Captain Chaos
Well-Known Member
Pop Century was also because the nation pretty much tanked after 9-11...
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Doubting Avatar
- Thread starter walt-sent-me
- Start date
Pop Century was also because the nation pretty much tanked after 9-11...
Captain Chaos
Well-Known Member
And what makes you think that construction won't start on time??? Seems like CMM is just starting getting prepped for eventual closure... Of course, until construction starts anything can happen... And Disney always has delays... But once this project gets going, I really doubt they will just stop it cause Avatar 2 did 1.5 billion and not 2.7 billion....
Captain Chaos
Well-Known Member
Can't use common sense... You aren't allowed...
No one knows how Avatar 2 will perform in the theaters... I think, the only safe bet is, the movie won't pull $2.7 billion like the first one... There are still people who think Marvel will be used in WDW when it can't be... of course, you cannot reason with some people...
Turtle
Well-Known Member
But personally I would prefer a Lion King section (http://alecfosho.blogspot.com/2012/04/pride-lands-new-land-at-animal-kingdom.html) rather than Avatar. It fits the park a lot better and it's more "Disney". And if not Lion King then maybe a "Storybook Jungle" which is like a Fantasyland jungle with The Jungle Book, Bambi, and other Disney animated animal movies
thats a good point...and i bet our insiders will have a better feel for whats going on by then
Doesn't the Expo only happen in odd years? Next one should be next August...
Or it means that Avatar will still happen and you should focus your efforts on wishing upon a star for something else.
yoda_5729
Well-Known Member
I made a few posts earlier where I probably appeared as I was ranting against Avatarland/Pandora. It's not for the same reasons everyone else seems to think are the negatives. To me, Disney's Animal Kingdom is wrong for the film. I don't have a problem with it in Hollywood Studios, or to me it would fit in better in Future World. As one person mentioned I'm not sure Animal Kingdom of all places needs a futuristic section devoted to it.
Yes, there have been dozens of attractions made from films that were more insignificant then Avatar, but they weren't whole lands devoted to a film that I don't see in that park. Everyone talks about the animals as if they bounced off the tongue, yet I can't name a single one. The plants are nice, sure, but they're fictional and alien. Naboo in Star Wars with the underwater scenes was quite cool as well.
I don't doubt in the slightest Disney could make a great attraction, but just like the Sorceror's Hat in Hollywood Studios I don't agree it should be placed there. I think more then anything Iger thought he wanted more attention on AK and had just bought Avatar and without even really thinking about it, he said it's going there. It clearly is a easier fit at Hollywood Studios, but they aren't doing that.
One thing too about Avatar and it's conservation message. It's not a message of conservation against pollution or using up resources. The message for conservation is don't blow up an alien planet. Remember in the movie, we want Pandora, and though we kill the plants and such we want the minerals and resources. The conservation message is anti-war not anti-pollution. Pandora has no pollution problems that we know of at all.
Could the area be done well, sure. Could it be cool, sure. But of the thousands of choices you have, Avatar is what we are getting is the problem I have. Once again Star Wars has proven itself to be majorly popular with fans of all ages. It gets 1 building. Is Pandora heavily detailed, yes, but even it would lose to the entire galaxy Star Wars has built through games, comics, books, movies, video games, etc. If anything to me the visuals of Avatar are a negative because I've seen it. The greatness of Avatar was the visuals, so I don't need them to build something I've already seen in engrossing detail just for the sake of being pretty.
I posted an article from the NYT earlier in this post, and in it it talks about how zoos have to decide what animals they can save and what they can't. The article states that one zoo is spending a lot of money on a new Sea Lion exhibit, though Sea Lions are not in trouble from extinction. Some felt the money could be used to help save more endangered wildlife, but that those animals aren't headliners. Everytime I hear people call Animal Kingdom stale or boring I worry about this. Well, we could save a bat or frog or insect, but because they are boring we'll spend millions to bring a movie to a park that might not even belong, though that's my opinion. I do get more money for AK is a good idea, but the park can take a hit as well if people don't feel sections belong in the park, whether it's good or bad.
Either way, I'm in the minority. I'm not saying it can't be fun, or good or cool. It can be all that, but Hollywood Studios is a much better place for it.
Yes, there have been dozens of attractions made from films that were more insignificant then Avatar, but they weren't whole lands devoted to a film that I don't see in that park. Everyone talks about the animals as if they bounced off the tongue, yet I can't name a single one. The plants are nice, sure, but they're fictional and alien. Naboo in Star Wars with the underwater scenes was quite cool as well.
I don't doubt in the slightest Disney could make a great attraction, but just like the Sorceror's Hat in Hollywood Studios I don't agree it should be placed there. I think more then anything Iger thought he wanted more attention on AK and had just bought Avatar and without even really thinking about it, he said it's going there. It clearly is a easier fit at Hollywood Studios, but they aren't doing that.
One thing too about Avatar and it's conservation message. It's not a message of conservation against pollution or using up resources. The message for conservation is don't blow up an alien planet. Remember in the movie, we want Pandora, and though we kill the plants and such we want the minerals and resources. The conservation message is anti-war not anti-pollution. Pandora has no pollution problems that we know of at all.
Could the area be done well, sure. Could it be cool, sure. But of the thousands of choices you have, Avatar is what we are getting is the problem I have. Once again Star Wars has proven itself to be majorly popular with fans of all ages. It gets 1 building. Is Pandora heavily detailed, yes, but even it would lose to the entire galaxy Star Wars has built through games, comics, books, movies, video games, etc. If anything to me the visuals of Avatar are a negative because I've seen it. The greatness of Avatar was the visuals, so I don't need them to build something I've already seen in engrossing detail just for the sake of being pretty.
I posted an article from the NYT earlier in this post, and in it it talks about how zoos have to decide what animals they can save and what they can't. The article states that one zoo is spending a lot of money on a new Sea Lion exhibit, though Sea Lions are not in trouble from extinction. Some felt the money could be used to help save more endangered wildlife, but that those animals aren't headliners. Everytime I hear people call Animal Kingdom stale or boring I worry about this. Well, we could save a bat or frog or insect, but because they are boring we'll spend millions to bring a movie to a park that might not even belong, though that's my opinion. I do get more money for AK is a good idea, but the park can take a hit as well if people don't feel sections belong in the park, whether it's good or bad.
Either way, I'm in the minority. I'm not saying it can't be fun, or good or cool. It can be all that, but Hollywood Studios is a much better place for it.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
That's correct. The next Expo is August 2013.
Captain Chaos
Well-Known Member
In all due respect, I am doubting you even saw the movie... Avatar is not about DO NOT BLOW UP AN ALIEN PLANET... It is not ANTI-WAR...
Humans go to Pandora to mine Unobtanium, a rare mineral which would make the company doing the mining even richer... In the name of greed, they are destroying a beautiful planet, the home of the Na'vi... The Na'vi rise up to save their home...
The message is protect your planet (Earth) or else we will all suffer a tragic fate... War is only the symbol of the destruction we are causing here on Earth by killing mother nature (you know, not conserving the planet)... Has nothing to do with war...
yoda_5729
Well-Known Member
I di
I did in fact see the movie twice, and you are correct it's not "Don't blow up the planet" but we blow up a lot not caring about anything they have besides the one mineral. You are correct greed is the major factor and that's wasn't a slam against a military or anything like that, as it was greed driving the military and not any other purpose which war can often include. But the main factor in terms of Pandora suffering is due to militaristic explosions. Not really what we think of in terms of conservation, though in some cases mining does do similar damage. It wasn't mining though that destroyed the large tree in the movie, nor was it mining that killed many of the Na'Vi. I may not remember the movie perfectly and I didn't mean physically blowing up the entire planet but more the damages the war did killed the natural environment in Avatar.
I don't really see how you can say though that it has nothing to do with war, as it's trying to show what damages war can do? War is similar to cutting down forests and pollution. Being a conservationist, people would probably be anti-those activities. That's what I meant, though perhaps I'm not explaining it well. Either way people take many things from movies, and that's the message I took, though I guess I was wrong.
I did in fact see the movie twice, and you are correct it's not "Don't blow up the planet" but we blow up a lot not caring about anything they have besides the one mineral. You are correct greed is the major factor and that's wasn't a slam against a military or anything like that, as it was greed driving the military and not any other purpose which war can often include. But the main factor in terms of Pandora suffering is due to militaristic explosions. Not really what we think of in terms of conservation, though in some cases mining does do similar damage. It wasn't mining though that destroyed the large tree in the movie, nor was it mining that killed many of the Na'Vi. I may not remember the movie perfectly and I didn't mean physically blowing up the entire planet but more the damages the war did killed the natural environment in Avatar.
I don't really see how you can say though that it has nothing to do with war, as it's trying to show what damages war can do? War is similar to cutting down forests and pollution. Being a conservationist, people would probably be anti-those activities. That's what I meant, though perhaps I'm not explaining it well. Either way people take many things from movies, and that's the message I took, though I guess I was wrong.
bubbles1812
Well-Known Member
That is very true about some of their best rides being original concepts...the problem is I don't think at least current management really wants to take a risk on something "this big" (even though based on the fact we are hearing about budget cuts, it won't be) without having a "big well established franchise" (not really sure Avatar is that but hey, it's the best they could do
)to back them up. It will be interesting to see what actually comes of the project. I think it will appear in parks but I'm not sure what form it will be in. I don't really buy that Disney needs Cameron to help them combat Universal either...but that doesn't mean TDO don't think so.
bubbles1812
Well-Known Member
I'm actually not negative on the project at all. Provided it's given the right budget to do it well, I think it could turn out really great. Pandora is a pretty awesome world. And I don't think the sequels will bomb but I also don't think they'll do as well at the original (that's a pretty tall mountain to climb). But I'd agree with what misterID said...I think a lot of it comes from people either not liking the movie or thinking it doesn't fit with AK/Disney (something I actually disagree on)
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
Pandora looks good in Avatar, but without using screens, anything that is built is going to probably look fake. You can't build floating rocks in the sky. And you can't easily build the animals in Pandora, or even the glowing flowers, without turning the land into an outdoors Tiki Room. I agree with trying to do the impossible, but its like George Lucas insisting that an entire land be built to look like Coruscant with thousands of speeders and tall buildings and a couple moon overhead. We'd all love to explore the Coruscant of Star Wars, but the closest we'll get is Star Tours.
I think an Avatar-land dark ride is possible if you do it so that it is Pandora at night and you move quickly through it so it doesn't look that fake, but I don't think an Avatar land would work, especially as some boys would complain that they don't have the macho military hardware, just the smurfs on steroids.
bubbles1812
Well-Known Member
Hmm. Interesting take. I'm not sure honestly. I think, again, given enough money they could do a pretty good job...guess it all depends on what they would decide to build. Like those trees with the...memories? or whatever of their ancestors? (Sorry been awhile since I watched the movie)...I could see them being able to create those trees ok. It would require a lot of LED lights and some creativity but they could do it. Though yes, it may not ever fully be able to look real but hey, I don't think the Tree of Life looks real and I'm fine with it. Think most people would be able to suspend a little disbelief. But again, I think it all depends on the budget really. The more money they have the more they have to work with and can better get that realism down.
A dark ride concept is interesting...I wouldn't actually mind that provided they also did another attraction that was an "E ticket" (For a project of this size, I expect and E ticket and God knows AK needs another one). So say do a dark ride and then a "Flight simulator" type ride maybe involving flying on the backs of those whachamacallits fighting against the bad ol' military...or something along those lines. I'll be happy with whatever as long as it you know, breaks some ground and actually advances ride tech while providing a good story. I want AK to have it's Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey. But that's the main question...will it actually get that?
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
When I say "dark ride" I refer to the original definition which involves UV light and flourescent paint for a night time Pandora world, the ride could be as long as Pirates, and perhaps even have some thrills. Not dark ride in the sense of rides like Peter Pan which are sort and have few thrills.
The thing is that Cameron walked around AK and was dreaming up what Pandora would look like. He wants Disney to spend $500 million+ on a land based on one film, and help promote a non-Disney franchise in the making. He wants enough money to get it "right", and Bob Iger is on a power trip thinking that adding a new successful land to a theme park is as easy as buying up the rights to a blockbuster.
To really make an Avatar-land they would need to build around a half-dozen of those tall trees, it would be like building five Swiss Family robinson tree houses, then they would need to fake massive floating rocks, or add waterfalls and a lot of rock work. Then they would have to put in fiber optics and leds everywhere to make the place look good at night, as well as build fake plants and mix them with real plants. I am guessing this would cost around $400 million to do this, and we haven't even started talking about a ride. This isn't a fake mountain range, but hiring people to put in a lot of fake leaves by hand. A couple rides would add on $200 to $300 million, if you include restaurants. About $700 million, or more, for a land with a couple rides and a restaurant, it could easily cost more than Carsland. Cameron isn't stupid, he knows that it will cost more than $500 million, and Disney wants to scale back the cost to around $350 to $400 million . . .
I had completely forgotten about Avatar's memory tree thingies, guests walking around at night would probably just see light up trees. Avatar is not yet an important franchise like Star Wars, and is more forgettable.
bubbles1812
Well-Known Member
I think the 700 million version of that plan that you came up with seems pretty awesome..that would look super cool at night especially. I do actually agree with Cameron on this one (even if he is a bit of an a**hole) that the project needs at least 500 million to look good. And I agree with what you said about Bob Iger (thank goodness he is leaving). He is a moron when it comes to the theme parks. That Disney is wanting to cut back...again...sigh. I wouldn't be surprised if Cameron eventually throws a fit (which might actually be justifiable depending on what Disney is trying to cut) and threatens to pull out to get his way or actually does pull out. Say what you will about the man but he does like to go for grand scale, impressive visuals and pushing technology forward. Not sure he can do that at Disney in the way he wants.
I agree with you totally that Avatar is not yet an important franchise and is imminently more forgettable. Which is why they absolutely have to spend the money if they want it to keep...they have make it very impressive so that even if the movie franchise is forgotten, it has staying power as a land..something I don't honestly know if top management realizes. A half assed land is not going to impress anybody, especially given how polarizing the land seems to be already. Half the people on this board seem to have vowed they will never set foot in it (which I think is silly).
WED Purist
Well-Known Member
It's amusing, and sometimes frustrating, to watch posters speak with such authority on subjects using, "I think... I feel... I want/don't want". Truth, there is art work, it's just not public yet. Which still wouldn't mean a project is a go. I've seen some amazing drawings of additions that may or may not ever get built. The only difference I've noticed about the Avatar announcement is that it pre-dated most of the blue sky discussions. That period of time also allows the civil and logistical design to start, which takes easily as much effort as the concept art does. Personally, I side with the few comments that if the land is built, and you don't like the movie, you would still enjoy the environment it creates. Plus, some of the attractions they're talking about will be more than impressive.
Longhairbear
Well-Known Member
I'd love to know how the company views the online comments about Avatarland, both negative, and positive.