Doubting Avatar

[threeyoda]

Well, look at Splash Mountain. The whole ride is based on a nearly 70 year old movie that has never been released on home video in the US. Nearly all kids today have no idea who any of the characters in the ride are. But still, the ride is extremely extremely popular. If they build an amazing looking land and an inventive, fun, unique ride and a cool nighttime shoe/experience, the ride and land will still be very popular and amazing, no matter how the sequels do or what opinions are on the first.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I would have thought the next "lands" to be added to DAK would be Australia or South America. You could also do a major attraction and exhibit on the Arctic. There are several continents with unique animals and environments that are still lacking in DAK.

Instead they pick a non-Disney movie about an alien planet and run with it way out into left field. And it's a movie that sells absolutely no merchandise at Target or Toys R Us, inspires no Halloween costumes or birthday party themes, shows up on no ones Christmas list, and has generally very little resonance with anyone under the age of 12.

That one is a real head scratcher.

I believe Disney's thinking was to snatch up the rights now before anything you listed happened as a result of the sequels and whatever else might fuel the franchise in the future to that level of popularity. Of course, there is a sizeable "if" that comes with such hopes, but I guess Disney saw the box office returns and video sales and figured it was more likely than not. It is interesting to note that despite the huge earnings of movie 1, everything you've said is still true (although I did see Avatar toys at Toys Toys Toys recently).

I have never (and may never) actually watched Avatar as it simply does not interest me (not even out of curiosity as 3 hours is alot to dedicate to such a thing), but I want AK to get something big so I'm hoping for the best for AL, since I'm thinking the alternative, as suggested by others, would be nothing.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Well, look at Splash Mountain. The whole ride is based on a nearly 70 year old movie that has never been released on home video in the US. Nearly all kids today have no idea who any of the characters in the ride are. But still, the ride is extremely extremely popular. If they build an amazing looking land and an inventive, fun, unique ride and a cool nighttime shoe/experience, the ride and land will still be very popular and amazing, no matter how the sequels do or what opinions are on the first.

Song of the South had a relatively successful theatrical rerelease to US theaters in 1986. When Splash Mountain opened in 1989, it was not thought that the film would end up locked away in the vault.

 

[Longhairbear]

The Jules Verne angle makes much more sense. Especially as Disney has made 2 movies of the 3 stories of the 20K trilogy, with another studio having made "Mysterious Island". I've read all three novels, and there are lots of world locations, animals, and adventure that would fit DAK nicely.

 

[jt04]

The Jules Verne angle makes much more sense. Especially as Disney has made 2 movies of the 3 stories of the 20K trilogy, with another studio having made "Mysterious Island". I've read all three novels, and there are lots of world locations, animals, and adventure that would fit DAK nicely.

Especially if crafted by the skills of Joe Rhode and other WDI talent. The possibilities are astounding.

 

[bubbles1812]

If he was hoping more for a Mysterious Island/Jules Verne/Mystic Manor type land then they should listen to him more because that has potential to be the greatest "land" ever. Like an Adventurers Land. I know I am preaching to the choir.

Hey! Miracles happen! We actually agree on something jt... that actually sounds like a very very cool idea. Jules Verne is pretty awesome and they could do so much with it. Seems like it would be a good fit for Disney too. And I wouldn't mind a new iteration of 20K come to the parks (not the old ride, but a full new ride). It's fun to think about even if the chances of it happening are sadly zero to none.

 

[threeyoda]

Song of the South had a relatively successful theatrical rerelease to US theaters in 1986. When Splash Mountain opened in 1989, it was not thought that the film would end up locked away in the vault.

Ok, but Splash Mountain is still considered a classic ride by many, even thought the movie last came out almost 35 years ago and nearly all kids today don't even know its based on a movie.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Song of the South had a relatively successful theatrical rerelease to US theaters in 1986. When Splash Mountain opened in 1989, it was not thought that the film would end up locked away in the vault.

You know, that's when I saw it! I loved it, and my dad laughed so hard at it I thought he'd bust a gut. I don't remember feeling at all uncomfortable at some of the so-called political incorrectness in the film, either. Ah, the innocence (ignorance) of childhood...

 

[unkadug]

Song of the South had a relatively successful theatrical rerelease to US theaters in 1986. When Splash Mountain opened in 1989, it was not thought that the film would end up locked away in the vault.

By who?

The general public? They could not care less, they still enjoy the attraction regardless of any film connection.

The Disney Company? They knew it had been previously locked up just as all the Disney Classics (and not-so-classic) have and continue to be.

 

[wdwmagic]

The upshot is, if they build an amazing attraction, nobody will care what movie it is tied to.

 

[trr1]

why is it that gone with the wind is shown on tv and has dvd's and no one makes a big deal with that movie but SOTS does? GWTW is about slavery and SOTS is after the Emancipation
of slaves

 

[Magenta Panther]

why is it that gone with the wind is shown on tv and has dvd's and no one makes a big deal with that movie but SOTS does? GWTW is about slavery and SOTS is after the Emancipation
of slaves

Very good point. GWTW is way more "racist", if you will, than SOTS, and there are really no positive black characters in it, whereas SOTS has the wonderful Uncle Remus, plus the black child who was the best friend of the main child protagonist. I think that, with a little judicious editing, SOTS would be perfectly acceptable to modern audiences. What a shame that kids are being deprived of that movie just because some grownups are so uptight about it...

 

[Donald96]

Haha when I was little I used to think Splash Mountain was original, then I heard about the movie and thought they made a movie about the ride... lol Then I found out that the movie came first during trivia done by a cast member in Phillarmagic! Of course that was before I became obsessed with Disney

 

[RSoxNo1]

The upshot is, if they build an amazing attraction, nobody will care what movie it is tied to.

We've been saying this for a while now but people that dislike Avatar refuse to listen. It's only slightly frustrating.

 

[doctornick]

Well, look at Splash Mountain. The whole ride is based on a nearly 70 year old movie that has never been released on home video in the US. Nearly all kids today have no idea who any of the characters in the ride are. But still, the ride is extremely extremely popular. If they build an amazing looking land and an inventive, fun, unique ride and a cool nighttime shoe/experience, the ride and land will still be very popular and amazing, no matter how the sequels do or what opinions are on the first.

The upshot is, if they build an amazing attraction, nobody will care what movie it is tied to.

This is my take. In isolation, I don't particularly care for an Avatar themed area. I am certaintly not interested enough in the movie to make me want to visit something themed to it just for the sake of seeing Avatar and I don't think I'm alone -- few people will go to AvatarLand because it's Avatar, there's just not any sort of real fanbase there or cultural conscious about the movie. It's nothing like Potter or Star Wars or even Cars in terms of being able to draw people in who simply want to see be a part of that theme.

But who cares? If they build Beastly Kingdomme, no one would go to that because it's mythical creature themed, either. People will go and enjoy if it has quality rides and attractions and provide a fun experience. And, in that regard, the visuals and messages of Avatar seem as reasonable as anything else.

My big question for Disney would be if it's worth paying the royalties to get the Avatar theme; I don't think it is. But it's not my money and I just want some more rides and longer hours at DAK with more immersion. And for that Avatar/Pandora seems like a great option as there's a lot of potential there for really awesome attractions and fantastic immersive experiences. And with Cameron being involved, I think that would make sure it's a high quality land. And I think that Avatar clearly fits in with DAK with it's heavy themes of conservation and nature being connected together.

To each their own, but I'm excited and I don't care at all about Avatar.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

why is it that gone with the wind is shown on tv and has dvd's and no one makes a big deal with that movie but SOTS does? GWTW is about slavery and SOTS is after the Emancipation
of slaves

It has to do with the movie being sold to children and their inability to fully comprehend what racism is being shown to them. GWTW, is not a "kids" movie. It's why a Walt Disney Treasures edition would have been best suited IMO, but now that line has been killed off. Maybe a 2am TCM broadcast?

 

[tl77]

Hey! Miracles happen! We actually agree on something jt... that actually sounds like a very very cool idea. Jules Verne is pretty awesome and they could do so much with it. Seems like it would be a good fit for Disney too. And I wouldn't mind a new iteration of 20K come to the parks (not the old ride, but a full new ride). It's fun to think about even if the chances of it happening are sadly zero to none.

I think a Jules Verne/Victorian themed area would be a better fit for Animal Kingdom, everything else there has an old world/primitive esthetic to it. The futuristic, alien world of Avatar is pretty in the movie, but I don't think AK really needs a "Tomorrowland", plus the mythological creatures won't go out of style, at they haven't for the past 2000 years or so

btw isn't possible Disney bought the right to Avatar just so Universal couldn't?

 

[WDW1974]

The upshot is, if they build an amazing attraction, nobody will care what movie it is tied to.

Exactly.

And a great attraction doesn't even need any source material to be tied to, either.

I really thought Avatar was mediocre at best as a film, but that doesn't mean you couldn't have a phenomenal attraction based on it.

That said, I don't agree with the knee-jerk desperation grab for the theme park rights to it when no one else was exactly bidding.

 

[wdwmagic]

Exactly.

And a great attraction doesn't even need any source material to be tied to, either.

I really thought Avatar was mediocre at best as a film, but that doesn't mean you couldn't have a phenomenal attraction based on it.

That said, I don't agree with the knee-jerk desperation grab for the theme park rights to it when no one else was exactly bidding.

Yep exactly.

We'll just have to see how this thing turns out and judge it then. I really don't mind whether it is AVATAR or not. I just want a great attraction, and I'll be judging it on that basis.

 

[marni1971]

Potter is a stunning, immersive environment where my jaw actually dropped. Forbidden Journey is worthy of rerides each visit.

I forced us to watch the first movie and have no desire to watch more. Theres a British lad with glasses in it, and the Coltrane bloke who used to be in Cracker. And that's all I know.

If the attraction is good enough it can be called what they like. Expensive licenses don't make or break a ride. The story and show do.