AVATAR progress

[ToTBellHop]

Let Burbank keep the money for now. Board is holding the purse strings tighter, reallocate the money to an IP that they actually own. Iger doesn't make that Avatar deal if he knows he gets Star Wars a year later. It was a shortsighted desperation move by a guy with no vision.

If the money is spent in DAK on Avatar, its essentially wasted when it comes to me. I have no plans of ever visiting that park again or Disney Springs. So yeah, they can keep the money until they come up with a better plan.

It is views like this that have allowed Disney to increase park prices by 10% every year while not building a bona fide E-ticket since 2006.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I'd rather take the chance of getting a worthwhile DHS redo and no Avatar than Avatar and a half done DHS redo.

It sounds like we are getting a half-done DHS redo anyway. I'd rather have a golden goose but it's not happening. The options seem to be:

A) fancy shopping district, Avatar, modest DHS expansion
OR
B) fancy shopping district, modest DHS expansion

We aren't getting a DCA makeover. But we could get expansion of DCA's magnitude spread across two parks. But, agree to disagree.

 

[raymusiccity]

It is views like this that have allowed Disney to increase park prices by 10% every year while not building a bona fide E-ticket since 2006.

It will always be a matter of supply and demand that 'allows' Disney to increase park prices each year. When attendance slips, they'll either bring back more discounts or build new attractions.

 

[bubbles1812]

As much as I'd like to see this project wither on the vine, I think you're right. The park opening will sync up with one of the sequel release dates, whenever those happen.

The word of the day is synergy!! Wonderful glorius synergy!! And with a property they won't even distribute!!

 

[Fox&Hound]

I have no doubt that Disney is purposely dragging its feet to see what will develop with Avatar. Cameron in known for taking a really long time on his film projects so why start Avatar now if the second and third movies happen 15 years from now? Or, what if they do not happen at all? I understand the argument being made, "Avatar or nothing" and while I hate to see nothing happen I also hate to see Disney spend all of this money to get a "meh" reaction. Think about it! Disney builds New Fantasyland and while I personally love it, the public says "meh, looks nice, not a lot of substance" and it does not increase attendance dramatically. Then, they save up their pennies and invest in Avatar. The public says "meh, I hated the movie and while the ride is nice it is nothing to go to FL to see." No big attendance boost (yes, I know it's not completed yet. It could be amazing. I hope it's amazing. Trust me, I really really do hope its amazing, but I do have my doubts). In this hypothetical situation, how much money has been spent on these two major projects that doesn't help Disney from a financial standpoint but actually hurts them because of the money spent. And then, Disney says, "You know what, we're not going to undertake these major expansion projects if they can't/don't help us". Is that the lesson we want Disney to learn????

As I said, I'd looooove for Avatar to be a success. But if it's a bust, I really fear that Disney will stop building for a while.

 

[WDWDad13]

I have a feeling Disney has other plans for AK if avatar doesn't happen... maybe they need to dust those off and review... just saying... with all these delays and lack of news and concept art...if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's not Donald

 

[SirLink]

You do all realize if we don't get Avatar, we get nothing at DAK, right? So, we could get a very impressive E-ticket with questionable source material or...nothing. Do you still want to be riding the "brand new" Expedition Everest in 2020?

Hardly - they still have the redesigned Tokyo MI for the CMM spot. Guess what they get to keep all the money from the shops + food/bev as well. Now if I'm on the BoD and I'm given both this project or MI remake with dragons with plans already sitting on the shelf I'd go for the one that "we" own outright.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Hardly - they still have the redesigned Tokyo MI for the CMM spot. Guess what they get to keep all the money from the shops + food/bev as well. Now if I'm on the BoD and I'm given both this project or MI remake with dragons with plans already sitting on the shelf I'd go for the one that "we" own outright.

And yet they are building Avatar.

 

[SirLink]

And yet they are building Avatar.

Where is the steel, foundations, concrete and 7ft Blue Brazilians then?

 

[ToTBellHop]

Where is the steel, foundations, concrete and Blue Brazilians then?

Closer to arriving than those components of a Mt. Prometheus.

 

[SirLink]

Closer to arriving than those components of a Mt. Prometheus.

Funny one has completed plans on a shelf ready for deployment and one the plans keep changing...

 

[ToTBellHop]

Funny one has completed plans on a shelf ready for deployment and one the plans keep changing...

Right. And one is being developed while the other sits on a shelf under an inch of dust.

 

[Skunk]

Hardly - they still have the redesigned Tokyo MI for the CMM spot. Guess what they get to keep all the money from the shops + food/bev as well. Now if I'm on the BoD and I'm given both this project or MI remake with dragons with plans already sitting on the shelf I'd go for the one that "we" own outright.

One, I wouldn't count Avatarland out yet. Like ISTCNavigator says, despite the hold ups (and maybe the "wait and sees"), it is an active project. Second, at this point, you really shouldn't be holding your breath for anything that's not attached to a franchise. That's the direction the entire entertainment industry has been going for about the past decade. In video games, they want everything to be a yearly franchise like Call of Duty. In movies, almost all of the major big tentpole films now need to be either a remake of an existing film, a reboot of an existing franchise, or based on a another property like a comic book or novel series; all preferably ones that can be turned into a recurring franchise. The reason for this is that in addition to the random people that will buy your product based on the ads, you also already have a built-in fanbase that guarantees sales.

Same thing with attractions, they largely want to focus on adding franchise attractions. Avatar, Star Wars, Little Mermaid, Pixar, whatever. The only thing better than spending millions of dollars on a huge new attraction is spending millions of dollars on a huge new attraction that everybody already wants to spend money on because they love the property. That's the business mindset behind this, and the entire entertainment industry has taken note. Everybody wants to be the new Call Of Duty, Avengers, or Wizarding World because they know that it works. If they own the property, that's just icing on the cake. The success of Potterland likely only further popularized the concept, because of the enormous success of the specialized merchandise and Butterbeer. What I'm saying is, for the immediate future, expect to see franchised attractions long before something that the Imagineers cooked up a story for. Sucks, but that's the way it is. The Asian parks are seeing some original attractions, but look at almost every rumor about WDW: Monsters Inc coaster, Tron coaster, Carsland, Avatarland, Star Wars-land, etc. They all have that same thing in common: Exi$ting franchi$e.

 

[ToTBellHop]

One, I wouldn't count Avatarland out yet. Like ISTCNavigator says, despite the hold ups (and maybe the "wait and sees"), it is an active project. Second, at this point, you really shouldn't be holding your breath for anything that's not attached to a franchise. That's the direction the entire entertainment industry has been going for about the past decade. In video games, they want everything to be a yearly franchise like Call of Duty. In movies, almost all of the major big tentpole films now need to be either a remake of an existing film, a reboot of an existing franchise, or based on a another property like a comic book or novel series; all preferably ones that can be turned into a recurring franchise. The reason for this is that in addition to the random people that will buy your product based on the ads, you also already have a built-in fanbase that guarantees sales.

Same thing with attractions, they largely want to focus on adding franchise attractions. Avatar, Star Wars, Little Mermaid, Pixar, whatever. The only thing better than spending millions of dollars on a huge new attraction is spending millions of dollars on a huge new attraction that everybody already wants to spend money on because they love the property. That's the business mindset behind this, and the entire entertainment industry has taken note. Everybody wants to be the new Call Of Duty, Avengers, or Wizarding World because they know that it works. If they own the property, that's just icing on the cake. The success of Potterland likely only further popularized the concept, because of the enormous success of the specialized merchandise and Butterbeer. What I'm saying is, for the immediate future, expect to see franchised attractions long before something that the Imagineers cooked up a story for. Sucks, but that's the way it is.

Very true. How lucky HKDL is to have received Mystic Manor and Grizzly in the current climate...

 

[SirLink]

One, I wouldn't count Avatarland out yet. Like ISTCNavigator says, despite the hold ups (and maybe the "wait and sees"), it is an active project. Second, at this point, you really shouldn't be holding your breath for anything that's not attached to a franchise. That's the direction the entire entertainment industry has been going for about the past decade. In video games, they want everything to be a yearly franchise like Call of Duty. In movies, almost all of the major big tentpole films now need to be either a remake of an existing film, a reboot of an existing franchise, or based on a another property like a comic book or novel series; all preferably ones that can be turned into a recurring franchise. The reason for this is that in addition to the random people that will buy your product based on the ads, you also already have a built-in fanbase that guarantees sales.

Same thing with attractions, they largely want to focus on adding franchise attractions. Avatar, Star Wars, Little Mermaid, Pixar, whatever. The only thing better than spending millions of dollars on a huge new attraction is spending millions of dollars on a huge new attraction that everybody already wants to spend money on because they love the property. That's the business mindset behind this, and the entire entertainment industry has taken note. Everybody wants to be the new Call Of Duty, Avengers, or Wizarding World because they know that it works. If they own the property, that's just icing on the cake. What I'm saying is, for the immediate future, expect to see franchised attractions long before something that the Imagineers cooked up a story for. Sucks, but that's the way it is.

Mystic Manor & Grizzly Gulch say hello. But I still believe that Iger won't see the rest of the tenue of his extension - which ever comes first Next Gen working or Shanghai then he'll be out.

You touched on the videogame industry, of which I am a programmer trying to get out ... most of the bigger non sport yearly franchises are in somewhat of a decline, even Call of Duty - it simply isn't healthy for any entertainment industry to rely squarely on a bi-annual to annual basis. It kills companies. But Avatar deal was cooked up all by Iger over lunch ... its a farce.

 

[SirLink]

Very true. How lucky HKDL is to have received Mystic Manor and Grizzly in the current climate...

That was more to do with Hong Kong Government though.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Mystic Manor & Grizzly Gulch say hello. But I still believe that Iger won't see the rest of the tenue of his extension - which ever comes first Next Gen working or Shanghai then he'll be out.

You touched on the videogame industry, of which I am a programmer trying to get out ... most of the bigger non sport yearly franchises are in somewhat of a decline, even Call of Duty - it simply isn't healthy for any entertainment industry to rely squarely on a bi-annual to annual basis. It kills companies. But Avatar deal was cooked up all by Iger over lunch ... its a farce.

I think Mystic Manor and Grizzly are a unique situation brought about by the need for every Magic Kingdom to have a Big Thunder and a Haunted Mansion and some Hong Kong politics. Everything else has been franchise-driven, like that dreadful Toy Story land that I hope never crosses the Atlantic OR the Pacific.

 

[SirLink]

I think Mystic Manor and Grizzly are a unique situation brought about by the need for every Magic Kingdom to have a Big Thunder and a Haunted Mansion and some Hong Kong politics. Everything else has been franchise-driven, like that dreadful Toy Story land that I hope never crosses the Atlantic OR the Pacific.

100% Hong Kong Government decision ... they were from my limited knowledge pitched a multitude of different sub lands ranging from Pirates to an Ice Wonderland(thing) Hong Kong government picked which ones they were going with.

 

[ToTBellHop]

100% Hong Kong Government decision ... they were from my limited knowledge pitched a multitude of different sub lands ranging from Pirates to an Ice Wonderland(thing) Hong Kong government picked which ones they were going with.

What did Disney slip into the politicians' sesame chicken to get them to let this slip through the cracks?

 

[SirLink]

What did Disney slip into the politicians' sesame chicken to get them to let this slip through the cracks?

They needed something cheap to offset WDI pricing on the other two sublands, plus add some much needed extra rides.

 

[Fox&Hound]

One, I wouldn't count Avatarland out yet. Like ISTCNavigator says, despite the hold ups (and maybe the "wait and sees"), it is an active project. Second, at this point, you really shouldn't be holding your breath for anything that's not attached to a franchise. That's the direction the entire entertainment industry has been going for about the past decade. In video games, they want everything to be a yearly franchise like Call of Duty. In movies, almost all of the major big tentpole films now need to be either a remake of an existing film, a reboot of an existing franchise, or based on a another property like a comic book or novel series; all preferably ones that can be turned into a recurring franchise. The reason for this is that in addition to the random people that will buy your product based on the ads, you also already have a built-in fanbase that guarantees sales.

Same thing with attractions, they largely want to focus on adding franchise attractions. Avatar, Star Wars, Little Mermaid, Pixar, whatever. The only thing better than spending millions of dollars on a huge new attraction is spending millions of dollars on a huge new attraction that everybody already wants to spend money on because they love the property. That's the business mindset behind this, and the entire entertainment industry has taken note. Everybody wants to be the new Call Of Duty, Avengers, or Wizarding World because they know that it works. If they own the property, that's just icing on the cake. The success of Potterland likely only further popularized the concept, because of the enormous success of the specialized merchandise and Butterbeer. What I'm saying is, for the immediate future, expect to see franchised attractions long before something that the Imagineers cooked up a story for. Sucks, but that's the way it is. The Asian parks are seeing some original attractions, but look at almost every rumor about WDW: Monsters Inc coaster, Tron coaster, Carsland, Avatarland, Star Wars-land, etc. They all have that same thing in common: Exi$ting franchi$e.

All the more reason why Avatar doesn't make sense. Sorry, not trying to de-rail this post, but Avatar is no Avengers, Batman, Pixar, Potter franchise that has been in the public eye for long enough to have a solid fanbase.