Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks (Part II)

[trs518]

I have to believe that there was some preliminary ground work done prior to this announcement. I cannot imagine Disney making this announcement based solely on a top level "hey I got a great idea" sort of moment. I am sure that there are already drawings that have passed back and forth between the two camps (Disney / Cameron). Otherwise we would not have been give such a specific announcement. They would have just announced that they were working with Cameron on an Avatar project to be announced at a future time. The fact that they announced that it is going to be a land and that it is going to be in Animal Kingdom suggests that there has already been some design work done.

Of course this comes from someone who was just a CAD designer and now works in the power generation industry.... So take it for what its worth. lol

According to Disney by Mark, http://www.disneybymark.com/2011/09/21/news-avatar-at-animal-kingdom/, Imagineering didn't know about this. Joe Rhode included.

Down in the comments, he also mentions that when the Indiana Jones deal was done, Imagineering wasn't involved.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie, from your perspective, was this announcement too early in development? According to Staggs they've "Just started the blue sky process", which seems to me an pretty awkward time to publicly green-light something. What kind of extra pressure does that place on a design team, as opposed to making a formal announcement just before construction begins or even during construction? As a creator, when would you prefer to announce something, given no outside pressures?

I was flipping through Michael Crichton's "Jurassic Park" the other day, and was struck by the character John Hammond's joy at his plans to 'surprise' the world with a ready-to-go experience, already built and tested. Of course, it wasn't ment to be, but I imagine the public would have been equally delighted.

It would have been nice to be able to walk into Pandora today, or at least next summer. I know the logistics are daunting, but can Imagineering have product releases more like Apple? A couple of vague rumors and unconfirmed reports, and then all of a sudden the product's available, or soon to be?

It's hard to know exactly what motivates a company to announce something so early in the process. One thing is to create anticipation, but with no opening date it's kind of a waste. I'd suspect this is for Wall Street to hear as there is no real need to spill this early. It shows they are doing something about Universal. Announcements are sometimes timed to give travel agents a year or so to book future guests to come out to see the attraction.

This "blip" will be forgotten and then they will come out at a D23 or something else and then show off the bigger attraction in a bigger splash. There have been many announcements over the years that never even happen like the Disney Decade.

As a designer, there is always extra pressure for the show to be a "wow" as the expectation is impossibly huge. It's hard to beat a movie, especially when it's in 3D as you've sensed the world in a real way in the theater. Now you have to deliver it with all the limitations of budget, Exit signs, handicapped ramps, and more.

Cameron is friends with Gary Goddard, who's company designed the Terminator attraction for Universal. It would be ironic for them next to announce that Goddard's team will design the show and be the creative outsource via WDI. A longshot but possible.

 

[Mouse Detective]

The pressure on Disney was clearly huge. They didn't deliver much for WDW at the recent D23 and the criticism was relentless. They also had to show the world that they were going to respond to Harry Potter. I believe Eddie is correct when you say this was for Wall Street. That was a big part of this early announcement too.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

The only other thing to speculate is that there will be a 3D film component to the project as they have so many 3D models built already. Animatronics of the blue characters could be pretty convincing, as they do not have to come off as literal people are were abstracts defined in the 3D medium. Here's an article that supports this approach in more detail.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-hill/avatar-park_b_973615.html

 

[ChrisFL]

Eddie, the announcement seemed to be quite odd...on the surface it seems like a major announcement, however the way it was delivered didn't seem to "wow" very many people.

I agree this may be a wall street move, but the way they did this, could it also be to just gauge the reaction of the public on whether it's really worth pursuing?

I know there have been many Disney projects over the years that for better or worse had been announced but never built (or just built on a much smaller scale).

Do you think that seeing the mixed reactions may force them to re-think their commitment and perhaps we will see a slow change in the plans to something smaller than a full "land"?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie, the announcement seemed to be quite odd...on the surface it seems like a major announcement, however the way it was delivered didn't seem to "wow" very many people.

I agree this may be a wall street move, but the way they did this, could it also be to just gauge the reaction of the public on whether it's really worth pursuing?

I know there have been many Disney projects over the years that for better or worse had been announced but never built (or just built on a much smaller scale).

Do you think that seeing the mixed reactions may force them to re-think their commitment and perhaps we will see a slow change in the plans to something smaller than a full "land"?

Good point. It could be a trial balloon.

 

[HMF]

The only other thing to speculate is that there will be a 3D film component to the project as they have so many 3D models built already. Animatronics of the blue characters could be pretty convincing, as they do not have to come off as literal people are were abstracts defined in the 3D medium. Here's an article that supports this approach in more detail.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-hill/avatar-park_b_973615.html

I was not aware Jim Hill worked for the Huffington Post.

 

[jt04]

Eddie, the announcement seemed to be quite odd...on the surface it seems like a major announcement, however the way it was delivered didn't seem to "wow" very many people.

I agree this may be a wall street move, but the way they did this, could it also be to just gauge the reaction of the public on whether it's really worth pursuing?

I know there have been many Disney projects over the years that for better or worse had been announced but never built (or just built on a much smaller scale).

Do you think that seeing the mixed reactions may force them to re-think their commitment and perhaps we will see a slow change in the plans to something smaller than a full "land"?

I doubt Cameron would approve and he would not have attached himself to such a project if he did not have assurances. And this certainly is not a way Iger has ever operated. A trial balloon would have been handled at a much lower level IMO. The fact that Iger and Cameron held a very public announcement is quite telling. It is happening. You can see clearly that they believe this is something special.

What shocks me is that so few are seeing the bigger picture here. Only a few posters seem to get why this project is so appealing to both parties. It will happen and will be on the scale of Carsland at the very least.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I was not aware Jim Hill worked for the Huffington Post.

This came about fairly recently.

 

[flynnibus]

I was not aware Jim Hill worked for the Huffington Post.

Most people don't - it's a site that publishes independent contributors.

Which is why so many people were irrate when the owner sold out to AOL for a fortune while all the work was done by people who didn't cash out

 

[HMF]

Most people don't - it's a site that publishes independent contributors.

Which is why so many people were irrate when the owner sold out to AOL for a fortune while all the work was done by people who didn't cash out

Does Ariana have any influence at all anymore?

 

[AEfx]

This came about fairly recently.

And I thought about emailing the editor and saying, "Um, did you check out this guy before you put 'award winning writer' before his name and put him on your site?" LOL. The award for most crap thrown against a wall to have a few drops stick doesn't count.



RE: Avatar, though, I came to the same conclusion as Eddie. This was just a corporate grab to keep it from Universal, so they could say, "Look we just go the Global Theme Park Rights to the #1 grossing movie!" Of course, they forgot to add the *, as in "* because of double-priced 3-D tickets and rabid teenage fanboys who went to see it 10 times, that was actually one of the more poorly reviewed films of the year".

I'm glad AK is getting something, but this is easily the last thing I would have asked for. I've got the movie on Blu-ray and I've tried to watch it twice and both times can't make it more than an hour in. The only reason I own it is because I had just gotten a Blu-ray player and everyone talked about how amazing it looked, and I wanted to have a "demo" disc. Yeah, it's pretty. But everything else about the film is absolutely terrible. If they can make some neat attractions, really rock-em-sock'em, I'm all for it, regardless of theme - but if they bank on the same, "WOW!" even I get when I walk into Potterland (even though I'm not a fan of the books and have seen the movies each once) from Nuvi or whatever it's called.

I hope we get more than a "flying" coaster and some 3-D movie or "Soarin'" type thing. At the least I want a real dark ride, but it's doubtful to me that Disney would do such a thing as they simply don't build 'em like they used to.

 

[DKampy]

Uhhh.."one of the more poorly reviewed movies"...hardly...according to Rotten Tomatoes 83% of the critics liked Avatar. I am guessing you prefer your movies with a ton of action...because even the critics who were mixed about avatar said it was worth the price of a ticket due to the 1st hour and 1/2 alone. Before the big action sets in....just to experience this new world that has been envisioned.

and from the blurbs given by WDI and Cameron it appears that is what they are forcusing on.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I doubt Cameron would approve and he would not have attached himself to such a project if he did not have assurances. And this certainly is not a way Iger has ever operated. A trial balloon would have been handled at a much lower level IMO. The fact that Iger and Cameron held a very public announcement is quite telling. It is happening. You can see clearly that they believe this is something special.

What shocks me is that so few are seeing the bigger picture here. Only a few posters seem to get why this project is so appealing to both parties. It will happen and will be on the scale of Carsland at the very least.

I do see the bigger picture and you may be right. Staggs wants to do something with impact and this is what he thinks he can exploit. However, when I was at WDI there were many development deals to create things that never happened. We worked on an attraction with the MYST/Riven folks for Adventure Island that was green lit, but stalled. I met with David Lynch of all people to discuss collaboration, so there are lots of flirtations and some of them get done and others may not.

 

[comics101]

Eddie, do you believe DAK is the right park for the new Avatar land, or would you have chose a different park for the attractions (maybe even a boutique park on Adventure Island)? If what I read above is true, and the announcement was made without the knowledge of anyone at WDI, that seems to be a big mistake and a bit silly...it seems to me that it would make sense to actually consult your designers before you decide where a new attraction will be located.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie, do you believe DAK is the right park for the new Avatar land, or would you have chose a different park for the attractions (maybe even a boutique park on Adventure Island)? If what I read above is true, and the announcement was made without the knowledge of anyone at WDI, that seems to be a big mistake and a bit silly...it seems to me that it would make sense to actually consult your designers before you decide where a new attraction will be located.

I thought since it is a movie first and foremost, that the DHS would have been the location. I get how it's an ECO story with fantasy nature and the connection there. It was always my hope that DAK could define itself as revealing reality and "wonders of nature and living things" more than fantasy as the other parks do. Certainly the planet gives us more amazing material to discover (micro worlds, creatures) than all fiction. The island would have been ideal.

Here's what makes we wonder.. Is anyone running around saying "I wish I could be Avatar or go there". There's no wands to wave. Where is the merchandise that keeps this thing alive? The BlueMan Group has more warmth and staying power. Indiana Jones and Star Wars have aspiration. Harry Potter is also more aspirational and timeless. Is Avatar aspirational and timeless? That will be the challenge in the design, making it something you want to do over and over. Maybe it's more like Alice in Wonderland, it's curious.

 

[AEfx]

Uhhh.."one of the more poorly reviewed movies"...hardly...according to Rotten Tomatoes 83% of the critics liked Avatar. I am guessing you prefer your movies with a ton of action...because even the critics who were mixed about avatar said it was worth the price of a ticket due to the 1st hour and 1/2 alone. Before the big action sets in....just to experience this new world that has been envisioned.

and from the blurbs given by WDI and Cameron it appears that is what they are forcusing on.

ROFL. You are guessing I "prefer movies with a ton of action"? That would be incorrect. I like all kinds of movies, I just don't prefer overrated superficial glossy preachy popcorn stain films that rely on gimmicks.

As far as the content of the film, it was not generally well-reviewed. Plot, scripting, dialogue, acting...all people could talk about was, "oooh pretty!"

So no, in spite of superficial scores given on technical merit (which just about every review admitted was the reason to see the film), as far as the actual content it was not lauded whatsoever. Just "Ooooh pretty!"

That's not a well-reviewed film, in my eyes. /shrug

 

[jt04]

RE: Avatar, though, I came to the same conclusion as Eddie. This was just a corporate grab to keep it from Universal, so they could say, "Look we just go the Global Theme Park Rights to the #1 grossing movie!" Of course, they forgot to add the *, as in "* because of double-priced 3-D tickets and rabid teenage fanboys who went to see it 10 times, that was actually one of the more poorly reviewed films of the year".

Poor reviews did not stop them from building a land for Potter and it has done very well. I saw one of the movies and was literally falling asleep. So I am not sure it matters how many fresh vs rotten tomatoes a film gets as to how it will do as a theme park addition. Avatar is the highest grossing film of all time by a long shot. Poor films do not preform this way. Interesting spin by you because of the absurdity of it.:lol: I do agree the film was more a message of the environmental extremist :hurl: than the sound science of conservationism but that can be 'fixed' going forward. And hopefully will be. This is a brilliant add for DAK. Take off the blinders.

PS-- Avatar got a 92% Fresh by the general public which likely is much more reflective of the average Disney guest.

I do see the bigger picture and you may be right. Staggs wants to do something with impact and this is what he thinks he can exploit. However, when I was at WDI there were many development deals to create things that never happened. We worked on an attraction with the MYST/Riven folks for Adventure Island that was green lit, but stalled. I met with David Lynch of all people to discuss collaboration, so there are lots of flirtations and some of them get done and others may not.

Not sure what Staggs motivation was but I think I have a good idea why it resonates with Iger. And I get the strong impression he and Cameron know they have something special here. This is a global deal that Disney plans to "exploit" in a myriad of ways across many platforms IMO. It has incredible potential for so much more than moving plush. Which it will also do given Disney's marketing prowess. :lol:

I can't wait to hear Mr Rhode's opinion on this because I sincerely think that he will be 100% in favor of Avatar at DAK and not just because he has to be. Next person to see him at DAK should ask him.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Flops as hits.

We covered this before, but the animated Alice in the 50's was badly reviewed and a box office flop, Mr. Toad was a short subject with little awareness, "Third Man on the Mountain" was obscure as Disney properties go, but all inspired great rides and are considered classics. It's all in mining the right things from the story or the world it's set in. Again, it's all in the execution.

The argument seems to be whether there is anything that interesting to mine in Avatar. Alice had interesting characters, (a Caterpillar smoking dope, Evil twins, Headless cat, etc) and an interesting world, so you exploit that by letting people explore it and come back. Third Man had a Mountain, you let people conquer that "mountain climbing" challenge in a Bobsled. Toad became all about reckless driving ending in a near death experience, so you get to do that and survive too. No dialog and story to get in the way. As Hitchcock once said, "Movies are real life with the boring parts cut out". So rides are just movies with their boring parts cut out, so that's why they only last 3 minutes. We experience the Sunday night sports "highlight reel".

 

[modegreen]

...I met with David Lynch of all people to discuss collaboration, so there are lots of flirtations and some of them get done and others may not...

DO TELL. I'm a bit of a David Lynch fan.