Iger Says Avatar Most Likely 2015, Hints at Marvel, More Pirates and Cars

[RSoxNo1]

I don't want to derail this thread but....that statement is incorrect.

Also, as I said in the other thread, Avatar isn't dead. Nor is it moving ahead very much at this point. There are issues with the project which have caused the whole thing to slow way down to a crawl, if not a full stop.
It isn't cancelled, though. Money is being spent, and WDI resources are still assigned to it.
Let's just wait and see, shall we?

This was a point a made a while ago - "Wait and see" is usually the appropriate avenue to take, but it's never the loudest declaration. It's a rational approach to things but it's never heard because it's often overshadowed by definitive statements like "THE SKY IS FALLING" or the opposite "THIS IS GOING TO BE THE GREATEST THING EVER". Reality is almost always somewhere in the midding.

I was at the meeting as well and agree with your assessments of Iger and Rasulo. I also found it very telling that the montage that included Disney's movie accomplishments had clips of Muppets, Pirates and Brave, but not a single image of John Carter. I think they know which way the wind is blowing on that one.

As for Pleasure Island/Hyperion Wharf, I was literally standing up to go to the microphone and ask about it when John Pepper announced that they would only be taking two more questions. I regret not getting in line sooner.

There were rumors that Disney delibrately tanked the marketing of John Carter. It sounds stupid, especially with the $50 million budget spent on marketing, but I suppose considering how bad they did with it it's conceivable.

 

[devoy1701]

This was a point a made a while ago - "Wait and see" is usually the appropriate avenue to take, but it's never the loudest declaration. It's a rational approach to things but it's never heard because it's often overshadowed by definitive statements like "THE SKY IS FALLING" or the opposite "THIS IS GOING TO BE THE GREATEST THING EVER". Reality is almost always somewhere in the midding.



There were rumors that Disney delibrately tanked the marketing of John Carter. It sounds stupid, especially with the $50 million budget spent on marketing, but I suppose considering how bad they did with it it's conceivable.

I'm sure you've read DisneyWar...it mentions a few instances where Disney purposely tanked a movie. Personally I don't get why any company would let politics get involved with making movies.

 

[xdan0920]

Please read my original post if you are going to reply.

1.) I said WDW. 2 out of 3 aren't for WDW.

2.) I said lately.

1. TWDC is ONE company.

2. Define lately???

 

[devoy1701]

1. TWDC is ONE company.

2. Define lately???

he's reaching... Disney hasn't changed their tactics with releasing art. If there was anything to show we simply would have seen it. As the Shanghai artwork proves, it doesn't matter how detailed it is or not.

 

[ToTBellHop]

1. TWDC is ONE company.

2. Define lately???

I don't understand his point either. That concept art for the FLE with the Mine Train was released a little more than a year ago (January '11). I view that as recent. It is certainly unlike Disney to have not released even a vague bird's eye view of Avatarland that doesn't really show much. This suggests that they haven't yet agreed on which attractions to build (which is no surprise to us). Let's hope they get there soon if they hope to begin building anything within the next year.

 

[Brava Centauri]

I have come to a similar conclussion many times over. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that many are openly hostile towards anything that would appeal to Disney's young guests.

I'm not opposed to franchises that appeal to "young guests" -- though honestly, most of Disney's franchises appeal to "young guests" so I don't see where anyone is seeing a lack. In fact, part of Disney's issue is their struggle to attract older families (who are not die-hard fans) to the parks because many view them as "little kid-ish." My dislike of Cars stems from how compared to all of the other Pixar films, it is the weakest and most disappointing as far as original story and characterization. It could have starred any other anthropomorphic or human cast and still would've been as stale. Then again, that is just my personal opinion. Clearly there are just as many adults who like it; or at least a great number of adults who buy in to it because of their young children. But rather than make this a discussion/argument over Cars, I'd rather Disney stop trying to clone both resorts and focus on doing different things to encourage people to visit each coast.

If they decided to say, re-theme the Speedway to Cars, then realistically that would ultimately make sense. Would I rush to ride it because of this? Definitely not. But if franchise-crazy Disney decided to slap some eyeballs and mouths on the cars and put some great thematic detail into the queue, I wouldn't say anything against it. But cloning more of the same stuff from California into Florida would discourage guests from visiting both resorts. Just my 2 cents.

 

[TP2000]

Why would Marvel be at the Disney parks???? I think we are all failing to see what an awful idea this is.

Why would you think Marvel rides would have to be built at existing Disney theme parks?

The legal deal for Marvel very specifically stated that Marvel theme park attractions can not exist in Disney theme parks east of the Missississippi River. That means Marvel rides can't appear at WDW, so it's nothing a WDW-only fan needs to worry about.

And it's a head scratcher to figure out how Marvel could fit in at any existing theme park already built. :veryconfu

But there's still additional theme parks yet to be built around the world that have nothing to do with WDW. Disneyland has land and logistical plans for a third theme park in Anaheim. Paris has land and plans for a third theme park. Hong Kong has land and plans for a second theme park, and Shanghai is being built with land and plans for a second and third theme park. I bet a Marvel theme park shows up in at least two of those locations eventually.

About the only place where a Marvel theme park can't be built due to legal or land issues is Walt Disney World and Tokyo Disneyland.

 

[misterID]

Wasn't DLP supposed to be the big recipient of Marvel attractions at the Studios Park?

I don't think marvel attractions were ever considered for the American parks.

 

[kap91]

i don't want to keep on perpetuating this debate but....

The amount of negativity in all the threads on this board is getting really tiring. Why don't we try to be optimistic?

The often cited best ride ever to come out of Disney was Indiana Jones, and that's not a Disney property. (TOT, Journey to the Center of the Earth, and Star Tours especially when it debuted are three of the other best and aren't based on Disney properties either. And I wouldn't say that any of the properties they're based on have characters or plots that particularly resonate with or are appropriate for kids. Nazis and People that practice human sacrifice...really?)

Additionally if you want to talk about rides based on properties most people don't know about or haven't seen try the Jungle Cruise, Splash Mountain, Mr. Toad (at least for many people that rode/ride it), 20k, and arguably the Matterhorn (although that might be a stretch).

I'm not a Star Wars fan but I love Star Tours (both old and new). Liking the property isn't necessary to liking the theme park attraction either.

I'm not saying the expansion won't suck, but Avatar/Pandora is thematically compatible with AK, the movie is visually spectacular, and some of the best work to come out of WDI has come from outside properties. I love originality as much as anyone else but its not a requirement and doesn't guarantee anything better. Let's keep in mind Everest which is original but has broken effects all the time (excluding the Yeti), effects from day 1 that were extremely cheesy (remember the bird?),a less then stellar coaster, and light leaks inside the mountain that to this day that expose the entire superstructure for nearly the entire backwards section. Originality does not equal amazingness. Creativity, Maintenance, and Money equal amazingness.


If everyone keeps bashing the project online, it'll be no wonder if it gets scrapped or delayed. And then the community will complain about that.

I agree with those that say, Let's wait and see.

And for pete's sake please stop being so negative about literally everything that Disney does...or at least wait till its open.

 

[jmick71]

I think the biggest part of the Avatar deal that members here are misunderstanding is that Disney is going after Pandora, not the Avatar storyline. They're trying to recreate the planet's landscape (environment) and showcase its plant and animal wildlife. That screams Animal Kingdom. At this point, Disney doesn't even know what the land is going to contain, but my own guess is that the attractions within the land aren't going to be dependent on the Avatar story but instead will simply incorporate the elements of Pandora that 'wowed' millions of people. I don't think we're going to see attractions of the military fighting off the Avatars or destroying the mother tree. Instead, I think we'll see attractions and experiences that deal with "interacting" with the creatures in some form in their natural exotic environment. Under these circumstances, if the Avatar sequels are successful, Disney can strongly market the Avatar land as a connection to the movies; however, should they not have staying power, all they need to do is market the land as a guest experience with exotic creatures from a new world. Having seen the movies, Pandora and the creatures would be recognizable, but I don't think this is the case where one would have to have seen the movies to enjoy the land. If Avatar had never been made and a new land focusing on an environment similar to Pandora was proposed, would everyone still be this negative toward the idea?

this is what I always thought this land would be about. I don't understand why everyone thinks this land will only feature environments and story lines from the first movie. also I don't really see how avatar differs that much from beastly kingdom (except for the fact that it has a movie tie in) it is still a land based off of "mythical creatures"

also, someone else mentioned the possibility of not showing concept art for the possibility of showing themes of the next 2 movies. I think that may be true. When James Cameron tells the public about the next 2 movies and we don't see concept art after, then i would start to worry, but for now everyone just relax!

 

[jmick71]

i don't want to keep on perpetuating this debate but....

The amount of negativity in all the threads on this board is getting really tiring. Why don't we try to be optimistic?

The often cited best ride ever to come out of disney was indiana jones, and that's not a disney property. (tot, journey to the center of the earth, and star tours especially when it debuted are three of the other best and aren't based on disney properties either. And i wouldn't say that any of the properties they're based on have characters or plots that particularly resonate with or are appropriate for kids. Nazis and people that practice human sacrifice...really?)

additionally if you want to talk about rides based on properties most people don't know about or haven't seen try the jungle cruise, splash mountain, mr. Toad (at least for many people that rode/ride it), 20k, and arguably the matterhorn (although that might be a stretch).

I'm not a star wars fan but i love star tours (both old and new). Liking the property isn't necessary to liking the theme park attraction either.

I'm not saying the expansion won't suck, but avatar/pandora is thematically compatible with ak, the movie is visually spectacular, and some of the best work to come out of wdi has come from outside properties. I love originality as much as anyone else but its not a requirement and doesn't guarantee anything better. Let's keep in mind everest which is original but has broken effects all the time (excluding the yeti), effects from day 1 that were extremely cheesy (remember the bird?),a less then stellar coaster, and light leaks inside the mountain that to this day that expose the entire superstructure for nearly the entire backwards section. Originality does not equal amazingness. Creativity, maintenance, and money equal amazingness.


If everyone keeps bashing the project online, it'll be no wonder if it gets scrapped or delayed. And then the community will complain about that.

I agree with those that say, let's wait and see.

And for pete's sake please stop being so negative about literally everything that disney does...or at least wait till its open.

exactly

 

[devoy1701]

i don't want to keep on perpetuating this debate but....

The amount of negativity in all the threads on this board is getting really tiring. Why don't we try to be optimistic?

The often cited best ride ever to come out of Disney was Indiana Jones, and that's not a Disney property. (TOT, Journey to the Center of the Earth, and Star Tours especially when it debuted are three of the other best and aren't based on Disney properties either. And I wouldn't say that any of the properties they're based on have characters or plots that particularly resonate with or are appropriate for kids. Nazis and People that practice human sacrifice...really?)

Additionally if you want to talk about rides based on properties most people don't know about or haven't seen try the Jungle Cruise, Splash Mountain, Mr. Toad (at least for many people that rode/ride it), 20k, and arguably the Matterhorn (although that might be a stretch).

I'm not a Star Wars fan but I love Star Tours (both old and new). Liking the property isn't necessary to liking the theme park attraction either.

I'm not saying the expansion won't suck, but Avatar/Pandora is thematically compatible with AK, the movie is visually spectacular, and some of the best work to come out of WDI has come from outside properties. I love originality as much as anyone else but its not a requirement and doesn't guarantee anything better. Let's keep in mind Everest which is original but has broken effects all the time (excluding the Yeti), effects from day 1 that were extremely cheesy (remember the bird?),a less then stellar coaster, and light leaks inside the mountain that to this day that expose the entire superstructure for nearly the entire backwards section. Originality does not equal amazingness. Creativity, Maintenance, and Money equal amazingness.


If everyone keeps bashing the project online, it'll be no wonder if it gets scrapped or delayed. And then the community will complain about that.

I agree with those that say, Let's wait and see.

And for pete's sake please stop being so negative about literally everything that Disney does...or at least wait till its open.

There are many layers of this "argument" to disect here...and I think too many people just pass off who is making the "argument" and classifying it as a negative comment then actually listening and analyzing what is being said.

The multiple layers include:

-Is the Avatar franchise a fit for Disney
-Is Pandora a fit for AK
-What aspects of Avatar/Pandora are going to be included in the land
-Mythical Folklore Creatures vs. Mythical Fictional SciFi Creatures
-Why does Disney need an outside property anyway?
-Why does a land need to be created from a movie tie-in anyway?
-Why have we not seen any concept art?
-Why was Avatar glanced over at the Shareholders Meeting when it is such a big investment with the company (half a Billion$+)?

I don't think this thread should be classified as negative personally...just realistic about how the project has (or rather has not) progressed from what we can tell. Many people who people think are being negative myself, Lee, Martin, Dan, I don't know who else and I don't really want to just lump everyone together and speak for them, but I bet are in the same boat as me that if this was given the budget and creative freedom it deserves, we would LOOOOVE to see this happen.

I think Pandora was a strange choice...I definitely didn't see it coming, but I acknowledge that it is one of the highest grossing films of all time and I found the movie to be entertaining. I personally also think that Pandora itself is a great fit for AK. If this works out and is done right I'll be thrilled.

Throw me a bone WDI...dangle some art work for us! :wave:

 

[GLaDOS]

it is still a land based off of "mythical creatures"

I'm sorry, I've seen this so many times, and I have to seriously disagree.

It's not a land based of mythical creatures. If you mean both are based off of fake creatures, then yea, you'd be right. But mythical creatures are those that have been spoken about throughout the generations. They're the creatures we tell stories about to our kids at bed time. They come from a long, long line of oral tradition passed down through generations.

Yes, both Beastly Kingdom and Avatar are based off fiction. But only one of them is based on the myhts and legends of the Earth.

 

[CrescentLake]

I'm sorry, I've seen this so many times, and I have to seriously disagree.

It's not a land based of mythical creatures. If you mean both are based off of fake creatures, then yea, you'd be right. But mythical creatures are those that have been spoken about throughout the generations. They're the creatures we tell stories about to our kids at bed time. They come from a long, long line of oral tradition passed down through generations.

Yes, both Beastly Kingdom and Avatar are based off fiction. But only one of them is based on the myhts and legends of the Earth.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the period in history where Dragons, the Yeti, the Loch Ness Monster and Unicorns existed.

The creatures in Avatar are mythical. You're just upset they didn't build Beastly Kingdom. Not going to lie, I would have rather BK too.

 

[devoy1701]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the period in history where Dragons, the Yeti, the Loch Ness Monster and Unicorns existed.

The creatures in Avatar are mythical. You're just upset they didn't build Beastly Kingdom. Not going to lie, I would have rather BK too.

i think the key difference is Mythical (believed in at one point) vs. Fictional (made up for a movie)

not that I'm on either side of the fence, but I should add this to the list I just made for the different debates!

 

[herc]

Uggh, Cars? Can't they just leave it in California? Anything but that. I really hope nothing comes of that proposal. :hammer:

Please. The Cars franchise is strong. It is the No. 1 selling brand for Disney with boys. Carsland in DCA is going to be huge. It was done the right way with layer upon layer of detail. Put it this way, there is always a line at the M&G. Cars was a fantastic movie, Cars 2 wasn't a bad movie as much as it wasn't a good movie.

I just wish WDW would get that type of attention. We seem to be getting it with FL but we shall see. But this type of detailed projects need to happen in every park, not just MK. DHS is a hurting park and it is too small. Bringing in mor Pixar into Pixar Place would do the trick. Bringing in Marvel would be a huge deal if it came. Do a complete rethem of the 1980s hey this is a working film studio theme park, which is isn't any longer.

 

[GLaDOS]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the period in history where Dragons, the Yeti, the Loch Ness Monster and Unicorns existed.

And I must have missed the part where I said they did.

The creatures in Avatar are mythical.

No, they're fictional. Mythical animals are ones that come from ancient oral histories and stories.

 

[coolbeans14]

DHS is a hurting park and it is too small

It does make you think that perhaps it just isn't a workable theme. After all, both studio Disney parks worldwide are too small, And struggle to keep to the original theme idea.

 

[kap91]

I don't think this thread should be classified as negative personally...just realistic about how the project has (or rather has not) progressed from what we can tell. Many people who people think are being negative myself, Lee, Martin, Dan, I don't know who else and I don't really want to just lump everyone together and speak for them, but I bet are in the same boat as me that if this was given the budget and creative freedom it deserves, we would LOOOOVE to see this happen.

Sorry, I don't necessarily want to say this entire thread is negative (actually this one is one of the more civil discussions), but more of a general attitude throughout the whole community about all of Disney but especially centered around Avatar. Disney is nowhere near perfect but I get frustrated with: "TDO sucks, Avatar is stupid, this will never work, I'm underwhelmed by the new train station ... it doesn't match right with Dumbo, OMG can you believe BATB has a flat ceiling,etc." and all the name-calling. There is a difference between insightful commentary and debate and just automatically assuming that WDW only creates crap nowadays.

I'm all for the thoughtful discussion that many members (including the ones listed above) do contribute.

 

[misterID]

No, they're fictional. Mythical animals are ones that come from ancient oral histories and stories.

How about this... All the creatures for Beastly Kingdom and Avatar are all make believe.