Avengers vs. Avatar (Hypothetical Poll Based Somewhat in Reality)

[FRC Team 180]

If I had to choose between Avengers and Avatar I would choose Avengers in a heart beat. But I personally chose "somthing totally original" because I'm tired of marketable characters shoved down our throats all the time and I really do want somthing original.

Same.

 

[Guppy_121]

I voted avengers ( full disclosure, I'm a Marvel fan, avatar not so much ), if we were in world where it was a choice between the two, I think some type 0f Marvel land in DHS would be better long term than Avatar in the animal kingdom. More potential for a more diverse land or area ( be it rides, M&Gs or whatever else ).
I think the avatar project if it goes through in AK will be good, maybe even great, but the focus of it will be Pandora itself and not so much the story line in the movie, more the planet and it's inhabitants ( animals, plants ect ).
So with that in mind, the Avengers lends itself to more, creatively ( for rides especially ), I think, than avatar would ( or will )
BUT, in Florida it's simply not in the cards.

Back in our world where anything is possible, I'd say
1. Avengers
2. something original ( Beastly kingdom )
3. avatar ...
or a combination there of.
( if you're gonna dream might as well go big )

 

[HM GhostHostess]

I desperately want something original to come to Walt Disney World. A few things based on previously existing properties are ok now and then. But, unfortunately, everything Disney has been creating has is based on previously existing properties.

I believe it's because they can sell more movie related merchandise instead of creating merchandise specifically designed for the attraction. It's also much easier to create an attraction based on Avatar, Finding Nemo, the Little Mermaid, etc. versus creating an attraction based on an original idea.

If I can recall, the last attraction that was built that was not based on a movie, television show, etc., was Expedition Everest back in 2006.

 

[JT3000]

Technically I said "based SOMEWHAT in reality" and the "somewhat" part recognizes that Marvel will PROBABLY never be in Disney without paying an outrageous sum to Universal.

But to say that it could never happen, alebit unlikely, is flat out wrong, unless you say there is no price Universal would accept to sell out the contract with Marvel ... which if you said that you'd be incorrect. Everything has a price.

The whole reality of my question was ... SHOULD Disney consider allocating the funds from Avatar to buy out the licensing agreement and then build attractions.

I seriously doubt Disney's Avatar funds would be enough to buy out Universal's Marvel rights, much less do anything with them afterwards. Everything has a price -- that doesn't mean you can afford everything.

 

[tomman710]

Should they? Absolutely not... You have my answer...

And Will Disney be willing to give hundreds of millions, if not a cost in the billions for those rights??? No... Does not make financial sense... You have to think here and not base your opinions on your love for Disney.... As has been said 1,000,000,000 times before, Disney is very happy with the way things are right now with Marvel in Universal...

My opinions are not driven by my love for Disney as much as it is in my doubts that Avatar is the franchise to go forward with (granted I have my doubts if that ever really happens anyway.)

I would contend slightly with your point that Disney is VERY happy with the way things are now, I am sure the profits are great but come on ... its basic math would they rather split profits or retain 100% of them, of course in a perfect world they'd rather have 100% of the profits, but for now I am sure they are pleased with their investment.

My point of conversation I guess was more of wondering where the break even point would be, none of us could answer that at all because none of us know what the buy out would be and what the ROI would be once Disney begins to retain 100% of profits, but as with all investments you do it for future gains and returns, Disney didn't drop a billion on Marvel and the very next day start cashing checks ... obviously this is all speculation and guessing but my opinion was even with the initial upfront, admittedly, probably sky high expense in the buy out, the ultimate and future ROI would be greater with Avengers than Avatar.

So to put it simply, yes I know this is a shot in the dark, yes I know the reality of the situation and logistics, and yes I'd rather have them spend their money on something totally original but if it has to be a franchise I think from a future profitability standpoint Avengers (even with the astronomical buy out) would be more profitable and popular for the next 10-20 years than Avatar. That's my opinion.

Like I said in the original post this is hypothetical ... I wasn't debating the likelihood of this happening or not ... simply which do you think would be more profitable and popular in the next 10-20 years and then if you had a vote where would you like to see the money go.

 

[Rescue Ranger]

Avatar

It offers a whole different world of possibilities and fantasy, which is why its a perfect fit for Animal Kingdom. If ever the "Avatar" is dropped, Disney can easily also re-theme this land and toss in some Dragons. It has forever lasting power imo.

Avangers is just a small group of Superheroes. I'm a Marvel guy, HUGE on Xmen, but Avengers could only offer so much and shouldn't be singled out. It was also released at a time where there was not many big hitters in the theaters. I am sure Spiderman will also do huge. Big box office donsn't neccessarily mean it makes a popular attraction. You could make a box office bomb a hugely popular attraction if done properly. Not everything that does well at the theaters needs an attraction, it has to make sense and offer more than just a quick fix. In 3 years, no one will probably care about an Avengers MOVIE attraction. Offers nothing.

An attraction at Hollywood Studios? Sure...maybe. But I think aside from possibly an attraction there, all Marvel properties will be best suited as Disney's 5th Theme Park.

I also don't think any Marvel property should be showcased based on the movies.....all future attraction should be comic based. That in turn also makes it timeless. Just imagine if Universal had made their Spiderman attraction based on the Dunst/Tobey movies? FAIL.

I do prefer something fully Disney/Original, but I voted Avatar in this case since it is in the pipeline.

 

[Epcotian]

I voted something original basically because I generally don't care for movie tie-ins unless the movie has almost perpetual staying power like Star Wars. Avatar and Avengers certainly don't fit that description.

Regarding the possibility of Avengers at WDW, though, what is the term of the existing contract with Universal? They don't have rights in perpetuity, do they? Meaning, some day it will expire and Disney will be able to move Marvel characters into WDW without paying Universal a dime, right? Maybe that's for the best with Avengers. If I'm wrong and it turns out to be special in a Star Wars way, Disney can then establish an Avengers land. Let the movie prove itself over the long haul first, then build the land.

 

[MarkTwain]

But the explosions, violence and destruction in Avatar is a better fit for WDW? :shrug:

IMDB's Parent Guide gave both movies a 7/10 for Violence & Gore

Other ratings:

______/nudity
Avatar 5/10
Avengers 2/10

Profanity
Avatar 6/10
Avengers 3/10

Frightening/Intense Scenes
Avatar 7/10
Avengers 4/10

Total Scores:

Avatar: 26/50 This film contains alot of violence, but it is mostly action-packed rather than detailed violence. The nudity and implied ______ scene are a bit much for young audiences, and there is quite a bit of language, although no f-words. Appropriate for 14 and up.

Avengers: Total: 19/50 (no recap)


Point is: either way ya go, both are equally violent movies.

Well, to expand on my previous point, it's not as much the violence that's the problem. Avatar seems like such a greater choice for a theme park land because the movie focused so much more on the environment that it takes place in. So much of the movie is about establishing the presence and uniqueness of places like the Hallelujah mountains, the World Tree, the different creatures and plants that live in the jungle, etc. The violence that happens there is more incidental, and a result of the plot that takes place there. In other words, any number of interesting attractions can take place in the Avatar environment without the military coming in mid-ride and gunning the place down. The environment is interesting enough that it's worth pursuing in its own right (which IMO, is what makes the Wizarding World of Harry Potter so compelling).

By contrast, from the top of my head, I can't name a single uniquely distinct, large-scale environment from any Marvel film besides the Stark Expo. Sure, the characters are more enjoyable and much easier to name than those in Avatar, but it's not the characters that are being turned into theme park lands, is it? Just about every setting seems to be a take on the urban, Manhattan-esque theme, and there's only so many ways that can be depicted in a Disney park. Ultimately, the thing that will set the setting apart, and which by design will be almost necessary in every Marvel-related attraction, is the destructive violence. It's not that the violence in a theme park is bad (heck, Star Tours, Indiana Jones, and GMR use it extensively), it's the fact that it is virtually the only thing carrying the themed environment that's problematic. Take the violence out of Star Wars, and you have cool spacecraft, exotic planets, and interesting architecture. Take the violence out of Indiana Jones, you have mysterious ruins, dangerous snakes and creatures, and the romance of a bygone age. Take the violence out of the Avengers, and you have... guys in spandex walking around a city street.

 

[DisneyFan!]

I agree with other posts in this thread. My take on it is that Disney is making a HUGE mistake with Avatar just on merch sales alone with the first movie which was poor. Avatar is more like a Titanic or Gone With The Wind for that matter....Epic film but that's where it ends. Theme a "land" with Star Wars, The Avengers, even more Pirates of The Caribbean...But not Avatar. When Disney announced that there was going to be an Avatar themed land there was almost no excitement because it stops with the epic movie and that's it. The main ride will also most likely be a 4D journey while on the back of one of the dragons...Predictable!!!....Disney fix the Yeti and think this one over while doing it!

 

[olinecoach61]

I would take the avengers!

 

[Prototype82]

An Avengers attraction is going to make a lot of money. No doubt about that, but I think Avatar has more potential for a ground-breaking and immersive land. Not to mention Avatar could be a solution to a lot of AK's problems.

 

[CoasterSnoop]

AVENGERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I LOVE THE COMICS AND THE MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whew! Got that out.