Does it bother anyone else that Avatar isn't a Disney movie?

[WDWmazprty]

Nope. Obviously they're working together now, so I consider them to be part of Disney now. Whats the big deal? Avatar made lots of money whether we liked it or not, and Disney sees that. It will make Disney lots of money once its incorporated in AK, whether we like it or not. The majority of people liked the movie, and will pay to see more of it at the worlds #1 vacation destination. In the end, it comes down to the almighty dollar, Disney is taking advantage of this.

Not at all....after all Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and such are not Disney either.

I am thinking Positive on the Avatar expansion...... we have not even seen any concept art....no idea what their plans are...nothing.

So give the Imagineers time to work their magic..... IMHO any of you all passing negative judgement at this stage of the game is "assuming" a lot of stuff that is not even known yet.

THINK POSITIVE!

Ditto! :sohappy:

 

[Mickey_777]

nope

 

[pumpkin7]

just think of it as a sci fi version of pocahontas, because the basic story elements are the same. lol.

 

[MickeyPeace]

I think the concept is brilliant and I have little doubt that it will be immersive. However, is anyone else at least a bit bothered that it isn't a Disney creation? At least with this new Fantasyland expansion you know it is all about Disney movies. You can say that Walt created Snow White and you can say that for that reason alone things like Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast followed. But they are all Disney movies. Avatar isn't.

Walt did not create Snow White. Snow White is a Brothers Grimm fairytale. Same goes for Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella and many more. Walt did not create these stories. Walt adapted them into Disney by remaking them.

So why is it a huge problem for so many people that Disney is now taking the core values that from Avatar that fit AK, conservation and respect for nature, and remaking them as Disney attractions?

 

[lunchbox1175]

i prefer to think of it as Pocohontas meets Ferngully, and I hated Avatar, i would rather see something original, although it does fit in with the conservation side of AK

 

[BringMeTheHoriz]

No one in their right mind really cares whether or not something is Disney. People are more concerned that properties represented in Disney's theme parks blend in with the parks. That standard actually applies to both Disney and non-Disney properties that are considered for theme park representation. Just because something is Disney-branded or owned by the company doesn't mean that it belongs in the parks, and some non-Disney IP would work better in a park than some of Disney's own stuff (not saying that applies to Avatar).

So, to answer your question: It does not matter that Avatar is not owned by the company. What matters is that it doesn't blend in as well as IP like Star Wars or Indiana Jones, and, frankly, Avatar is horrible source material for any theme park, Disney or otherwise.

Complete opinion there. In fact the first time I went to Disney when I was 10, I was wondering why Star Wars was there. Point of the matter being, you're trying to make your opinion sound like a fact that matters. It matters to you yes, but to me no.

 

[ght]

IMHO the reason Star Wars, Indy, etc. work is because they are in a park themed around hollywood & movies. You can't just have Disney movies in the studios.....because then it would be like fantasyland....having big block buster movie/tv attractions at the studios makes complete sense.
It's all subjective opinion at this point. There is a chance this won't even get built, we have no idea what the future could bring.
Personally, I'd rather see completely original additions to animal kingdom that are not based on any IP....kind of like what they did with everest...

While this is true of WDW, they are both in Disneyland Park and both work fine there.

That said, I am not all that thrilled about Avatar, I wasn't a huge fan of the movie. I don't want to dismiss the whole project based on the movie, however, so I want to wait and see what sort of land/attractions they produce and judge them on that rather than the source material.

 

[slappy magoo]

Clearly what Disney needs to do is remake the movie AND THEN create the theme park attractions.

Get on that, Disney.

I'm ambivalent; if they create a good product, no criticism matters. I will say that Avatarland is more like Cameronland - whether or not you like his movies, he does try to create an immerssive event to be enjoyed communally, much like a theme park attraction, so I'm willing to give billion dollar boy the benefit of the doubt.

 

[olinecoach61]

It doesn't bother me, but I have no interest in avatar. Animal kingdom needs to expand just not sure fake animals was the way to go.

 

[unkadug]

No one in their right mind really cares whether or not something is Disney. People are more concerned that properties represented in Disney's theme parks blend in with the parks. That standard actually applies to both Disney and non-Disney properties that are considered for theme park representation. Just because something is Disney-branded or owned by the company doesn't mean that it belongs in the parks, and some non-Disney IP would work better in a park than some of Disney's own stuff (not saying that applies to Avatar).

So, to answer your question: It does not matter that Avatar is not owned by the company. What matters is that it doesn't blend in as well as IP like Star Wars or Indiana Jones, and, frankly, Avatar is horrible source material for any theme park, Disney or otherwise.

In your opinion. Not in mine.

 

[Goofnut1980]

Look, I am all for some new additions to the parks. But isn't avitar2 not slatted to come out till 2016? I would think by then people would be over the movie and it wouldn't do that well.

Also, how many projects "almost" get built only to be sent to the graves before being built. Has any of the land been created and built? I wouldn't get too worked up until you see construction begin. JMO

 

[unkadug]

Look, I am all for some new additions to the parks. But isn't avitar2 not slatted to come out till 2016? I would think by then people would be over the movie and it wouldn't do that well.

Also, how many projects "almost" get built only to be sent to the graves before being built. Has any of the land been created and built? I wouldn't get too worked up until you see construction begin. JMO

Good point. History has taught us that Disney is infamous for making announcements then letting stuff fade away into oblivion.

 

[imagineer boy]

I don't mind the fact that Avatar isn't a Disney movie since it works with Indiana Jones and Star Wars. What bothers me is that Avatar was a self-idulgent, bloated, beyond cliche, enviromental whine fest that I honestly don't want to see the Disney parks have anything to do with.

 

[Devin36]

I too am holding out to see what the future holds.....a good attraction/land will hold it's own if done right, regardless of what the theme is....just seems slightly out of place in my opinion...but it is also too early to make any judgements...I am open minded for the most part

 

[TRIFORCE89]

I kind of think of it like this...

At Walt Disney World, I like that Star Tours is at Hollywood Studios. At Disneyland, I don't think Tomorrowland is the best fit. Same with the Indiana Jones stuff at Adventureland, even if the attraction itself is great.

I don't think Avatar should be at Animal Kingdom. If it was Studios, I think it would fit much better.

So, it bugs me. But, in the end, I'm probably still going to like the end result even if I don't like where it is.

 

[Scuttle]

I'm not bothered that Avatar isn't Disney. What bothers me is that the movie, which, frankly, is terrible, does not lend itself well to a theme park land. It's got a fluorescent forest, but what is there to do when I arrive there? Nothing in Avatar really suggested anything uniquely worthwhile to do in such an environment as far as big-ticket rides go that Disney couldn't have done without the license to use the movie, and the lack of compelling characters gives them even less to build off of.

Terrible? Hardly. I don't get people that think the movie was terrible. It simply wasn't. It was a good movie and if it didn't have any wow factor for you then I am at a loss of words. And I didn't even see it in 3D i saw it on a 32 inch LCD, but I still thought the movie was absolutely mindblowing. EVERY movie JC has a link to is awesome and well worth watching. JC is brilliant and if it was any other outside entity Disney signed I would have been mad, but JC is the one exception.

 

[Devin36]

I kind of think of it like this...

At Walt Disney World, I like that Star Tours is at Hollywood Studios. At Disneyland, I don't think Tomorrowland is the best fit. Same with the Indiana Jones stuff at Adventureland, even if the attraction itself is great.

I don't think Avatar should be at Animal Kingdom. If it was Studios, I think it would fit much better.

So, it bugs me. But, in the end, I'm probably still going to like the end result even if I don't like where it is.

pretty much my sentiments.....i'm sure if it does happen they will do a great job...

 

[MickeyPeace]

No one in their right mind really cares whether or not something is Disney. People are more concerned that properties represented in Disney's theme parks blend in with the parks. That standard actually applies to both Disney and non-Disney properties that are considered for theme park representation. Just because something is Disney-branded or owned by the company doesn't mean that it belongs in the parks, and some non-Disney IP would work better in a park than some of Disney's own stuff (not saying that applies to Avatar).

So, to answer your question: It does not matter that Avatar is not owned by the company. What matters is that it doesn't blend in as well as IP like Star Wars or Indiana Jones, and, frankly, Avatar is horrible source material for any theme park, Disney or otherwise.

The OP cared whether something is Disney or not which is why he/she asked the question. I think that many people just don't realize, as has been pointed out, that not many Disney movies were created/authored by Disney.

Also, I gave my reason why I think Avatar is good source material for the park-
"So why is it a huge problem for so many people that Disney is now taking the core values that from Avatar that fit AK, conservation and respect for nature, and remaking them as Disney attractions?"

but you didn't address it. How does that not blend in? These are the core concepts of both the park and the film.

I think not many people on this board have not seen Avatar but hate it any way. Also not one bit of concept art has been shown yet so how can you hate it?
In addition, just on this forum alone people jump all over AK as not having enough attractions and show disregard for what the park currently offers. Disney is targeting this to you people! The people who need bells/whistles/thrills etc.

However I'm sure that if and when it opens, the loudest complainers will be amongst the first in line and thrilled to be there.

 

[MickeyPeace]

Terrible? Hardly. I don't get people that think the movie was terrible. It simply wasn't. It was a good movie and if it didn't have any wow factor for you then I am at a loss of words. And I didn't even see it in 3D i saw it on a 32 inch LCD, but I still thought the movie was absolutely mindblowing. EVERY movie JC has a link to is awesome and well worth watching. JC is brilliant and if it was any other outside entity Disney signed I would have been mad, but JC is the one exception.

I completely agree with your opinion of the movie. I'm wondering if people who claim that they saw it were actually watching.

 

[Master Yoda]

It did not bother me in the slightest. Aside form the big 5, what Pixar has done and a few movies here and there it is hard to pin down a truly original Disney creation. Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Peter Pan, 20k, etc, etc, are Disney adaptations of existing stories.