Cameron has given the OK ...

[Ignohippo]

That's probably why the decision to bring RSR/Cars Land to the east is because it's a proven success. It's a specifically built attraction with very specific "show" and theme aspects. It would, I presume, be a much bigger risk spending that kind of money on an unknown, specialized ride than building something slightly more "generic" that could be re-imagined if necessary. I get your point, and it does makes sense, if I'm hearing you right.

You are. Thanks Beholder.

And that's with a proven commodity like Cars, not Avatar (which is still years away from its sequels seeing the light of day and didn't have anything near the merchandising impact that Cars had).

They're totally right to be cautious.

 

[Lee]

Lee

What is the possibility that the Soarin type ride will be a combination of this link and a 3-d turtle trek theater?

http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/...ion-for-true-flight-simulator-vehicle.829729/

I could see a capacity issue with 1 theater but with 4 theaters (as the blueprints show) this might be something possible.

Nope.
It's gonna be much more like a cross between Soarin and Forbidden Journey's film segments.

 

[JCtheparrothead]

Thanks Lee.

 

[DocMcHulk]

I need to get back to Orlando to ride Forbidden Journey again

 

[flynnibus]

I whole-heartedly completely disagree with you on everything about what you're saying.

If you think the theming of RnR Coaster and the theming of RSR are the same thing, then it isn't worth even having the discussion with you.

Oh, and if you haven't noticed, RS isn't just a "canyon" – the mountains look like cars. You can't just simply take the Cars sign down and call it "the Grand Canyon". Same would be for Avatar. They would be building floating islands. There really wouldn't be any way to re-theme it.

Nothing some welding torches, jackhammers, and some stucco wouldn't fix. Because they topped one side off with the caddallic range now the whole thing is locked forever? Come on - be more creative than that.

Oh, and considering the inspiration of that isn't tied to Cars either.. one must not forget these concepts exist outside of the franchise Disney built originally for. Cars Land as a whole could be redone without Pixar Cars and leave the major elements in place.

Lets look at Test Track - they opt'd to redo everything BUT the ride system or ride layout. That should tell you something... redress is possible just about everywhere. Be it a dark ride, a simulator, a coaster, or custom ride system - nothing can't be redone and the pattern is almost always 'redress around the existing ride system'.

Construction labor is cheap compared to CGI animators...

 

[JillC LI]

I wouldn't go that far. I'd say there are some that are indifferent, but pleased as punch? Why would they be? If there's a coaster and you don't like them, you simply don't go on it.

Well I would be pleased as punch because I'd rather that space go to something other than a coaster. I wouldn't be indifferent to the fact that a ride was being built that I would likely be too scared to go on. And other coaster-scaredy-cats would likely feel the same way. How can you be indifferent to space and funds going towards a ride you cannot enjoy? You're only indifferent if you like all options equally. (Although I do agree with the PP who said that building both kinds of rides would be best for everyone, including the thrill riders in my own family.)

 

[LithiumBill]

I wonder about what the themeing on the outside of this will be? Was there not some talk about NOT showing the military side of the movie? Focusing more on the ALIEN NATURE aspect? So would it be hard to theme this theater structure as a Military Base?

 

[Bairstow]

More things to consider about Disney adding Hulk or Manta-class coasters is that with the sole exception of Sum of All Thrills, all Disney thrill rides are engineered in such a way that you can keep a small bag with you on the ride.
With full-strength inverting coasters, you'd need to have guests stash their belongings in a locker prior to riding, which would be a bit of a culture shock for a lot of Disney guests and possibly lead to some real problems.

Also, giant B&M coasters like these are loud, even when you fill the track with sand.
It doesn't seem to bother the animals (or me, for that matter) at a place like Busch Gardens, but Disney has higher standards when it comes to immersion.

That's why I think a happy medium would be an Intamin Mega-Lite.

...on the other hand, if we did get a Pandorland coaster, it would be probably be well within theming constraints to put a little sci-fi looking observation post at the top of the mountain... with a blinking red light. That way, we could finally get an attraction at Disney higher than 200 feet!

 

[MickeyPeace]

I'm thrilled Avatarland is happening. I'm one of the few (or only one?) who has been for this project from the start. My theory has been that when this land is built all of the naysayers will be first in line and praising it. I'm still betting on it.

I posted on this board back when Avatarland was announced that the E would probably be a motion simulator attraction. It seems like everything lately is screen based. Too bad for me because I easily get motion sickness. (I also posted back when NextGen was being leaked that interactive queues were likely connected to increased wait times due to Fastpass+ or Xpass as we were calling it, and all people disagreed. Check it out. Do you think that Next Gen fastpass is the impetus for emerging interactive queues?) So I think my power of perception and intuition is good.

I'm happy this is moving forward. The boat ride would be great if it happens.

 

[flynnibus]

It would, I presume, be a much bigger risk spending that kind of money on an unknown, specialized ride than building something slightly more "generic" that could be re-imagined if necessary. I get your point, and it does makes sense, if I'm hearing you right.

He's not arguing it's a proven thing - simply that a virtual ride should be a safer investment than building a physical coaster environment because one could be redone, and the other could not.

A concept that sounds great when you look at what you get to 'keep' - but a concept that doesn't account for what is actually expensive or not.

 

[NormC]

He also said repairing.

I know quite a bit about the yeti debacle. And I know the mountain doesn't have to be altered to fix it.

The foundation underneath the Yeti has to be repaired and strengthened to withstand the torque put on it by the extreme motions of the Yeti. This will require the temporary relocation of the Yeti. The repairs to the Yeti himself could be done in situ but without a strong base the repairs would not last.

 

[captainkidd]

I'm thrilled Avatarland is happening. I'm one of the few (or only one?) who has been for this project from the start. My theory has been that when this land is built all of the naysayers will be first in line and praising it. I'm still betting on it.

I have little doubt that I will check it out. As far as first in line, no way.

 

[Master Yoda]

I wouldn't go that far. I'd say there are some that are indifferent, but pleased as punch? Why would they be? If there's a coaster and you don't like them, you simply don't go on it.

It is not hard to imagine a person who loved Avatar but can't ride coasters who was fearful that the E ticket in Pandora would be a coaster they could never experience.

This is an interesting point. Question is, should Disney broaden their horizons a bit? What is the harm in creating some really thrilling coasters? If you don't want to ride, then you don't have to, but it will certainly make the Universal crowd happy. They made Mission:Space, which makes half the people that ride it sick. Why not a couple Hulk-type coasters?

The last time the did, the aforementioned M:S, they got lambasted for it. Going down that path again is going to be a really hard sell. Like it or not, the core of Disney's guests want/expect mild thrills at most. I do not see them ever going past the thrill level of M:S or RNRC.

 

[kap91]

This is an interesting point. Question is, should Disney broaden their horizons a bit? What is the harm in creating some really thrilling coasters? If you don't want to ride, then you don't have to, but it will certainly make the Universal crowd happy. They made Mission:Space, which makes half the people that ride it sick. Why not a couple Hulk-type coasters?

I have no problem with Disney created a really well themed coaster, but generally that is not synonymous with very thrilling. One of the things I hate about IOA, isn't the fact they have coasters (I love the coasters) but that they stick out like sore thumbs and destroy the placemaking (that particularly in the case of potter) they've tried very hard to create. 3 of the 4 parks already have coasters, and while there is probably enough room to add maybe 2 more without seeming repetitive, Disney would be much better off broadening their horizons by building unique non-coaster moderate to low thrill e-tickets especially at a park like AK and MGM where most of the rides are already thrill rides.

If Disney could build a coaster the likes of Manta, Kraken, Montu, etc. in a way that had no exposed steel or was thematically appropriate I wouldn't be opposed to it. The problem it does present though is building the coaster would likely mean not building the kind of ride described above. In a perfect world they'd build both and everybody would have something, but in reality I'd rather have the ride that many people will enjoy and is unique to Disney vs. the coaster that appeals to much fewer people with many similar coasters around the world.

 

[captainkidd]

The last time the did, the aforementioned M:S, they got lambasted for it. Going down that path again is going to be a really hard sell. Like it or not, the core of Disney's guests want/expect mild thrills at most. I do not see them ever going past the thrill level of M:S or RNRC.

Good point. However, with M:S, then went over the line (IMO). I love coasters, but I won't ride M:S Orange due to the reports I've read.

I haven't been there, but it seems California Screamin' is a pretty intense coaster.

 

[Bairstow]

I wonder about what the themeing on the outside of this will be? Was there not some talk about NOT showing the military side of the movie? Focusing more on the ALIEN NATURE aspect? So would it be hard to theme this theater structure as a Military Base?

That would be my guess.
Build the buildings to look like the RDA bases, but have them be re-purposed as research facilities or embassies or whatever.
I would imagine there will still be a lot of the familiar military hardware present in the land, but either de-weaponized or broken and covered with vines, off to the side. Just because you don't want to show the helicopters blowing aliens to chunks in the attractions doesn't mean you don't want to sell a million die-cast gunships in the gift shop.

 

[Atomicmickey]

I wonder about what the themeing on the outside of this will be? Was there not some talk about NOT showing the military side of the movie? Focusing more on the ALIEN NATURE aspect? So would it be hard to theme this theater structure as a Military Base?

I'll bet they go science, not military. This could be Grace's science outpost, where she studied the
ways of the Na'vi. It would fit in with the conservationist themes of the film.

And, of course, this will be all about riding a Banshee. While you could end up dodging some
'bad corporate guy' helicopters, I'd think-guess-hope, that they'd be going for more of a Soarin'
style splendor rather than a battle. I'd rather just dive, swoop, and turn around the environment
a la Soarin' than get in a battle--which, I'd imagine, is where Universal would take such an experience.

In short, more Grandeur and take-your-breath-away than the standard 'uh-oh, something's gone horribly
wrong, QUICK!'

 

[cynic710]

I wonder about what the themeing on the outside of this will be? Was there not some talk about NOT showing the military side of the movie? Focusing more on the ALIEN NATURE aspect? So would it be hard to theme this theater structure as a Military Base?

this is a quality statement. the human factor in the movie was a big element to the story, and its my understanding that the future films will not have the human aspect in them as much, if at all. i think themeing at least part of the land with the military base could create some awesome intrigue, but because of the lesser involvment of them in the future films, it may not be considered.

 

[Master Yoda]

Good point. However, with M:S, then went over the line (IMO). I love coasters, but I won't ride M:S Orange due to the reports I've read.

I haven't been there, but it seems California Screamin' is a pretty intense coaster.

And that is where the problem lies. If M:S was built at Busch Gardens or IOA you would hear comments like "M:S was so awesome! The G's we so high I couldn't breathe and I nearly lost my lunch!"

At Epcot you get "M:S was the worst attraction ever! The G's we so high I couldn't breathe and I nearly lost my lunch!"

 

[wdwfan4eva]

I haven't seen Avatar so I'm kind of on the fence about Avatarland. It will be interesting to see it develop and eventually see the final result. And as far as coasters are concerned, not everyone likes them, heck, I'm not too fond of them (I do love RNR, though ) but I will leave you with these Walt Disney quotes...
"...it all started from a daddy with two daughters wondering where he could take them where he could have a little fun with them, too." "We believed in our idea - a family park where parents and children could have fun- together."