Doubting Avatar

[bubbles1812]

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.

I think that too. The concept definitely has potential and I think the land, if done well, will be enjoyable even for those who didn't like/haven't seen the movies in a similar vain as to guests who experience HP without knowing the full story experience Universal's land. The key though is that they do have to do it well. As I stated in my above post, I think this is a project that they absolutely have to spend money on and not scale back. Have one tree from Pandora and a few plants isn't going to impress very many people whether you like the movie or not (extreme example I know just trying to think about what the effects of Disney wanting to slash the proposed budget by 100 to 150 million would be). And we don't really know much about any attractions...they only thing that's been announced thus far is I think Cameron saying he'd one want to involve flying. But again, I do think there is a lot of potential for rides too. The story in Avatar was just ok but that world was definitely rich.

But since the franchise might not have the same staying power as say Harry Potter, again, I think they really really need to be willing to spend the money to make the land look good and make the rides very memorable (creativity and technology wise) so that it stands on its own even apart from the franchise it's from. It's just not as strong of a franchise at the moment. We'll see if that changes going forward but I'm not sure it will. People seemed to either love the movie or hate it so I'm not expecting the next ones to make as much money.

 

[PirateFrank]

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....

With all due respect, Disney doesn't had a very good track record with respect to these things. You even admit so yourself. It's not a question of if it gets delayed (both in start and during), it's really a question of when and by how much. This is all assuming they build it at all....we still haven't seen art from a company that loves showing art early -- even for projects that later get cancelled or dramatically changed in scope.

As far as Avatar II doing 1.5B, I have a fleet of paddle boats to sell you as well. The Avengers is just creeping near the 1.5B mark and it's 100 times the movie, in multiple respects, that Avatar was. Realistically, the question here is whether Avatar is going to be a 500m movie or a 1B movie. If it's even remotely close to 500M, it will be a relative fiscal failure on par with John Carter and you will see someone get fired at 20th century fox. Disney will have to do a similar save-face shuffle....which will result in AL getting put on hold, canceled or dramatically reduced in scope....and this is only if it doesn't get canceled within the next year, which is where I'm putting my chips.

Sorry, until I see art, this still reeks to high hell of a knee-jerk desperate announcement by a CEO tremendously, hilariously disconnected from paying guests of his parks.

 

[Tim Lohr]

I don't have anything against the Avatar movie, I enjoyed it, I like sci-fi movies in general, but the problem that all sci-fi, futuristic stuff has is common, is that it looks dated very quickly. That's why they had to reinvent "Tomorrowland" after 20 years, and "Future World" in Epcot, and "Star Tours" just got a total over haul.

The reason Sci-fi gets old quickly is because it's totally dependent on "the latest cutting edge technology" to create it, and technology is constantly evolving and improving, making what's cutting edge today seem old fashion tomorrow.

That's the problem not only of an Avatar movie but an Avatar-land as well. Weather the sequels and the land are hits in 2015 is anybody's guess, will they still be hits in 2025? If "Future World" and "Tomorrowland" are any indication, I wouldn't bet on it, but Disney and Mr. Iger are "betting" on all these things.

The worst case in my opinion is that they do build an Avatarland, and it is great, but ends up being something like Horizons, something so massive and costly to maintain that they eventually decided it's easier to tear it down and start over with something else, is that a possibly? yeah, because "Sci-fi stuff gets old quickly" it just does, it always does, and it's not a good bet to think that it won't

 

[twebber55]

I'd love to know how the company views the online comments about Avatarland, both negative, and positive.

i noticed on another web site thats about orlando theme parks how much less negative they are about this project than this board....maybe the desenters are just really loud here

 

[Captain Chaos]

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.

Because you are missing the point... The war is a symbol of the destruction we are doing to our own planet by coal mining, fracking, and what ever else these oil/gas/energy companies do to sustain their business, all the while destroying nature, the Earth, animal habitats, and even destroying our own neighborhoods... The movie had nothing to do about war...

 

[Captain Chaos]

With all due respect, Disney doesn't had a very good track record with respect to these things. You even admit so yourself. It's not a question of if it gets delayed (both in start and during), it's really a question of when and by how much. This is all assuming they build it at all....we still haven't seen art from a company that loves showing art early -- even for projects that later get cancelled or dramatically changed in scope.

As far as Avatar II doing 1.5B, I have a fleet of paddle boats to sell you as well. The Avengers is just creeping near the 1.5B mark and it's 100 times the movie, in multiple respects, that Avatar was. Realistically, the question here is whether Avatar is going to be a 500m movie or a 1B movie. If it's even remotely close to 500M, it will be a relative fiscal failure on par with John Carter and you will see someone get fired at 20th century fox. Disney will have to do a similar save-face shuffle....which will result in AL getting put on hold, canceled or dramatically reduced in scope....and this is only if it doesn't get canceled within the next year, which is where I'm putting my chips.

Sorry, until I see art, this still reeks to high hell of a knee-jerk desperate announcement by a CEO tremendously, hilariously disconnected from paying guests of his parks.

Delays are very different than straight up stopping construction for good, leaving half a building up inside a theme park for guests to see... And you and yoda claim straight up stopping construction... Big difference...

And since you can predict the future, what are the winning lottery numbers for the next 3 weeks????

Your Avatar hate is clouding your mind... Just like the pixie dust does to others... Clear your mind, you'll see things much much better...

 

[twebber55]

With all due respect, Disney doesn't had a very good track record with respect to these things. You even admit so yourself. It's not a question of if it gets delayed (both in start and during), it's really a question of when and by how much. This is all assuming they build it at all....we still haven't seen art from a company that loves showing art early -- even for projects that later get cancelled or dramatically changed in scope.

As far as Avatar II doing 1.5B, I have a fleet of paddle boats to sell you as well. The Avengers is just creeping near the 1.5B mark and it's 100 times the movie, in multiple respects, that Avatar was. Realistically, the question here is whether Avatar is going to be a 500m movie or a 1B movie. If it's even remotely close to 500M, it will be a relative fiscal failure on par with John Carter and you will see someone get fired at 20th century fox. Disney will have to do a similar save-face shuffle....which will result in AL getting put on hold, canceled or dramatically reduced in scope....and this is only if it doesn't get canceled within the next year, which is where I'm putting my chips.

Sorry, until I see art, this still reeks to high hell of a knee-jerk desperate announcement by a CEO tremendously, hilariously disconnected from paying guests of his parks.

yep avengers just crossed half way to what avatar made so dont you think it may be somewhat of a popular movie franchise...maybe bob and tom got with james and figured out james' plans for the future of avatar and decided we need to get on this now

 

[PirateFrank]

Delays are very different than straight up stopping construction for good, leaving half a building up inside a theme park for guests to see... And you and yoda claim straight up stopping construction... Big difference...

And since you can predict the future, what are the winning lottery numbers for the next 3 weeks????

Your Avatar hate is clouding your mind... Just like the pixie dust does to others... Clear your mind, you'll see things much much better...

I can just as easily say the same thing about your view on Avatar. I'm not throwing down from an emotional place...I'd really love it if you did the same.

To be quite honest, I don't hate Avatar. I really enjoyed the movie, even while recognizing just how unoriginal and reused the plot is....I also recognize the potential a land or attraction themed around the movie. Is it my first choice? No. Is it a viable choice. I would have to acquiesce and say yes.

Here's the point I have been making in this thread...the OP was wondering, out loud, why people doubt it. The reasoning is simple:
* No art for almost a year.
* Negative reaction by the CEO when pressed at shareholder meeting.
* General aire of knee-jerk, desperate reaction to Potter by Iger (while leaving Rhode out of it)


Also, if you read my post instead of desperately trying to defend your movie with emotions blazing, you'd realize that I clearly stated that *if* the sequels don't perform, you will see Disney react and reduce the scope of this...if it hasn't already been canceled. There's a lot of *ifs* in my statements. I hardly consider what I am speaking to be clairvoyant with so many conditionals in my line of thinking.

yep avengers just crossed half way to what avatar made so dont you think it may be somewhat of a popular movie franchise...maybe bob and tom got with james and figured out james' plans for the future of avatar and decided we need to get on this now

Actually, its more than halfway there.....

As for Avatar being a franchise, it's not. Not yet. It's one movie, with a purely dismal track record of merchandising OR licensing of the movie's IP. Compare that to the Avengers, which is the 6th movie in a carefully executed succession of successful movies...with explosive IP and merchandising potential. I'll take 6 successful related movies with explosive merchandising potential over one more successful movie with very limited merch potential....any day of the week.

And you're right, with Bob thinking this is going to be big....why else would he have done a "ready, fire, aim" announcement of AL?

Put it this way.... I'll be here with a fork and you guys can dish up the plate of crow if I am wrong.....I'm betting Iger just saw the big number Avatar pulled in the Box Office and assumed the sequel is going to do the same, without considering the fact that the first benefited hugely from the expansion of digital 3D....and moreso, that the blue people don't sell worth a wooden nickel in toys r us.

 

[twebber55]

I can just as easily say the same thing about your view on Avatar. I'm not throwing down from an emotional place...I'd really love it if you did the same.

To be quite honest, I don't hate Avatar. I really enjoyed the movie, even while recognizing just how unoriginal and reused the plot is....I also recognize the potential a land or attraction themed around the movie. Is it my first choice? No. Is it a viable choice. I would have to acquiesce and say yes.

Here's the point I have been making in this thread...the OP was wondering, out loud, why people doubt it. The reasoning is simple:
* No art for almost a year.
* Negative reaction by the CEO when pressed at shareholder meeting.
* General aire of knee-jerk, desperate reaction to Potter by Iger (while leaving Rhode out of it)


Also, if you read my post instead of desperately trying to defend your movie with emotions blazing, you'd realize that I clearly stated that *if* the sequels don't perform, you will see Disney react and reduce the scope of this...if it hasn't already been canceled. There's a lot of *ifs* in my statements. I hardly consider what I am speaking to be clairvoyant with so many conditionals in my line of thinking.





Actually, its more than halfway there.....

As for Avatar being a franchise, it's not. Not yet. It's one movie, with a purely dismal track record of merchandising OR licensing of the movie's IP. Compare that to the Avengers, which is the 6th movie in a carefully executed succession of successful movies...with explosive IP and merchandising potential. I'll take 6 successful related movies with explosive merchandising potential over one more successful movie with very limited merch potential....any day of the week.

And you're right, with Bob thinking this is going to be big....why else would he have done a "ready, fire, aim" announcement of AL?

Put it this way.... I'll be here with a fork and you guys can dish up the plate of crow if I am wrong.....I'm betting Iger just saw the big number Avatar pulled in the Box Office and assumed the sequel is going to do the same, without considering the fact that the first benefited hugely from the expansion of digital 3D....and moreso, that the blue people don't sell worth a wooden nickel in toys r us.

maybe im just giving TWDC a little more credit than you...2.7 billion means somebody liked it...i thought it was solid not great... but could be incredible as a themed land...but more than anything im excited about expansion

another thing i dont get is why the OP mentions why the doubt yet it turns into Avatar sucks . blah blah blah...and its from the same 6 people..ok i get it you dont like it let it go...if it comes dont go..if it doesnt come you can gloat all you want lol

 

[marni1971]

Imagine if Bobs party is cut short before the project breaks ground..

 

[yoda_5729]

I never meant when I said Avatar was anti-war that it was being critical of any one group, but it was showcasing how war can cause problems to people and the environment. The fact it's being used as a symbol in the movie I would think would make it antiwar, as even James Cameron himself said that Avatar has anti-war themes.

"Look, at this point I'm less interested in making money for the movie and more interested in saving the world that my children are going to inhabit. How about that? I mean look, I didn't make this movie with these strong environmental anti-war themes in it to make friends on the right, you know." - James Cameron

(If you do a search online of that exact quote you can find it from the NY Daily News among other sources, but due to some language in the interview I didn't want to post a link.)

All I was trying to say was that anti-war is a theme in Avatar, and I think the guy who made the movie just pretty much said that? The reason I was bringing it up was not to attack the fact he used such themes but to show that the vast majority of the time we talk conservation, it's about pollution or deforestation. Deforestation to a bit is displayed through the mining, but pollution is in no way displayed in Avatar that I remember. I'm not really critical of Avatar in the sense of it's plot in terms of it being a land in Disney World, it's more I don't see a futuristic or alien world really fitting in in AK. It's just my opinion though on that, so I could be wrong.

 

[twebber55]

Imagine if Bobs party is cut short before the project breaks ground..

well like my grand pappy used to say if aunt bertha had a mustache she d be uncle fred....we cant really deal in ifs but IF that happens all bets are off and im back at Universal (like the last two years) of my orlando vaca

 

[marni1971]

well like my grand pappy used to say if aunt bertha had a mustache she d be uncle fred....we cant really deal in ifs but IF that happens all bets are off and im back at Universal (like the last two years) of my orlando vaca

Indeed. Let's see what happens.

 

[El Grupo]

Imagine if Bobs party is cut short before the project breaks ground..

If this were to happen, any thoughts on what other project(s) may be fast-tracked and launched instead of AL?

 

[PirateFrank]

maybe im just giving TWDC a little more credit than you...2.7 billion means somebody liked it...i thought it was solid not great... but could be incredible as a themed land...but more than anything im excited about expansion

another thing i dont get is why the OP mentions why the doubt yet it turns into Avatar sucks . blah blah blah...and its from the same 6 people..ok i get it you dont like it let it go...if it comes dont go..if it doesnt come you can gloat all you want lol

The avatar sucks comments will follow every Avatar discussion on this board. I've been there, and done that..as deer07002 will likely document. I've moved past it and recognize that there is potential for a themed attraction or land based on the movie....I do enjoy the movie and think if well done, could be successful.

However, you are right. I do not give TWDC much credit here. I do feel that the avatar decision was a hasty one without considering the negatives surrounding the potential for the movie to evolve into a franchise...and there are considerable ones, especially with respect to merchandising and licensing. We were all desperate for a 'potter swatter' or some reaction to potter...and this was clearly a hasty reaction. As if Bob went to the worldwide box office list and went "Geee, what's this Avatar thing...I'd better scoop it up before someone else does"

Take into consideration how much inefficiency goes into a large scale capital development at WDW, especially when compared to comparable operations at Uni. Then consider the scope and budget limitations that TDO will try to impose.....my lack of faith is well-founded.

As far as the movie itself...It is a hugely successful movie. However, let's be clear here. It was carefully released at a time when Digital 3D was being heavily deployed in the theaters. Cameron cherry picked the release date to take advantage of this, with very little competition in 3D films. Was he a visionary for anticipating that a visually stunning movie would have explosive box office sales due to the Digital 3D infrastructure being available? You bet!! I can't stop giving him credit for that. A great deal of movies released over the past 3.5 years following avatar have to lend some credit to avatar for breaking open an alternative market for movie theaters. But the fact of the matter is that the 2.7B he took in for that film is attributable to the fad of Digital 3D in some significant way. But the technology is out of the box. It's not the fad it was 3 years ago. 3D is accessible to consumers at home now. The advantage that Cameron wisely exploited in 2009 will not be there when this next film gets released. Will it be successful? maybe. Can it become a box-office Ishtar? There's also a great deal of potential for that.

There's still that merchandising issue with Avatar. The only blue action figure kids want are Capt. America. Turning Avatar into a marketable franchise has challenges...significant ones.

 

[marni1971]

If this were to happen, any thoughts on what other project(s) may be fast-tracked and launched instead of AL?

It would depend on who gets the top job... And who's left under them.

 

[Tim Lohr]

i noticed on another web site thats about orlando theme parks how much less negative they are about this project than this board....maybe the desenters are just really loud here

I'm not being negative about it, I'm being realistic about it. If you're going to spend $500mil on something, you might want choose something a little more timeless than the hit movie of 2009, which at the moment is all they've got to go on, and I think sooner or later someone in charge might realize that there are actually an awful lot of risks involved with it

 

[twebber55]

I'm not being negative about it, I'm being realistic about it. If you're going to spend $500mil on something, you might want choose something a little more timeless than the hit movie of 2009, which at the moment is all they've got to go on, and I think sooner or later someone in charge might realize that there are actually an awful lot of risks involved with it

you dont need a hit movie to create a great themed land...cars two was awful and bombed but the lasn is incredible...and yes i understand the merchandise angle and i totally agree... but i think of the themed land of pandora with bioluminecese (however you spell it) light and we could all be blown away

we re always complaining about expansion or lack thereof so when we get something announced people are upset

the beastly kingdom argument is also interesting to me..i dont think this ever can happen because of the dueling dragons at IOA

i choose to have a wait and see approach to this project..to me everything points to it will happen on some level.... mostly im just bored and am waiting on the HP 2 announcment

 

[djlaosc]

the beastly kingdom argument is also interesting to me..i dont think this ever can happen because of the dueling dragons at IOA

The last rumour for a "Beastly Kingdomme" kind of area was to do something similar to Mysterious Island at Tokyo DisneySea, with versions of "Journey to the Centre of the Earth" and "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea", as far as I am aware.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I don't have anything against the Avatar movie, I enjoyed it, I like sci-fi movies in general, but the problem that all sci-fi, futuristic stuff has is common, is that it looks dated very quickly. That's why they had to reinvent "Tomorrowland" after 20 years, and "Future World" in Epcot, and "Star Tours" just got a total over haul.

The reason Sci-fi gets old quickly is because it's totally dependent on "the latest cutting edge technology" to create it, and technology is constantly evolving and improving, making what's cutting edge today seem old fashion tomorrow.

That's the problem not only of an Avatar movie but an Avatar-land as well. Weather the sequels and the land are hits in 2015 is anybody's guess, will they still be hits in 2025? If "Future World" and "Tomorrowland" are any indication, I wouldn't bet on it, but Disney and Mr. Iger are "betting" on all these things.

The worst case in my opinion is that they do build an Avatarland, and it is great, but ends up being something like Horizons, something so massive and costly to maintain that they eventually decided it's easier to tear it down and start over with something else, is that a possibly? yeah, because "Sci-fi stuff gets old quickly" it just does, it always does, and it's not a good bet to think that it won't

Exactly! Very well put! And to add to your reasoning is the fact that the appeal of "Avatar" is pretty much due to its eye candy, not to its ponderous preachy story. And eye candy in the cinema is being topped all of the time. Avatar is going to look quite dated - and in my opinion, very silly - in just a few years when someone else comes up with a new way to present an offbeat world in eyeball-assaulting 3D. And then in a couple of years, maybe less, THAT will be regarded as a snore. Heck, even Star Wars became dated after its initial trilogy. George Lucas and his Skywalker Ranch fell into some hard times. The reason the SW concept survived is because of its strong story and strong characters that nobody could ever quite forget. They still resonate. Technology, for that series, is just icing on the cake. (Something, that, unfortunately, Mr. Lucas kind of forgot with his second trilogy. That was practically all icing and NO cake. And in my opinion, no fun).

That's why fairy tales and fantasy worlds like Oz and Wonderland hold up so well over the decades. They aren't remotely related to technology or anything concrete in the real world. So they can never become dated. Whereas "Avatar" is already old hat. To reiterate, in my opinion, Iger made a major blunder by buying the theme park rights to "Avatar". I hope it goes away, and that the money and tech and land will be put to better use for something with a good STORY and good CHARACTERS behind it, and especially something DISNEY.