Avatar the ride

[EPCOT Explorer]

There are better movies to be made into attractions, both in quality and feasibility (some movies just don't suit well for a ride), over Avatar. That's my take on it. Only reason anyone's paying attention to this movie is that a.) Cameron's only movie in a long time b.) anything to get us off Twilight.

:lol:


Well, I can honestly say that I'm for this being built just because the environment would be incredible. All that glowing fauna? Amazing.

 

[Exprcoofto]

I would love to see an Avatar themed land. I feel that one attraction wouldn't be able to represent the Avatar film and the feel of Pandora. An entire land would be nice... but if Disney was to do it, there really isn't a place to put it in. The CAVE Technology would be cool - but it being real vs virtual is good too.

I do think that Avatar is going to be even larger in coming years. James Cameron is suppose to be writing a novel based on the film (opposite of what happened with HP), however, I do see many more movies and many more books. It's just too huge for it not to be in a theme park, the real question is whether Disney will jump on it first or Universal.

 

[hack2112]

IMO, you can't decide that a ride should be made for a movie immediately after coming out because you don't know if it will stand the test of time. By the time they finished constructing the ride, the movie would not be the "it" thing anymore. This is kind of how I feel about Harry Potter as well...while I LOVE Harry Potter, the books have all been released and there are only two movies left to go now that it's land at IOA is finally opening. In 5 years or so will people still be interested?

Yes. People are still interested in Jurassic Park, despite the fact that the last movie was made over eight years ago, and the land it represents is absolutely astounding. The last true Mummy film was made a while ago too, yet that attraction always has a long line.

And if we're going on things not being placed many years after their release, then over half the things in WDW (especially Fantsayland) should never have been built in the first place.

The ball's in your court.

I would love to see an Avatar themed land. I feel that one attraction wouldn't be able to represent the Avatar film and the feel of Pandora. An entire land would be nice... but if Disney was to do it, there really isn't a place to put it in. The CAVE Technology would be cool - but it being real vs virtual is good too.

I do think that Avatar is going to be even larger in coming years. James Cameron is suppose to be writing a novel based on the film (opposite of what happened with HP), however, I do see many more movies and many more books. It's just too huge for it not to be in a theme park, the real question is whether Disney will jump on it first or Universal.

Cave technology would be very cool if used correctly, but I just don't have faith in Disney and especially in TDO. I would much rather see Uni build a humongous attraction based off of it. If they went in the 3D route they could replace Shrek or maybe re-purpose the Jimmy Neutron building, they must be itching to get that ride the hell out of there.

On the subject of an Avatar sequel, however, while I would like one, I also realize that the one thing Avatar definitely doesn't need is a sequel. (A TV series, possibly, but not another movie) Avatar tells a complete story from start to finish, and humans would have to be absolute idiots to come back to Pandora, and another sentient alien species coming to Pandora would just cheapen the series for me.

 

[Walt Disney1955]

I don't really see this being turned into an attraction, but if it were, Universal has the track record that makes them the most believable option.

And a Titanic ride? Seriously?

Or a Titanic 3-D show or whatever? How am I supposed to know? Who would have thought E.T. coudl turn into a popular and successful ride?

But it won't happen. Orlando already has an exhibit called the Titanic Experience

 

[Walt Disney1955]

WDW is definitely not about thrill rides. They only have two and they are questionable as thrill rides now: ToT and R&RC. ToT is just a drop simulator and nothing more. This is at any traveling fair. R&RC is an induction rollercoaster. However, take out the theming and darkness of the ride, and it is a basic induction rollercoaster.

I have to disagree with that one. Tower of Terror is certainly better than your average "drop" on your travelling fair. The theme of the line up sets you up for it, the music, the darkness. It is far more scary IMO to drop in pitch black then in daylight.

And Aerosmith is a pretty fast roller coaster too. I'd consider it a thrill ride. Certainly comparable if not better to The Mummy at Universal.

But yes other than those two the next best is Space Mountain and you are right Disney doesn't rely on the thrill so much

 

[wm49rs]

I would have to think that with Universal (eventually) losing the Marvel characters they would want to grab hold of anything they can to keep it out of Disney's hands....

 

[hack2112]

And Aerosmith is a pretty fast roller coaster too. I'd consider it a thrill ride. Certainly comparable if not better to The Mummy at Universal.

Now I hate to quote theme park propaganda, but the Mummy is more than a roller coaster, it's a "psychological thrill ride." RnRC is a fun jaunt through cardboard cutouts with amazing songs, while the Mummy is so sure of itself, that they put in a false ending, and yet I fell like I'm always stuck in the moment.

It's only comparable or better if you just take the track layout of the attractions, and even then, inversions aren't always everything, and the Mummy has something RnRC is severely lacking, drops.

 

[janoimagine]

another film with awesome SFX, but flimsy characters and story.

Calling a futuristic take on what basically happened to the native americans of this country is not what I would call a "flimsy" story.

 

[stitch2008]

A couple points I'd like to mention. James Cameron in an interview said that he loved what Disney was doing with 3-D. He thinks they really started paving the way for the 3-D films that we have today. Also, Cameron's last two films before Avatar were made with Disney(Ghosts of the Abyss, and Aliens of the Deep{Buena Vista}). If anyone wants to see it, it was in a conversation with Jon Landeau(Cameron's producer). It was like an hour talk where they really only talked about how Microsoft helped them make the movie.

The only reason I bring it up is because I remember seeing on a WDW tv special that George Lucas said the only company he would want his products in would be Disney because of "leadership in products". I don't know the exact wording but I think it was Tony Baxter that talked about it.

Somehow I think if Cameron wants to sell the rights of Avatar to a park, it would be Disney. I just think they have more creative power to offer him then Universal. And when it came to Avatar, he favored the creative aspect more then the finance aspect. He talked about how he went with ubisoft to make the Avatar game because they were more intrested in the creative side then the money. So I guess in the end, whoever offers the most creative possiblities will get Avatar rights.

Just my thoughts.

 

[EpcotServo]

Calling a futuristic take on what basically happened to the native americans of this country is not what I would call a "flimsy" story.

That's subtext not story. Message is not plot.

 

[imagineer boy]

Calling a futuristic take on what basically happened to the native americans of this country is not what I would call a "flimsy" story.

I don't remember the part of history where the native americans won and kicked off every single one of the colonists. :lol:

 

[janoimagine]

That's subtext not story. Message is not plot.

We can argue over semantics, however, whether you want to call it subtext or story, it essentially is a re-tooling of the story of the american indians, with a much happier ending for the indians this time, set in the future.
:shrug:

 

[janoimagine]

I don't remember the part of history where the native americans won and kicked off every single one of the colonists. :lol:

Obviously you never heard of the battle of little big horn.

However, the colonist may be back. After all Avatar 2 is in the rendering stages right now. Seriously though if you know your history and can't draw any parallels to the native americans from the movies story or subtext, then you need to repeat American history.

 

[JT3000]

I would have to think that with Universal (eventually) losing the Marvel characters they would want to grab hold of anything they can to keep it out of Disney's hands....

Universal isn't going to "lose" the Marvel characters. They'll stop using them when they feel like it, probably many years from now. Avatar would be a distant memory. Possibly already come and gone as a theme park attraction.

 

[Victor]

Calling a futuristic take on what basically happened to the native americans of this country is not what I would call a "flimsy" story.

It is flimsy because it requires no effort (in the storytelling department) whatsoever. We've seen this story told time and time again (Dances With Wolves anyone?). Just because it's a retelling of something that has happened before doesn't make it good. It's shortcomings in a stale and predictable story would have been helped by interesting characters, which unfortunately were nowhere to be found.

Oh, and Sam Worthington is the most bland and boring actor since Vin Diesel. How he continues to get all these leading roles is quite the enigma.

This is all of course my very humble opinion. :wave:

 

[janoimagine]

It is flimsy because it requires no effort (in the storytelling department) whatsoever. We've seen this story told time and time again (Dances With Wolves anyone?). Just because it's a retelling of something that has happened before doesn't make it good. It's shortcomings in a stale and predictable story would have been helped by interesting characters, which unfortunately were nowhere to be found.

Oh, and Sam Worthington is the most bland and boring actor since Vin Diesel. How he continues to get all these leading roles is quite the enigma.

This is all of course my very humble opinion. :wave:

Agree to disagree, with the exception of Sam Worthington, his performance was pretty plastic I will give you that.

 

[pilka214]

i feel like an Avatar ride can't be made until we're sure the movie truly stands the test of time... Star Wars didn't see an attraction until after 3 massively succesful movies were produced. and Harry Potter was a book series followed by Several movies prior to the IOA land being built..

Avatar is just one movie from a 3rd party which no one knows wether or not it'll still be a major movie in 10 years.

 

[ChrisFL]

Chalk me up for not expecting any ride to come out of this. There's been a lot of big blockbuster movies that didn't have attractions made out of them yet...

Some movies lend themselves to attractions, many do not.

 

[Courtney1188]

Yes. People are still interested in Jurassic Park, despite the fact that the last movie was made over eight years ago, and the land it represents is absolutely astounding. The last true Mummy film was made a while ago too, yet that attraction always has a long line.

And if we're going on things not being placed many years after their release, then over half the things in WDW (especially Fantsayland) should never have been built in the first place.

The ball's in your court.

I think you're misunderstanding my point...what I was saying was that yes, some movies DO stand the test of time. But Avatar just came out, so it is too soon to tell whether or not it will.

 

[_Scar]

There are better movies to be made into attractions, both in quality and feasibility (some movies just don't suit well for a ride), over Avatar. That's my take on it. Only reason anyone's paying attention to this movie is that a.) Cameron's only movie in a long time b.) anything to get us off Twilight.

I disagree. It's a great movie- well, great might be an understatement. The scope on it is unbelievable. Pandora is gorgeous, the characters are likable, the plot is in depth but simple. Seemingly a made up story- no past books, no history, no nothing to back it up. But it still was successful. And I don't mean to sound sappy- but with this horrible economy I'm very surprised this is already one of the top grossing films EVER. It's amazing.