and Universal just came at the end of the ride.

At least with Avatar there is a long term hoopla over the attraction. To many people are blazay over this movie - you have to remember it's the biggest ever box office movie in all of history. Even beating Star Wars.

 

[s8film40]

No sequels coming out is a blow. But they will come out ... gives the attraction a long term future. If you can find one solitary downer over Harry Potter at Universal is that the once they finished it, only one movie was left to be released. The books are ever lasting, but the hype around those early years was unparralleled and Universal just came at the end of the ride.

At least with Avatar there is a long term hoopla over the attraction. To many people are blazay over this movie - you have to remember it's the biggest ever box office movie in all of history. Even beating Star Wars.

I will say if the sequels come out and somehow they do manage to create a huge interest in Avatar, Disney will be positioned perfectly with this land.

Everyone keeps mentioning Avatar's box office records. That's great and all but it really doesn't have much bearing on the potential success of an IP in a theme park attraction. Before Avatar, Titanic held the number 1 box office spot. How come Disney and/or Universal weren't rushing to secure the theme park rights for Titanic?

 

[Tony the Tigger]

@egg If people are annoyed by this back and forth they can put us both on ignore. No need to apologize for having a discussion or an argument if you prefer to call it that. Since you keep asking I'll try to answer your question. I assume this is the one you want me to try to answer:

To answer question #1, in my opinion Disney probably decided to buy the rights to Avatar for some of the following reasons and there are probably others I'm forgetting:

• It was the highest grossing film of all time with sequels on the way
• The deal affords Disney the opportunity to work directly with James Cameron and his Lightstorm Entertainment people as creative consultants
• The movie was known for having stunning visual effects (especially 3D) which translate well into a theme park ride
• The movie had a highly recognizable setting that if done correctly should be visually stunning in a theme park environment
• The movie has some underlying themes of conservation which is one of the core themes of AK
• AK needed an addition with several people eating rides that could be enjoyed at night as well as during the day to anchor its expansion to a full day park.
• This deal blocked Universal from buying theme park rights to Avatar and potentially building it down the road from WDW

For question # 2 in my opinion they probably don't regret the decision so I'm not sure how to answer that. I'll say that they probably don't regret the choice because none of the items listed above have changed. I'm trying to avoid further frustrating you or not making sense but in my view something usually has to happen or change for you to regret a decision. Kraft foods regrets having Bill Cosby as its spokesperson for Jello Pudding pops because the allegations against Cosby became public. Pete Carrol regrets not running the ball in the Super Bowl since the pass got picked off and they lost the game. People get drunk or just do stupid spontaneous things all the time and regret it, but this was not a spontaneous move it was thought out and vetted by the people involved. I'm sure they considered alternatives at the time. Obviously, if the land bombs like @s8film40 thinks and nobody shows up then I'm sure they will regret the decision but as of right now, as I sit here typing this, there is nothing that has changed that would cause regret (budget overruns aside).

There are literally hundreds of possible alternatives Disney could have picked instead of Avatar. Those same alternatives existed in 2011 and 2014 and still do now. I have a hard time believing that any of those alternatives would cause Iger to regret the decision now because he could have just picked one of those in 2011 with no money down and no formal announcement. The one exception could be Star Wars since Disney didn't buy Lucas Films until a year later, but I think they are happy with Star Wars anchoring the DHS reboot.

So hopefully that qualifies as an answer to your question.

Some very good points - Avatar ticked a lot of boxes. I would add that WDW has a uniquely international clientele, and I believe I remember reading somewhere that Avatar was more of a phenomenon outside the US, like Brazil, etc. I know from the music business that Americans can have a skewed perspective about what is popular - people think if someone doesn't have huge follow-up hits in the US that they aren't popular, when they may in fact be hugely popular in Europe, Australia, etc.

And there are certainly different levels of "regret," which may be where some folks got hung up here. I don't think anyone suggested a hand-wringing, life altering regret, just more of a shouldn't have had that second piece of chocolate cake kind of regret.

Or, more apropos: I splurged on that new coat a few months ago, which seemed like a no-brainer at the time; but then I bought a new car, and that car payment would be easier if I didn't also have the credit card payment for that coat. In retrospect, I might not have gone for the coat, I might have just put that money towards the car, and then I wouldn't have had to cut out HBO and Showtime.

The coat is Avatar, the car is Star Wars.

You mentioned nothing has changed, but then referenced Star Wars at the end. In my opinion, that is what has changed. I think Star Wars more directly responded to the Harry Potter question – more precisely than Avatar did.

So if part of the motivation for avatar was a response to Harry Potter, Star Wars was a better response which made it in hindsight less necessary, at least in that one respect.

I think we are really more or less on the same page here.

 

[s8film40]

Or, more apropos: I splurged on that new coat a few months ago, which seemed like a no-brainer at the time; but then I bought a new car, and that car payment would be easier if I didn't also have the credit card payment for that coat. In retrospect, I might not have gone for the coat, I might have just put that money towards the car, and then I wouldn't have had to cut out HBO and Showtime.

The coat is Avatar, the car is Star Wars.

This is a perfect analogy! I assume HBO and Showtime are the cuts being made to WDW.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

This is a perfect analogy! I assume HBO and Showtime are the cuts being made to WDW.

Yes!

 

[twebber55]

I will say if the sequels come out and somehow they do manage to create a huge interest in Avatar, Disney will be positioned perfectly with this land.

Everyone keeps mentioning Avatar's box office records. That's great and all but it really doesn't have much bearing on the potential success of an IP in a theme park attraction. Before Avatar, Titanic held the number 1 box office spot. How come Disney and/or Universal weren't rushing to secure the theme park rights for Titanic?

simple really
avatar is a movie that has an environment conducive to a theme park setting, titanic a movie about 1500 people drowning is not

 

[twebber55]

Some very good points - Avatar ticked a lot of boxes. I would add that WDW has a uniquely international clientele, and I believe I remember reading somewhere that Avatar was more of a phenomenon outside the US, like Brazil, etc. I know from the music business that Americans can have a skewed perspective about what is popular - people think if someone doesn't have huge follow-up hits in the US that they aren't popular, when they may in fact be hugely popular in Europe, Australia, etc.

And there are certainly different levels of "regret," which may be where some folks got hung up here. I don't think anyone suggested a hand-wringing, life altering regret, just more of a shouldn't have had that second piece of chocolate cake kind of regret.

Or, more apropos: I splurged on that new coat a few months ago, which seemed like a no-brainer at the time; but then I bought a new car, and that car payment would be easier if I didn't also have the credit card payment for that coat. In retrospect, I might not have gone for the coat, I might have just put that money towards the car, and then I wouldn't have had to cut out HBO and Showtime.

The coat is Avatar, the car is Star Wars.

You mentioned nothing has changed, but then referenced Star Wars at the end. In my opinion, that is what has changed. I think Star Wars more directly responded to the Harry Potter question – more precisely than Avatar did.

So if part of the motivation for avatar was a response to Harry Potter, Star Wars was a better response which made it in hindsight less necessary, at least in that one respect.

I think we are really more or less on the same page here.

why does it have to be either or why not both
i ve said this before you open up a star wars park i open up a star wars, marvel and avatar park, i can guarantee you my park has many more people diversity will always win in this case
also, star wars in no way fits remotely into DAK where as Avatars central theme coincides perfectly with the theme of DAK, living in harmony with nature and conservation