Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
VERY well put. Disney doesn't need Avatar. It's a pity Iger thought so. Maybe that's why he's being pushed out (oops, ahem) stepping down in a few years...
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Is Avatar to political for a Disney park?
- Thread starter CinematicFusion
- Start date
VERY well put. Disney doesn't need Avatar. It's a pity Iger thought so. Maybe that's why he's being pushed out (oops, ahem) stepping down in a few years...
I was helping you prove your point
I think the hesitation really has nothing to do with the fact that it's political. I feel the hesitation is that DAK is all about EARTH and it's about creatures that lived, are living, or never were (mythical).
The dragon has been on the park logo since Day 1 and we never saw Beastly Kingdom come to fruition. That land would've been accepted because it's EARTHLY LORE and they are creatures that some believe really do exist, not just made up in a movie.
So, some see Avatar as the final nail in the Beastly Kingdom coffin...but in reality, when The Lost Continent opened with Islands of Adventure, the lid was shut.
Good points!
reselling or retelling? LOL I'm not criticizing, just liking the idea of the word "selling" because that's what it's all about-selling the parks!
Haha....I didn't mean to do that. I'm on my iPad and sometimes it spells things out for me. I meant retelling.
You have to give my iPad credit for being creatively cynical.
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
Whoa, someone's having a bad morning.
But the fact is, Avatar isn't the juggernaut the Potter movies/books/merchandise are/were/will continue to be. Iger buying the rights was a pandering (Pandoring?) attempt to counter Potter. That's pretty obvious. And your enthusiasm for the film doesn't guarantee that 1. it'll actually get built or 2. it'll be any good. So you're just as likely to be wrong as I might be. But you might remember that in a recent Disney press conference, Iger didn't even want to TALK about Avatar, and seemed pretty miffed when it was brought up. And Lee has already mentioned that it's being scaled back, if it comes to fruition at all. So maybe tempering your hostility (oops, enthusiasm) might be in order, as well as being willing to listen to somebody else's views without throwing a tantrum.
Very true...great points. I agree, I have no problem with the message of preservation. That message does fit with the theme of the park.
ExtinctJenn
Well-Known Member
Though you do have to admit (oh boy here comes the backlash) there is some irony when you have to use a ton of natural resources to build and subsequently run the attractions as well as create the merchandise that will undoubetdly be found in a myriad of shops in the new land. LOL!
No offense, but...*yawn*
Disney has in its own vault fantastic creatures and vistas that have yet to be translated into a ride or attraction. The most obvious example is Fantasia. I don't go to a Disney park to see rides based on other people's visions. I remain respectful but unimpressed by James Cameron. I go to a Disney park to see DISNEY product. I would take an original, Disney-generated attraction, based either on a prior Disney feature (such as the aforementioned Fantasia) or something brand-new (Beastly Kingdomme) than anything Cameron's cranked out any day.
You make a good point about Avatar's politics, such as they are. Its story does involve the same old anti-militaristic lecture Hollywood loves to belabor. The film does have a certain attitude. I don't think that's any kind of factor for cancelling the project, however. There are better arguments for doing that. Such as: Avatar is a flash-in-the-pan, with a poor story, dull characters, and not much chance of longevity, based as it is on eye candy. Iger's idea to buy the rights to it for WDW was a dumb, desperate attempt to trump Potter, and as such, it's pretty much failed, in my view. It's not generating the excitement the Potter attraction did prior to its opening. The movie is just a visual feast at best, and to me, that's not a good enough reason to invest in it as a Disney park attraction. After all, Captain EO was once considered cutting edge, and its star, Michael Jackson, seemed invincible. My, how times have changed...
Very true...maybe it was Disneys attempt to get a potential long term franchise out of the hands of universal. Maybe at the end of the day, avatar is not built in Orlando. Maybe they build something overseas with an avatar theme.
The unknown...it kills me! But..I do enjoy speculation.
Can't argue with that!
imagineer boy
Well-Known Member
I think its sad that conservation has become so political. People clearly just use it for political gain. They say "hey, our side is all for enviromental preservation and protection and the other side clearly isn't!" Then they get elected and do nothing. Conservation should be a universal thing regaurdless of political leanings.
The thing about avatar that really annoyed me was just how painfully obvious and horribly executed the message was. I hate enviromental films that make out all humans to be the devil while the obvious native american metaphors are earth angels. Then of course they throw in all the obvious and unnecessary anti-corporation, anti-military, anti war in the middle east references just feel like a smack in the face.
The thing about avatar that really annoyed me was just how painfully obvious and horribly executed the message was. I hate enviromental films that make out all humans to be the devil while the obvious native american metaphors are earth angels. Then of course they throw in all the obvious and unnecessary anti-corporation, anti-military, anti war in the middle east references just feel like a smack in the face.
WDWFREAK53
Well-Known Member
VERY well put. Disney doesn't need Avatar. It's a pity Iger thought so. Maybe that's why he's being pushed out (oops, ahem) stepping down in a few years...
Yes and No.
I don't think that the Imagineers needed Avatar to put out a great attraction or idea for a new land.
What I do think...is that times have changed.
Disney needs a poster child for their ads that will appeal to people that think that Disney is just about princesses and fairytales. This is all marketing driven.
Think about it...if they decided to redevelop Tomorrowland into a "new land" would that get people to flock to WDW? No...because they wouldn't really know what it's all about. Now...you develop a land on something that people know about...you can pique their interest because they already have an image of what to expect and can imagine the possibilities.
middle earth...now there s an idea
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
The "world" of Avatar is in some respects similar to the Wookie's planet in Star Wars, or the Ewok's world. But the characters in Avatar are completely forgettable, as opposed to Star Wars where you've got the journey of a young man that begins with his adoptive parents being killed by the empire, plus you've got a lot of other great characters and storylines that continue beyond a New Hope.
Avatar's evil military/corporation is a stereotype of American greed, thinly veiled, and the blue people have their roots with the half-myth half-truth of pre-industrialized native people living in balance with their surroundings. I liked Avatar, but it is more firmly grounded in the everyday world than Star Wars, and I think this makes is more boring.
I don't fault Avatar for trying to tell a moral fairytale, I don't like it that Sigourney Weaver's character smokes, and that while the movie protests the American military industrial complex, the violence is what sells the film.
the violence is not what sold the film...cameron himself said that what they found is people cared more about the actual planet not the big action scenes
ssymes
Active Member
I hated Avatar...there I said it. I thought it was cheesy. Everyone keeps going on about the environment and how amazing it was. World of Warcraft did it first.
I do however wish they would do something with this instead. Since they have it posted at the entrance to AK anyway.
I do however wish they would do something with this instead. Since they have it posted at the entrance to AK anyway.
Disneyfan1981
Active Member
Avatar was basically Ferngully or Dances with Wolves in space.
As far as I see it, the land of Pandora was neat to see on screen and if they can mimic the floating mountains even in just look, that'd be a cool thin to see in the parks. If they can get everything glowing too that's be a nice atmosphere for the night times at the park and a ride on the "flying dragon" wouldn't be turned away.
As far as I see it, the land of Pandora was neat to see on screen and if they can mimic the floating mountains even in just look, that'd be a cool thin to see in the parks. If they can get everything glowing too that's be a nice atmosphere for the night times at the park and a ride on the "flying dragon" wouldn't be turned away.
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
Im sure all the blue people will be offensive to west of Scotland MOPES.
MattC
Well-Known Member
Um, this is a place who has hosted Mrs. Obama on her own and President Obama twice in the last year. Including last week, I got stuck in the traffic resulting from his motorcade, very frustrating. Also has hosted Mr. Romney once, that I can remember, in the last year. I don't think politics scares Disney.
Captain Neo
Well-Known Member
Animal Kingdom in its entirety could be viewed as "too political"