Doubting Avatar

[PirateFrank]

I think a lot of people are playing down the success of avatar. It made 2.7 billion worldwide. I don't care if it was a 3d movie. That is a ton of money. Cars one and two combined don't hit those numbers. Avengers as great as it is didn't hit those numbers. Again all those movies were 3d....

It has nothing to do with the fact that Avatar was just 3D like every other 3D movie released. It had everything to do with the timing of release (so close to Digital 3D infrastructure being available in majority of theaters) combined with the fact that the movie was the first visually extreme 3D movie.

Cameron constructed a movie to take advantage of recent deployment (in 2008/9) of Digital 3D equipment in theaters across the country. The fad drove the movie goers. No one can sit anywhere in this thread and say with a straight face that the characterization did it - as the characterization sucked. No one can sit anywhere in this thread and say with a straight face that the story did it - as the storyline sucked (and was stolen from *tons* of previous work). These two things are the very reason why the merchandising potential for this not-so-fast, not-yet franchise is extremely questionable at best, nonexistent at worst. Without characters people can identify with -- Without a story that grabs people by the hearts....you have zero merchandising potential. What kid wants to buy a stupid blue doll of Sam Worthington? The only kids buying dolls of the blue monkeys are asexual dorks living with their parents....and those dolls are likely life-sized.

The fad was "you have to see *this* movie in this new Digital 3D. It looks so cool." The reviews bore this out too..."The holy grail of 3-D has finally arrived" and "This is why all these 3-D venues were built. for Avatar. This is the one. The behemoth".

It was timing, not story. not quality. People jumped at the suggestion to see this movie because it was a new thing. Not because Sam Worthington is such a great actor.

Without the fad, released a few years later, Avatar might just have done similar numbers to another Sam Worthington movie with similar 3D visual diarrhea - Clash of the Titans. Both stories were just as 'meh.' The difference between these movies was that one was released when Digital 3D was new and exciting. The other was released when Digital 3D was an extra $10 burden that people didn't see the need to spend....especially with a deepening recession/depression.

 

[danlb_2000]

It has nothing to do with the fact that Avatar was just 3D like every other 3D movie released. It had everything to do with the timing of release (so close to Digital 3D infrastructure being available in majority of theaters) combined with the fact that the movie was the first visually extreme 3D movie.

Cameron constructed a movie to take advantage of recent deployment (in 2008/9) of Digital 3D equipment in theaters across the country. The fad drove the movie goers. No one can sit anywhere in this thread and say with a straight face that the characterization did it - as the characterization sucked. No one can sit anywhere in this thread and say with a straight face that the story did it - as the storyline sucked (and was stolen from *tons* of previous work). These two things are the very reason why the merchandising potential for this not-so-fast, not-yet franchise is extremely questionable at best, nonexistent at worst. Without characters people can identify with -- Without a story that grabs people by the hearts....you have zero merchandising potential. What kid wants to buy a stupid blue doll of Sam Worthington? The only kids buying dolls of the blue monkeys are asexual dorks living with their parents....and those dolls are likely life-sized.

The fad was "you have to see *this* movie in this new Digital 3D. It looks so cool." The reviews bore this out too..."The holy grail of 3-D has finally arrived" and "This is why all these 3-D venues were built. for Avatar. This is the one. The behemoth".

It was timing, not story. not quality. People jumped at the suggestion to see this movie because it was a new thing. Not because Sam Worthington is such a great actor.

Without the fad, released a few years later, Avatar might just have done similar numbers to another Sam Worthington movie with similar 3D visual diarrhea - Clash of the Titans. Both stories were just as 'meh.' The difference between these movies was that one was released when Digital 3D was new and exciting. The other was released when Digital 3D was an extra $10 burden that people didn't see the need to spend....especially with a deepening recession/depression.

Avatar also had the advantage of being released in December when there aren't many other blockbuster to compete with. If it had been released in the summer I don't think it would have done as good. Compare it to Avengers. Avengers first weekend was almost three times greater the Avatars, but by the fourth weekend of thier releases, Avatar was brining in more money then Avengers.

 

[GLaDOS]

Avatar also had the advantage of being released in December when there aren't many other blockbuster to compete with. If it had been released in the summer I don't think it would have done as good. Compare it to Avengers. Avengers first weekend was almost three times greater the Avatars, but by the fourth weekend of thier releases, Avatar was brining in more money then Avengers.

Yup. Why more studios don't release movies in the winter months is beyond me.

 

[baymenxpac]

That's all it was, fanboi wishful thinking. I spent about 45 minutes chatting up your old 'pal' Ben Linus at a party (right before his double, some dude named Michael Emerson walked off with an Emmy) about why won't Disney do anything with Lost. He said to his knowledge no one had ever approached Bad Robot/JJ/Damon/Carlton about it, and he thought it was pretty dumb. I later got to talk to Carlton about it and his opinion was ''I guess Disney doesn't think we're a good fit'' and some other stuff I can't write here.
This was at the same time they were grabbing Freemantle/FOX's American Idol for the Studios.

Anyone see a correlation as Disney goes and grabs Avatar when they have so many of their own properties/characters/franchises just sitting around and collecting dust?

i don't understand why disney hasn't taken advantage of LOST. it makes absolutely zero sense. the fanboi discovery island dream is so logical that it hurts. here's a huge property that has a rabid fan base (with similar passion to some boy wizard i've heard of) with story, visual and thematic elements that make it an imagineer's dream. not to mention the fact that it cuts into the teen/young adult demographic that they're losing to universal...oh wait. now i got it. no princesses on jacob's island. nevermind. answered my own question.

 

[ChrisM]

i don't understand why disney hasn't taken advantage of LOST. it makes absolutely zero sense. the fanboi discovery island dream is so logical that it hurts. here's a huge property that has a rabid fan base (with similar passion to some boy wizard i've heard of) with story, visual and thematic elements that make it an imagineer's dream.

Wait, really? LOST?

Does anyone even give a passing thought to this show any longer? It was a fun ride until we discovered Lindelof was just stringing us along the entire time. The only reason I'd even spend the time to re-watch it is to enumerate the thousand different plot strings he never resolved or explained. But I'd rather stare at the ceiling for 50 straight hours than do that.

And to crib the usual anti-Avatar arguments: "where are the books, spinoffs, and merchandising?" "How many LOST toys do you find in the toy aisle at Target?!"

 

[lebeau]

i don't understand why disney hasn't taken advantage of LOST. it makes absolutely zero sense. the fanboi discovery island dream is so logical that it hurts. here's a huge property that has a rabid fan base (with similar passion to some boy wizard i've heard of) with story, visual and thematic elements that make it an imagineer's dream. not to mention the fact that it cuts into the teen/young adult demographic that they're losing to universal...oh wait. now i got it. no princesses on jacob's island. nevermind. answered my own question.

Lost was so 2004. It's popularity dwindled down to a relatively small(ish) fanbase. And a lot of them felt betrayed by the show's final season.

I watched Lost to the bitter end. But I don't think it has a lot of selling power left.

 

[wdwmagic]

i don't understand why disney hasn't taken advantage of LOST. it makes absolutely zero sense. the fanboi discovery island dream is so logical that it hurts. here's a huge property that has a rabid fan base (with similar passion to some boy wizard i've heard of) with story, visual and thematic elements that make it an imagineer's dream. not to mention the fact that it cuts into the teen/young adult demographic that they're losing to universal...oh wait. now i got it. no princesses on jacob's island. nevermind. answered my own question.

Because it is a TV show that reached the end of its life. Remember that any big attraction will take minimum 2 years to build, so opening a Lost attraction 4 years after the TV series ended would be very risky.

 

[Cybercat]

as the storyline sucked (and was stolen from *tons* of previous work).

People liked the storyline and characters. The thing I love about this is the hypocrisy really. You think Pirates was an "original" film? You think all the plot elements of Brave were created for that film? What about some of Disney's trademark characters? Can you explain to me what Mickey Mouse's characterization is in in more than three sentences and explain how deep and rounded his development has been?

I think this boils down to sour grapes over something being a non-Disney film. They would all be gushing over an Avengers attraction. Sorry to disappoint but there was not a single solitary thing "original" about Avengers. On the other hand, a scifi film with the setting and plot elements of Avatar had never been done before.

 

[FrankLapidus]

Wait, really? LOST?

Does anyone even give a passing thought to this show any longer? It was a fun ride until we discovered Lindelof was just stringing us along the entire time. The only reason I'd even spend the time to re-watch it is to enumerate the thousand different plot strings he never resolved or explained. But I'd rather stare at the ceiling for 50 straight hours than do that.

And to crib the usual anti-Avatar arguments: "where are the books, spinoffs, and merchandising?" "How many LOST toys do you find in the toy aisle at Target?!"

While I am still a huge fan of Lost I agree with what you're saying; when a TV series ends, no matter how popular it might have been during it's run, that popularity will inevitably dwindle and decrease so a long-term placement of the series into a theme park attraction/land might not be feasible. I would say that Lost isn't a typical television series and that I think the supernatural and mythological elements of the series might have offered some opportunity for a theme park attraction, similar to the way the Twilight Zone did. That being said, the end of the show did polarise the audience and divide the fanbase that had stuck with it since the beginning (I loved everything about the show except the explanation of the origins of the Smoke Monster and Jacob...and Nikki and Paulo).

 

[danlb_2000]

[qutoe]as the storyline sucked (and was stolen from *tons* of previous work).

People liked the storyline and characters. The thing I love about this is the hypocrisy really. You think Pirates was an "original" film? You think all the plot elements of Brave were created for that film? What about some of Disney's trademark characters? Can you explain to me what Mickey Mouse's characterization is in in more than three sentences and explain how deep and rounded his development has been?

I think this boils down to sour grapes over something being a non-Disney film. They would all be gushing over an Avengers attraction. Sorry to disappoint but there was not a single solitary thing "original" about Avengers. On the other hand, a scifi film with the setting and plot elements of Avatar had never been done before.

Yeah, I have always found it strange that Disney fans critisize Avatar for not being original. Some of Disney best movies where not an original Disney story; Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, Snow White, Cinderella, just to name a few.

 

[FrankLapidus]

Can you explain to me what Mickey Mouse's characterization is in in more than three sentences and explain how deep and rounded his development has been?

Either way, Mickey Mouse has been around for over eight decades and is still one of the most recognisable and popular characters in popular culture so there must be something about him. If the blue cat-alien people from Avatar (I don't know what they're called) reach anywhere near the popularity of Mickey Mouse I would be very, very surprised.

I think this boils down to sour grapes over something being a non-Disney film. They would all be gushing over an Avengers attraction. Sorry to disappoint but there was not a single solitary thing "original" about Avengers. On the other hand, a scifi film with the setting and plot elements of Avatar had never been done before.

I won't speak for anyone else but it's not sour grapes for me, I just really, really dislike Avatar, it has nothing to do with it being a non-Disney film. And the plot elements of Avatar had been done before, there wasn't really anything original about the story (same could be said for a lot of Hollywood's cinematic output today).

 

[lebeau]

I won't speak for anyone else but it's not sour grapes for me, I just really, really dislike Avatar, it has nothing to do with it being a non-Disney film. And the plot elements of Avatar had been done before, there wasn't really anything original about the story (same could be said for a lot of Hollywood's cinematic output today).

I find it really rare that people with a case of "sour grapes" will ever actually acknowledge it to themselves or others. Not saying that's the case with you. But surely someone some where has "sour grapes". Grapes don't stay fresh forever.

 

[djlaosc]

Wait, really? LOST?

Does anyone even give a passing thought to this show any longer? It was a fun ride until we discovered Lindelof was just stringing us along the entire time. The only reason I'd even spend the time to re-watch it is to enumerate the thousand different plot strings he never resolved or explained. But I'd rather stare at the ceiling for 50 straight hours than do that.

And to crib the usual anti-Avatar arguments: "where are the books, spinoffs, and merchandising?" "How many LOST toys do you find in the toy aisle at Target?!"

The only thing I think that they could have used from LOST would have been nods to the show, for example...

• Dharma Initiative doing research somewhere (Dinoland/Mysterious Island).
• Oceanic Airlines/Ajira Airways in the same way that they have the "Star Tours" company for Star Tours.
• Frank Lapidus as the name of a pilot, in the same way that Star Tours had Rex/has C3P0.

...little things like Easter Eggs that to a LOST Fan would be nice to see, but that you wouldn't have to be a LOST fan to enjoy the attraction itself, rather than a LOST attraction.




My main issue with Avatar is that Pandora looked AMAZING, but that was all CGI - is it possible to make something physical look as good as Pandora did on the screen?

 

[FrankLapidus]

I find it really rare that people with a case of "sour grapes" will ever actually acknowledge it to themselves or others. Not saying that's the case with you. But surely someone some where has "sour grapes". Grapes don't stay fresh forever.

No doubt some do but, speaking for myself, I'm not vehemently opposed to the idea of non-Disney films being used to inspire attractions at Disney theme parks. I have no problem with Star Wars or Indiana Jones but I don't like Avatar as a film so I don't like the idea of an Avatar-themed land or attraction. I'm not bashing Avatar relentlessly, I've said in the past that I don't like the film so I'll just ignore the land. I admit that I do have "sour grapes" about some things at WDW, the current state of Journey into Imagination! and the Backlot Tour for example.

 

[lebeau]

No doubt some do but, speaking for myself, I'm not vehemently opposed to the idea of non-Disney films being used to inspire attractions at Disney theme parks. I have no problem with Star Wars or Indiana Jones but I don't like Avatar as a film so I don't like the idea of an Avatar-themed land or attraction. I'm not bashing Avatar relentlessly, I've said in the past that I don't like the film so I'll just ignore the land. I have "sour grapes" about some things at WDW, the current state of Journey into Imagination! for example.

That's cool. Although really? You hated Avatar enough to avoid the land? I have no love for Transformers, but I'd still like to ride the Transformers ride at Universal.

 

[CinematicFusion]

Would you be opposed to Star Wars land being built at Disney Hollywood Studios?

Many have said Disney did not create Avatar and there are many more ideas collecting dust on the imagineers shelf that could be built to use in the parks. Beastly Kingdom would be an example.

So...if Disney tomorrow said they are spending 500 million to bring the myth of Star Wars to life in a completely immersive world. Would you be against it?
Disney has had a working relationship with George Lucas all the way back to captain eo. But...Star Wars is not their property.



There are many against Avatar because Disney doesn't own the story design.

 

[FrankLapidus]

That's cool. Although really? You hated Avatar enough to avoid the land? I have no love for Transformers, but I'd still like to ride the Transformers ride at Universal.

Yep. I know that that probably sounds like an extreme standpoint to have but I have no intention of setting foot in Avatarland. I usually travel to WDW from Britain for a fortnight each year (sometimes we manage to make two trips) and in that time, I find plenty of things that I enjoy to occupy my time, be it golf or spending a few hours of my day travelling around the various hotels to take photos and enjoy things like the monorail. Nothing about Avatarland excites me and that is not going to change. From my point of view, I could spend that time on Kilamanjaro Safari, one of my favourite attractions in WDW, or stroll through Pangani Forest and I would consider that a far better way to spend my time than on an attraction or land themed on a film that I simply didn't like. If the land were being used for Beastly Kingdom or another film (be it Disney or non-Disney) then I might think differently but I don't like Avatar so I have no interest in Avatarland. Like I said, I know I might come off as somewhat extreme but I just have no enthusiasm or interest in the film or anything to do with it so I would just find it easier to ignore Avatarland and do something else that I enjoy.

 

[FrankLapidus]

Would you be opposed to Star Wars land being built at Disney Hollywood Studios?

No because I like the films (the original trilogy anyway). I have no agenda against non-Disney properties being brought into WDW but if it's a film I don't like, Avatar for example, then I can't force myself to be excited for a theme park attraction or land based on that film. I don't begrudge anyone who liked Avatar or is excited for Avatarland in the slightest, we all have different opinions on different things. I just don't like Avatar.

Many have said Disney did not create Avatar and there are many more ideas collecting dust on the imagineers shelf that could be built to use in the parks. Beastly Kingdom would be an example.

Do I think that, if given an adequate budget and time, the Disney Imagineers could come up with an original concept that could potentially be better than one based on a film (be it Disney or non-Disney)? Yes.

I've collected several books of WDW artwork and some of the artwork of attractions that never came to be are amazing and those attractions would have undoubtedly been amazing to experience. But my opinion of Avatar is not based on it being a non-Disney property, it's based on me not liking the film.

 

[baymenxpac]

Wait, really? LOST?

Does anyone even give a passing thought to this show any longer? It was a fun ride until we discovered Lindelof was just stringing us along the entire time. The only reason I'd even spend the time to re-watch it is to enumerate the thousand different plot strings he never resolved or explained. But I'd rather stare at the ceiling for 50 straight hours than do that.

first off, yeah. plenty of people give it a passing thought. and i won't go ahead and debate the ending of the show with you.

admittedly, disney missed their opportunity. however, they did build a twilight zone attraction like...30 years after it went off the air. and that attraction has shown plenty of mainstream appeal. plus, uni keeps building stuff like transformers which, despite the fact that michael bay has taken to framing optimus prime with his explosions lately, is about a 25-30 year old property.

Lost was so 2004. It's popularity dwindled down to a relatively small(ish) fanbase. And a lot of them felt betrayed by the show's final season.

I watched Lost to the bitter end. But I don't think it has a lot of selling power left.

that's so anecdotal. 13.5 million watched the finale. and i don't think you can qualify 'a lot' feeling betrayed by some comments on the internet. the problem with the finale was that it relied on viewers to pay attention and understand nuance (that the parallel timeline was independent of itself and didn't change the reality of their time on the island). but when a show relies on those two things, it rarely works out well.

Because it is a TV show that reached the end of its life. Remember that any big attraction will take minimum 2 years to build, so opening a Lost attraction 4 years after the TV series ended would be very risky.

understood. and if they did ever want to do something in discovery island in the future, i'm sure they could tie it in with marketing of...say the anniversary of the oceanic crash. or whatever. my point really was that they had an empty island sitting there doing nothing and had a successful show based on an island and either a) didn't make the cognitive connection or b) did, and decided against it. either way it's disappointing.

don't want to derail this thread (even if it is another avatar one). just wanted to respond to those pieces to show i'm not a nut job and i understand the reality of the situation. just think they dropped the ball on it.

 

[lebeau]

that's so anecdotal. 13.5 million watched the finale. and i don't think you can qualify 'a lot' feeling betrayed by some comments on the internet. the problem with the finale was that it relied on viewers to pay attention and understand nuance (that the parallel timeline was independent of itself and didn't change the reality of their time on the island). but when a show relies on those two things, it rarely works out well.

At the risk of drifting further off topic...

The ratings drop isn't anecdotal. It's factual. Here's a chart.

And really? You're going with the argument that the Lost finale was too smart for viewers? Lost fans were a pretty literate bunch. I think most viewers who hung in there followed it just fine. There are plenty of legit reasons to be disappointed in the Lost finale.