Is Avatar to political for a Disney park?

[ExtinctJenn]

Reading all the threads on this topic... I can't help but wonder how the folks that seem to dislike the idea will be feeling once it's done and they've experienced it. I keep holding onto the fact that regardless of logic and reason and politics and money etc. etc. there may be something really cool that comes out of this.

 

[monothingie]

I'm not against Avatar at WDW simply because its not Disney. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Muppets have all worked really well obviously. What I'm concerned is that its a non-disney product that may not be worth investing it considering avatar's luke-warm public opinion.

BTW, am I the only one who never found Pandora to be that beautiful? I mean it was totally CGI for crying out loud. That totally took me out of the moment. What ever happened to models and bigatures that the LOTR movies used? If they had done that I might've warmed up to it more. But its really just a CGI forest that glows in the dark at night and has animals that are like the ones on earth except with extra limbs (six-legged ant eater horses anyone?).

Politics are one thing but not the big thing. I think when the sequels eventually disappoint at the box office, and they will because when you peel away the CGI,the story is just meh.

The novelty of the CGI wears off quickly after you've been inundated with it for hours. That is not the hallmark of project looking for a quality story, it just seems like one trying to capitalize off of the rage of the moment.

BTW Huge Rifftrax fan myself.

[Anakin takes a seat next to Chancellor Palpatine during a show in a concert hall]
Bill Corbett: So they're just going to sit alone in those theater seats and make wisecracks about the show? What jerks!

 

[MAF]

Avatar would actually have to be an intelligent movie to be "to" political... The movie is trash, and should never have been considered to enter the immaculate WDW parks. #kneejerkreaction

 

[WDWFREAK53]

Politics are one thing but not the big thing. I think when the sequels eventually disappoint at the box office, and they will because when you peel away the CGI,the story is just meh.

See...this is exactly what I mean.

The sequels have a very tough road ahead of them because people will call them a failure if they don't break another record. What would you consider a failure? Is $300 million a failure?

Most of the big blockbusters make $200M+ but the sequels in the naysayers eyes can't make that because that's just not enough. Even if they put out a groundbreaking story and movie-going experience, if it "only" pulls in $200M the anti-Avatar people will shout from the heavens.

No matter how much the sequels make...even I they break all kinds of records, the naysayers will still say that it was a mistake for Disney to jump on board.

We've only seen 1/4 of the franchise...

From a money standpoint, it is the leading in box office totals. Not a bad start.

From a franchise standpoint...only time will tell.

 

[PirateFrank]

See...this is exactly what I mean.

The sequels have a very tough road ahead of them because people will call them a failure if they don't break another record. What would you consider a failure? Is $300 million a failure?

Most of the big blockbusters make $200M+ but the sequels in the naysayers eyes can't make that because that's just not enough. Even if they put out a groundbreaking story and movie-going experience, if it "only" pulls in $200M the anti-Avatar people will shout from the heavens.

No matter how much the sequels make...even I they break all kinds of records, the naysayers will still say that it was a mistake for Disney to jump on board.

We've only seen 1/4 of the franchise...

From a money standpoint, it is the leading in box office totals. Not a bad start.

From a franchise standpoint...only time will tell.

You do realize that Avatar had something like a $275M operating budget? The movie had to literally go into the 300s to break even and it had to reach half a million to be considered a box office success. The sequel will likely have an even greater budget, given Cameron's stiffy for filming this under water at the Mariana Trench.

I don't doubt that these movies will break even....but the fact of the matter is for them to be considered box office successes, they are going to have to be *very* successful, given the economies of scale likely put in place by Cameron.

 

[WDWFREAK53]

You do realize that Avatar had something like a $275M operating budget? The movie had to literally go into the 300s to break even and it had to reach half a million to be considered a box office success. The sequel will likely have an even greater budget, given Cameron's stiffy for filming this under water at the Mariana Trench.

I don't doubt that these movies will break even....but the fact of the matter is for them to be considered box office successes, they are going to have to be *very* successful, given the economies of scale likely put in place by Cameron.

Yes but I meant $300 domestically...not total. It made $2B+ total...not including DVD/Blu-Ray/Download sales.

 

[Tim_4]

You have a point about not remembering the characters' names.

But that is actually a good thing for this application because the main thing you take away from the film is how beautiful the environment is. The planet of Pandora is the main character.

I noticed that you didn't need to Google "Pandora."

Sure, there were political views in the film but in my personal opinion, the main focus was the conservation and preservation of the planet....which is also one of DAK's main focus.

Quoted for truth.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the concept of being a good steward of nature. Plenty of people disagree with the position that "the government should force conservation efforts on people and businesses against their will" but I think even the most rigid conservative is a-okay with private companies standing for a value in which they believe.

 

[monothingie]

See...this is exactly what I mean.

The sequels have a very tough road ahead of them because people will call them a failure if they don't break another record. What would you consider a failure? Is $300 million a failure?

I think you're missing the point, the problem is that Avatar was the revolutionary 3D at a time when 3D was once again becoming the big thing. The CGI made up for the lack of a quality story and that is why the world-wide gross was so big. These films will not be the franchise success that was Star Wars, Indy, Batman, ( except for the Clooney and Val Kilmer ones <shudder>) Spiderman, etc.) Avatar is and will be far from a failure (financially), but it is really a matter of style over substance, and using a franchise to theme an entire section of a theme park in which the concept of story is key, is truly disappointing.

 

[WDWFREAK53]

I think you're missing the point, the problem is that Avatar was the revolutionary 3D at a time when 3D was once again becoming the big thing. The CGI made up for the lack of a quality story and that is why the world-wide gross was so big. These films will not be the franchise success that was Star Wars, Indy, Batman, ( except for the Clooney and Val Kilmer ones <shudder>) Spiderman, etc.) Avatar is and will be far from a failure (financially), but it is really a matter of style over substance, and using a franchise to theme an entire section of a theme park in which the concept of story is key, is truly disappointing.

No, I'm not missing the point...I get the point. The point you're trying to make is that Avatar will not be the franchise success that Star Wars was.

I'm trying to make the point that NOBODY knows that yet. It's 1/4th of the story he wanted to tell.

Look at some of the other Cameron films...

The Terminator. Giant franchise...
Aliens. Ok...so the initial story wasn't his but, to date, is my favorite of the franchise.
The Abyss. For its time it was pretty good.
Terminator 2. Again, this is the one that turned it into a franchise and he completely flipped the script and did more groundbreaking special effects.
True Lies. Very successful
Titanic. This one broke all the records and surprise surprise...people just blamed that on higher ticket sales...but look at how long it held that spot! Harry Potter with higher ticket sales couldn't knock it off the top.
Avatar. The man did it again with groundbreaking special effects and, I will go as far to say, a visual eye as good as Walt Disney for creating a completely unique world for us to explore. This time he broke records again, only to knock off his last blockbuster from the top.

Aside from True Lies, aren't most of his movies extremely immersive and puts you into the movie?
Even Titanic...when you watched that...didn't you want to be on that ship? (Hehe, maybe not in the second half of the film). Same goes with Avatar...people just want to visit Pandora!

Don't you have to give him the benefit of the doubt based on his past performances?

People can have their feelings about the film all they want but to say that it won't be a successful, long-living, franchise when only one movie has been released, is a little narrow-minded.

 

[monothingie]

Avatar. The man did it again with groundbreaking special effects and, I will go as far to say, a visual eye as good as Walt Disney for creating a completely unique world for us to explore. This time he broke records again, only to knock off his last blockbuster from the top.

Aside from True Lies, aren't most of his movies extremely immersive and puts you into the movie?
Even Titanic...when you watched that...didn't you want to be on that ship? (Hehe, maybe not in the second half of the film). Same goes with Avatar...people just want to visit Pandora!

Don't you have to give him the benefit of the doubt based on his past performances?

People can have their feelings about the film all they want but to say that it won't be a successful, long-living, franchise when only one movie has been released, is a little narrow-minded.

I have nothing against Cameron, but he is no Disney or Lucas or Spielberg in terms of creating stories. Avatar was spectacular visually, no doubt about it. But beyond that there was nothing, no characters that you could appreciate, relate to, connect with. I connected more with Tom Arnold's character in True Lies than any character in Avatar. Take away the CGI and the story just "ho-hum". We can have our differences of opinion on what we take away from movies, but in terms of the topic at hand with DAK, Avatar seems like it is just pandering to the immediate rage of the day. The concept does not mesh with what has gone into to creating the experience that we have come to know in Disney parks, especially DAK.

 

[WDWFREAK53]

I have nothing against Cameron, but he is no Disney or Lucas or Spielberg in terms of creating stories. Avatar was spectacular visually, no doubt about it. But beyond that there was nothing, no characters that you could appreciate, relate to, connect with. I connected more with Tom Arnold's character in True Lies than any character in Avatar. Take away the CGI and the story just "ho-hum". We can have our differences of opinion on what we take away from movies, but in terms of the topic at hand with DAK, Avatar seems like it is just pandering to the immediate rage of the day. The concept does not mesh with what has gone into to creating the experience that we have come to know in Disney parks, especially DAK.

I think we are agreeing on the same points.
Did I think Avatar was an earth-shatteringly new movie? No.
Did I think the experience was incredible? Yes. The story was not up to par with some of Spielberg's or Lucas (and I use Lucas very cautiously because some people call him a genius...I call him a one trick pony. When was the last time he did anything on par with Star Wars?

You say, "Take away the CGI and the story is just ho-hum" Well, you could say that about any single aspect of any movie...the fact is, the movie was filmed with CGI and that's the way the artist wanted his art to be viewed.

Take away the lightsabers and put in real swords...or put in Earthly sounds (real gun fire) rather than laser blasts, etc. It takes away from the magic of it.
Take away the liquid-metal and just make him another T-100...and it's not as good.
Take away the CGI from LotR and is it as good?

The story was the vehicle to bring his world to life. The amount of detail created on that beautiful planet was rivaled by none. The creatures of the planet were done perfectly. They were similar enough to resemble Earth creatures so people could relate to them, but different enough to set them apart. I hated the military aspect of the film...I thought it was a cop out. That being said, maybe he used that just to get the movie out and get people familiar with the planet and as we go deeper into Pandora, a stronger story will come through. We are all speculating on either side of the fence, I'm just going to go into the sequels with an open mind.

Now, back to the DAK application. Nobody has seen any concept art...nobody knows the direction (if any) they will take with this. How can people say it's horrible when we literally know NOTHING about it aside from the fact that Avatar is coming to DAK? The Haunted Mansion doesn't really fit into Liberty Square but it works. We need to have a "wait and see" mentality with this...nothing we do or say will stop it...if it's going to happen, it's going to happen.

 

[disneyeater]

I have nothing against Cameron, but he is no Disney or Lucas or Spielberg in terms of creating stories. Avatar was spectacular visually, no doubt about it. But beyond that there was nothing, no characters that you could appreciate, relate to, connect with. I connected more with Tom Arnold's character in True Lies than any character in Avatar. Take away the CGI and the story just "ho-hum". We can have our differences of opinion on what we take away from movies, but in terms of the topic at hand with DAK, Avatar seems like it is just pandering to the immediate rage of the day. The concept does not mesh with what has gone into to creating the experience that we have come to know in Disney parks, especially DAK.

If I get to walk through Pandora, I could care less about the characters.

 

[Alektronic]

Don't forget Cameron's "Aquaman" movie, it was number one for a while

 

[Lee]

Don't forget Cameron's "Aquaman" movie, it was number one for a while

Yep. Vinnie Chase was awesome in that!

 

[lebeau]

 

[FrankLapidus]

Take away the CGI from LotR and is it as good?

Yep. The difference between Pandora and Middle Earth is that one is CG while the other is supplemented with CG. All of the amazing sets from LOTR, Minas Tirith, Rohan, Helm's Deep, Moria, the Shire, were constructed to varying degress, sometimes nearly entirely and with incredible detail, Pandora wasn't. Take away the CG used to supplement those sets and they still look incredible, you only have to see the 'making of' features of the LOTR DVD's for proof.

While I don't like Avatar, if the Imagineers can recreate Pandora in a way that does please fans of the film then I'm sure everyone will be impressed but it will take a lot to achieve the immersiveness that Universal achieved with Harry Potter.

 

[imagineer boy]

The novelty of the CGI wears off quickly after you've been inundated with it for hours. That is not the hallmark of project looking for a quality story, it just seems like one trying to capitalize off of the rage of the moment.

I have to admit, for the first 1/3 of the movie, I was really getting into it. The special effects were impressive and I though the futuristc world they created looked fantastic. I actually thought the futuristic human world was more interesting than Pandora ironically enough. lol But it was after Sam Worthington first met the Navi that I felt the cliches sink in and it was all down hill from there. And you're right, the novelty of the 3-D and CGI wears off very quickly after the first third of the movie or so.

One descrition of Cameron that I think is very accurate is that he's more of a technical innovator rather than a story teller. I think that is 100% accurate. You have to have both to be considered on the level with Walt Disney.

BTW Huge Rifftrax fan myself.

[Anakin takes a seat next to Chancellor Palpatine during a show in a concert hall]
Bill Corbett: So they're just going to sit alone in those theater seats and make wisecracks about the show? What jerks!

[We see the main avatar characters flying around Pandora and fly past a giant tree]
Bill Corbett: Hey, they're visiting Disney's Animal Kingdom! And under the tree there's a 3-D show called Its Tough to be a Bug!

 

[WDWFREAK53]

Yep. The difference between Pandora and Middle Earth is that one is CG while the other is supplemented with CG. All of the amazing sets from LOTR, Minas Tirith, Rohan, Helm's Deep, Moria, the Shire, were constructed to varying degress, sometimes nearly entirely and with incredible detail, Pandora wasn't. Take away the CG used to supplement those sets and they still look incredible, you only have to see the 'making of' features of the LOTR DVD's for proof.

While I don't like Avatar, if the Imagineers can recreate Pandora in a way that does please fans of the film then I'm sure everyone will be impressed but it will take a lot to achieve the immersiveness that Universal achieved with Harry Potter.

When I said take away the CGI from LotR I didn't just mean the sets. The armies would look really lackluster

 

[FrankLapidus]

When I said take away the CGI from LotR I didn't just mean the sets. The armies would look really lackluster

I know but I still think they're impressive. The scenes in the Moria are great and while the troll is CG, the battle with the orcs was choreographed and performed by the actors and stunt men. Same goes for the battle at the end of the FOTR, Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith and the battle at Mordor. CG does make them look spectacular but even without it, I still think some of the battle scenes in LOTR would be nothing short of epic. Admittedly, I'm not a massive fan of CGI as I think an over-reliance upon it exists in film-making today, though I understand that Avatar would not have been possible without it.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I agree with your statement. However, does WDI need the Avatar franchise in order to create a great attraction? If not, why spend the money on the franchise?

Harry Potter and Carsland proved that lands based on single franchises can work, especially if that franchise is marketable. With Harry Potter and Carsland there was a lot more available in the form of merchandise opportunities that are simply not there with Avatar right now. Having said that, there are 3 additional movies with which to draw inspiration. Right now we are being highly critical because we are basing all of our knowledge on what’s coming on a single movie.

Disney could create a new original land, but this is a harder sell and will be done on quality alone. While us fans view that as a good thing, the marketers do not. If something is a quality product but linked to a franchise, it’s a much easier sell and it’s a much quicker Return on the Investment.

Just wondering, what makes Cameron such an expert in theme park rides?

He oversaw Terminator 2: 3-D. Universal Creative did much of the work, but he definitely but his own stamp on it.