Cameron has given the OK ...

[M.rudolf]

I hope so. If you saw what was originally planned, this isnt even close to what could have been done

 

[Atomicmickey]

I hope so. If you saw what was originally planned, this isnt even close to what could have been done

See what you did there? First I was all , and now I'm like.

 

[DrewmanS]

To me this is typical Disney nickel and diming

$400 million is a lot of nickels. As people have said, Avatar is an unproven franchise. Look what happened to the Narnia franchise. Seems reasonable to me that Disney would sign off on two rides, but not three. If one is a Sorin' 2.0 then it would be easy to re-theme later if necessary.

With the huge success of the HP franchise, Uni only built one new ride with heavy theming. Only after the success of that mini-land are they expanding.

Whether or not a land should be themed on Avatar is a separate debate. But if there are building it, can you really fault Disney for not wanting to risk $750 million for 3 rides based on ONE movie?

 

[M.rudolf]

See what you did there? First I was all , and now I'm like.

sorry but me no likee

 

[M.rudolf]

Well Soarin is 2d right now so a jump to 3d would make a difference for sure add maybe some different ride movements??? Could be much different then Soarin.

yes but It could also be a bad Knockoff of spiderman,transformers and potter

 

[bubbles1812]

.

I am still not one 100 percent show it will be built because of what happened with Hyperion Warf and other stuff that was green light in the past. If does happen, having 2 additional attractions would make the claim calling AK a half day park less accurate. I am happy that Cameron have given the ok, but I question if the quality of the land because there would 2 attractions not 3 due to the budget cut.

The question is would it be enough a person to say at AK at night if night hours are increased.

Not sure. I think again, it'll look very nice but with only two rides... eh... I think it needs more than that to make it a "night park." It's attraction low and the addition of two rides aren't going to cut it IMO

 

[M.rudolf]

I'll be the first to say I was wrong,if its built. Until then not so much

 

[GeorgiaPinesRJB]

See what you did there? First I was all , and now I'm like.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Seriously though, that is a bit disheartening BUT doesn't surprise me...

 

[HenryMystic]

sorry but me no likee

Ouch

 

[M.rudolf]

Not to seem ungrateful if this does get built, wouldnt you rather they upgraded soarin, it would be a easier less expensive option

 

[GeorgiaPinesRJB]

There are at least 5 people that have posted in this thread that have seen the plans. Get over it.

Should I claim to have seen something, just to yank their chain or would that be proving there point for them? haha seriously, some people on here are way too petchulant. Some people have seen plans, others haven't. We all will see some concept art soon....

 

[doctornick]

$400 million is a lot of nickels. As people have said, Avatar is an unproven franchise. Look what happened to the Narnia franchise. Seems reasonable to me that Disney would sign off on two rides, but not three. If one is a Sorin' 2.0 then it would be easy to re-theme later if necessary.

With the huge success of the HP franchise, Uni only built one new ride with heavy theming. Only after the success of that mini-land are they expanding.

Whether or not a land should be themed on Avatar is a separate debate. But if there are building it, can you really fault Disney for not wanting to risk $750 million for 3 rides based on ONE movie?

Yeah, I think this is a good point. I'm a supporter of the idea of Pandora at DAK but even given that I am a little leery of having a substantial "land" devoted to that movie/franchise. Like many, I have some concerts about the long term potential of the franchise.

The more you build, the more you are committed to the franchise and dependent on its success. And if the sequels bomb or are poorly received (or never happen), the potential for an albatross of a land increases. Now, a well themed and executed land can overcome poor sequels (IMHO people care more about good attractions than the tie-ins) but it's not ideal. Having two attractions and presumably a smaller footprint (the motorbike coaster seemed to need the largest amount of space) lessens the risk.

And, as said, nothing is stopping them from going back and adding another attraction down the road if Avatar's success warrants it. Though I don't expect any Phase 2 to ever happen.

 

[doctornick]

yes but It could also be a bad Knockoff of spiderman,transformers and potter

Which makes me wonder, for those who have "seen the plans": would this be a static ride where you are just sitting in front of a screen or will your vehicle move? If it is something more like Spiderman or Potter where the vehicle moves in addition to high quality images on the screens, then I think it could be very impressive and not really akin to Soarin'.

But I get the sense that this is just Soarin' with better video. Is that right?

 

[M.rudolf]

Seems to me everyone here has seen them

 

[M.rudolf]

Which makes me wonder, for those who have "seen the plans": would this be a static ride where you are just sitting in front of a screen or will your vehicle move? If it is something more like Spiderman or Potter where the vehicle moves in addition to high quality images on the screens, then I think it could be very impressive and not really akin to Soarin'.

But I get the sense that this is just Soarin' with better video. Is that right?

It seems static to me,disclaimer, i am not an engineer or draftsman

 

[The Empress Lilly]

I've seen the plans.

I had them print them on my napkins for me.

 

[M.rudolf]

I've seen the plans.

I had them print them on my napkins for me.

I saw some on toilet paper too

 

[GeorgiaPinesRJB]

I've seen the plans.

I had them print them on my napkins for me.

We know that's not true, Disney isn't capable of printing anything on napkins anymore.... too soon?

 

[Avenger117]

I really think Avatar can a really neat themepark land. The areas in the movies looks so great, I would just hate to see them make a land with 2 attractions and neither of them being very exciting. If its not going to be the full plan, then why bother?

Also if there is more motion and added 3D it might not be so bad, but the comparison to Soarin is a bummer. I think Soarin might be the most overrated theme park attraction.

 

[GeorgiaPinesRJB]

I really think Avatar can a really neat themepark land. The areas in the movies looks so great, I would just hate to see them make a land with 2 attractions and neither of them being very exciting. If its not going to be the full plan, then why bother?

Also if there is more motion and added 3D it might not be so bad, but the comparison to Soarin is a bummer. I think Soarin might be the most overrated theme park attraction.

Soarin' would be better if it wasn't the same show from Cali... lot's of potential being in Epcot. Soarin' over Florida or the World seems like a no brainer...