AVATAR progress

[misterID]

Am I supposed to be butthurt over that? I honestly don't care if you believe what I post. I'm not sure how a different opinion than yours indicates a lack of credibility, but whatevs.

It's not about what info you're posting. Everyone was very appreciative to any info you shared, it's been your attitude, how you've treated some members here and some childish behavior between you and jt. Otherwise, thanks.

 

[Cornballman]

cant we all just get along.....

 

[Tim_4]

Wait. Whoa.

I'm not an official traffic cop or anything, but this thread
just went from being very informative and entertaining to
another mire and muck of opinion and mudflinging.

Really, Tim has been generous in sharing info. Thanks for that.
But, opinions as to what Uni and Disney are/should/could be doing
are for the other thread, aren't they?

My current favorite thread is turning sour, and I'm sad about that.
Please, respectfully, take it outside.

Tim--any answer to my question about the scope of the "land" around
the attractions? That's what I want to hear about.

With hope . . .

Unfortunately I don't have any insight on the land itself. My sources see kind of a "checklist" of what's being done but no creative detail.

 

[doctornick]

Wait. Whoa.

I'm not an official traffic cop or anything, but this thread
just went from being very informative and entertaining to
another mire and muck of opinion and mudflinging.

Really, Tim has been generous in sharing info. Thanks for that.
But, opinions as to what Uni and Disney are/should/could be doing
are for the other thread, aren't they?

My current favorite thread is turning sour, and I'm sad about that.
Please, respectfully, take it outside.

Tim--any answer to my question about the scope of the "land" around
the attractions? That's what I want to hear about.

With hope . . .

Amen.

 

[doctornick]

Listen, I hate Avatar, but it's obviously somewhat of a draw. To say Transformers has no draw what so ever is a desperate strawman argument.

I think Transformers and Avatar are likely similar draws. It would be the quality of the attractions that will ultimately determine how much they will affect guest attendence. I don't think either really has a significant draw in terms of just wanting to see the IP itself for the sake of it.

 

[GLaDOS]

I think Transformers and Avatar are likely similar draws. It would be the quality of the attractions that will ultimately determine how much they will affect guest attendence. I don't think either really has a significant draw in terms of just wanting to see the IP itself for the sake of it.

Agreed. And Transformers has already proved it's a great attraction.

 

[CTXRover]

So a 2.7 billion dollar movie franchise is one that no one is interested in going to? Okay.

Listen, I hate Avatar, but it's obviously somewhat of a draw. To say Transformers has no draw what so ever is a desperate strawman argument.

I think Transformers and Avatar are both draws. Of course from a numbers game, it took three Transformers films to make a worldwide gross equivalent to the worldwide gross of only one Avatar film......Personally, I think Transformers has more of a multi-generational draw, but if the future Avatar films can do half as good, this may be a time where Disney was ahead of the game for once. Adding Transformers was a smart move. It's a proven success and the fifth (?) iteration of this type of ride Universal has done across the globe and will help USF's attendance from sagging further with the anticipation of Potter 2 and the lack of draws the original park had after Potter opened. All that said, all that really matters to me is if it is a good attraction/ride. Transformers is great, but also eerily similar to Spiderman, but still a great ride.

I'm so sick and tired of the Disney/Universal stuff, but I sort of agree with the point Tim4 is making. Universal struggled until Harry Potter opened, which is a fact. Their attendance was in a downward spiral to a combined total for the 2 parks that I believe was near or even lower than USF brought in on its own in the 1990s. After Potter, they finally had a resurgence they so desperately needed. They are on an upswing and it makes absolute business sense to try and build on that momentum and thus the building frenzy to keep the attention on them with the hope that momentum continues. Disney has been resting on the laurels for too long now, but purely from a business perspective they are still doing great. Although from different "sources" if you want to compare the attendance trends over the past decade, USO combined attendace rose only 7% from 2001-2011, all of that since Potter opened after a nose dive in the middle of the decade. In comparison, Disney's combined attendance rose nearly 16% over that same time frame. Until they feel more pressure on the bottom line, they probably can take their time, as much as that makes me an impatient fan. However, if what has been suggested is true, they may have been finally feeling the pressure in 2012 and I hope something positive comes from it.

Anyway, I too hope this thread though can get back on track.

 

[Atomicmickey]

Unfortunately I don't have any insight on the land itself. My sources see kind of a "checklist" of what's being done but no creative detail.

OK, thanks. I would assume that whatever showbuildings there are, are going to be
covered with landscape and rockwork much as the SDMT is being, or even Mermaid.
It's more a matter of how much wander room there is.

And the restaurant, would that be quick service, or a sit-down, immersive environment?
Not that you necessarily have the answers to that.
I had heard at one point about Rainforest Cafe being re-themed to Avatar . . .

 

[GLaDOS]

Universal struggled until Harry Potter opened, which is a fact. Their attendance was in a downward spiral to a combined total for the 2 parks that I believe was near or even lower than USF brought in on its own in the 1990s. After Potter, they finally had a resurgence they so desperately needed.

Most of Universal's woes were due to having an ownership group that didn't give a crap about the parks, FYI. They let them rot and did the bare minimum to promote them.

It's a different ball game with Comcast.

But yes, let's get back on track.

 

[Tim_4]

Agreed. And Transformers has already proved it's a great attraction.

My final off topic post. You cant compare Transformers to Avatar mainly because Transformers is a ride not a land. WWoHP is ridiculously more popular than a stand alone Potter ride would have been. Heck even fantasyland proved you can have success with a new land even without a great ride. If done correctly, Avatar LAND should be a bigger draw than a Transformers RIDE for that fact alone, regardless of the relative strength of the IP.

 

[Tim_4]

OK, thanks. I would assume that whatever showbuildings there are, are going to be
covered with landscape and rockwork much as the SDMT is being, or even Mermaid.
It's more a matter of how much wander room there is.

And the restaurant, would that be quick service, or a sit-down, immersive environment?
Not that you necessarily have the answers to that.
I had heard at one point about Rainforest Cafe being re-themed to Avatar . . .

The restaurant should be "flex" dining like what's being done at Be Our Guest.

 

[tissandtully]

My final off topic post. You cant compare Transformers to Avatar mainly because Transformers is a ride not a land. WWoHP is ridiculously more popular than a stand alone Potter ride would have been. Heck even fantasyland proved you can have success with a new land even without a great ride. If done correctly, Avatar LAND should be a bigger draw than a Transformers RIDE for that fact alone, regardless of the relative strength of the IP.

Transformers is also on Spiderman ride tech, so, I would assume that would cut down on R&D / Construction time.

 

[GLaDOS]

My final off topic post. You cant compare Transformers to Avatar mainly because Transformers is a ride not a land. WWoHP is ridiculously more popular than a stand alone Potter ride would have been. Heck even fantasyland proved you can have success with a new land even without a great ride. If done correctly, Avatar LAND should be a bigger draw than a Transformers RIDE for that fact alone, regardless of the relative strength of the IP.

I never said TF would be a bigger draw than Avatar. Just that it was a draw, which you said it was not.

 

[twebber55]

Good points all around. TF and avatar are similar although i think avatar has more of an enviornment to build upon

 

[doctornick]

And the restaurant, would that be quick service, or a sit-down, immersive environment?
Not that you necessarily have the answers to that.
I had heard at one point about Rainforest Cafe being re-themed to Avatar . . .

The rumor has been that it would be a BoG style setup -- quick serve during the day, sit down for dinner. Presumably, it would go alone with the park staying opening later which would increase the need for sitdown dinner places.

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

You guys got me. Uni is winning the battle for teenagers and college kids. If I'm a business, I'll take the $4,000 Family Suite guest with the Disney Dining Plan over the Miami of Ohio Phi Beta Kappa sorority girls doing "Spring Break on a budget."

If that fit the profile of the average guest, I would too. But how many guests on a given day at the MK are staying off-site or 1 day ticket holders?

If Disney stepped up their game and even did basic things like refresh entertainment that's 20+ years old, they might just see an increase in resort guests vs. off-siters.

And if WDW was "printing money", WDC wouldn't feel the need to lump its numbers in with DLR and DCL in its quarterly reports. They'd crow from the rooftops about how they don't need discounts anymore (they do) and how the hotels are packed to the gills (they aren't).

It's a poor business who could do more/earn more/profit more, and doesn't. Market share erodes away from the lazy, and for the past six years, Disney has been lazy. But hey, maybe in four more years, we'll get Avatar!

 

[SirLink]

My final off topic post. You cant compare Transformers to Avatar mainly because Transformers is a ride not a land. WWoHP is ridiculously more popular than a stand alone Potter ride would have been. Heck even fantasyland proved you can have success with a new land even without a great ride. If done correctly, Avatar LAND should be a bigger draw than a Transformers RIDE for that fact alone, regardless of the relative strength of the IP.

Funny....

But over the Christmas break a fire was lit under a few key Burbank executives when it was realized WDW’s New Fantasyland project wasn’t pulling in the numbers or customer satisfaction ratings that had been hoped for. WDW’s hotel occupancy and spending numbers have been hurting for several years, and they were hoping for a big bump from New Fantasyland and its lone new attraction, a clone of the Little Mermaid omnimover. New Fantasyland hasn’t give them the bump they needed, and the customer satisfaction results are showing that it won’t be driving the new attendance or spending gains that WDW really needs in the next few years. And there’s currently nothing under construction in WDW, while their Universal and Sea World competitors have major new projects coming out of the ground.

Link

 

[Atomicmickey]

Using the BOG model, that says to me that the venue will be large in scope and size.
Good. If they're gonna do it, go big or go home. Do it right.

Any thoughts on the nature of the C ticket? Still a boat ride of sorts?

And--a nighttime spectacular--where would that be? The Asia lagoon seems both
obvious and counter intuitive at the same time. Tread lightly, if there, I'd say.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

I have heard the D-ticket boat ride has been downgraded to a C-ticket walk thru. It is basically the same attraction without a ride system. It should have several large AAs and "bioluminescent" plants. But as Lee said. It will be the first thing axed if the budget balloons.

 

[Tim_4]

Funny...Link

Earnings call from three days ago says Al Lutz was wrong three months ago.

Using the BOG model, that says to me that the venue will be large in scope and size.
Good. If they're gonna do it, go big or go home. Do it right.

Any thoughts on the nature of the C ticket? Still a boat ride of sorts?

And--a nighttime spectacular--where would that be? The Asia lagoon seems both
obvious and counter intuitive at the same time. Tread lightly, if there, I'd say.

No idea on any of that. I know there WILL be those things but someone else will have to give some insight on their nature.