Say.... What if Avatarland got cancelled?

[ToTBellHop]

I have no inside information, but I don't know how much I buy that Disney has seriously looked into a Star Wars land.

From every report, Disney had a falling out with Lucas at some point during the Eisner regime, which is one of the reasons why it took so long to see Star Tours 2.0.

And Iger seems to be obsessed with the NEW and the NOW, which is why he went out and tried to get Avatar.

If there was ever a serious try at Star Wars land, I don't think it was recent or ever that intense.

NEW and NOW...so we can look forward to a Twilight-themed land at the Studios and Rock 'n' Roller Coaster Starring Bruno Mars? Oh dear...

 

[misterID]

I really wish the OLC would buy the Disney American parks. At least WDW.

 

[misterID]

Yes, I didn't like Avatar, and I think it's a bad fit for any theme park. That's all I've been saying. I'm under no delusions about the importance of my opinion on the film. My main point is that popularity does not equal quality. So, what is your point?

P.S. I have not rendered an opinion on Waterworld (stunt show or movie). I'm not sure why you keep saying I did.

You said you've seen Avatar and it doesn't lend itself well to a theme park attraction. Just because it was successful it doesn't mean it would be a very good ride, because you've seen it.

You turn around and said you didn't see Waterworld, but you're sure it fits itself well to a theme park because it's popular, even though it wasn't a successful film.

Harry Potter was very successful. It made an awesome attraction.

Nobody understands what you're talking about. Other than you hate Avatar, you don't want it in Disney, and you'd rather have a mound of dirt that an entire new land with state of the art attractions, which you could easily avoid.

 

[captainkidd]

I have to say, this thread about Avatar is FAR more exciting than the actual movie was.

 

[Ignohippo]

I have no inside information, but I don't know how much I buy that Disney has seriously looked into a Star Wars land.

From every report, Disney had a falling out with Lucas at some point during the Eisner regime, which is one of the reasons why it took so long to see Star Tours 2.0.

And Iger seems to be obsessed with the NEW and the NOW, which is why he went out and tried to get Avatar.

If there was ever a serious try at Star Wars land, I don't think it was recent or ever that intense.

The falling out with Eisner is more than likely true, but Iger is almost the exact opposite. Lucas was involved in "The Last Tour To Endor", and I'm sure he has many better things to do. I'd bet some serious schmoozing was going on that day.

The only thing I can figure is that Lucas wants his own park and Disney isn't willing to do that. I'm as big of a SW geek as anyone, but WDW should be about Disney first, and I don't believe a SW theme park would be a good long-term idea. Huge land at DHS yes; it's own theme park no.

In the end, it just goes to show another failing of the design of DHS that it wasn't built to allow for major expansion (something I'll never understand until the day I die). As the park about movies, adding an enormous LucasLand, PixarLand, Marvel (someday) and Avatar would make that park one of the best parks in the country. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the land for that kind of expansion.

There's also a possibility that Lucas is holding onto those rights to try to get TWDCo to buy Lucasfilm from him as a whole entity. I think it'd be a great fit, but I can't see the shareholders going for it until the Pixar deal actually turns a profit (which I'm sure it will reach that point very soon).

.

 

[ToTBellHop]

The falling out with Eisner is more than likely true, but Iger is almost the exact opposite. Lucas was involved in "The Last Tour To Endor", and I'm sure he has many better things to do. I'd bet some serious schmoozing was going on that day.

The only thing I can figure is that Lucas wants his own park and Disney isn't willing to do that. I'm as big of a SW geek as anyone, but WDW should be about Disney first, and I don't believe a SW theme park would be a good long-term idea. Huge land at DHS yes; it's own theme park no.

In the end, it just goes to show another failing of the design of DHS that it wasn't built to allow for major expansion (something I'll never understand until the day I die). As the park about movies, adding an enormous LucasLand, PixarLand, Marvel (someday) and Avatar would make that park one of the best parks in the country. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the land for that kind of expansion.

There's also a possibility that Lucas is holding onto those rights to try to get TWDCo to buy Lucasfilm from him as a whole entity. I think it'd be a great fit, but I can't see the shareholders going for it until the Pixar deal actually turns a profit (which I'm sure it will reach that point very soon).

.

It actually does have the land for that expansion. They have many options to expand, including building a new parking garage across the street, which would allow them to expand the park into the existing parking lot, doubling the size of the park. They have plenty of room. The problem is an unwillingness to spend on even something as simple to put in as the Monsters Inc coaster.

 

[lebeau]

I'm going to break this one down one line at a time.

Yes, I didn't like Avatar, and I think it's a bad fit for any theme park.

It's a bad fit for any theme park. Would Avatar be a bad fit for an Avatar-themed theme park? A park themed to conservation? The movies? Science fiction? How about a theme park celebrating the filmography of James Cameron?

You keep making these ridiculous comments and then wonder why no one gets the point you are supposedly trying to make.

That's all I've been saying.

Yes, I am aware. You're entire contribution to this thread can be summed up with "me no like". I think we all know where you stand on Avatar. No need to remind us.

I'm under no delusions about the importance of my opinion on the film.

Your posts suggest otherwise.

My main point is that popularity does not equal quality.

If that was your main point, you buried the lead. You may have actually wanted to try making this point, since it was your main point and all. Instead, you just kept saying it was bad over and over again.

Popularity does not equal quality. We can all agree on that. Your main point seems to be pretty obvious, but thanks for making it. I'm not sure how it is relevant to the conversation, but thanks.

Let me put it this way. Taste is subjective. Not everyone is going to like the same thing. Clearly, not everyone likes Avatar. But clearly, a lot of people do. The movie was insanely popular, well-reviewed and nominated for awards including Best Pitcure.

The question of whether the movie is "good" or "bad" can never be objectively answered. But even if there was a way to objectively declare the movie "bad", who cares? The quality of the film is entirely besides the point. Its success demonstrates that their is an audience for Avatar-based-entertainment.

The fact that the movie was popular is more important than the question of whether or not it was good.

Also, even if the movie was bad, that doesn't mean a theme park attraction based on it has to be bad. Or that it wouldn't be popular/make lots of money - which is really all Disney cares about.

So, what is your point?

My point is that you -and others- are letting your feelings about the movie blind you to everything else.

P.S. I have not rendered an opinion on Waterworld (stunt show or movie). I'm not sure why you keep saying I did.

Because your original comparisson was so hysterical that I find it funny to remind everyone that you compared the highest grossing movie of all time to a film in which Kevin Costner drinks his own urine. A film which failed at the box office and is only remembered as a cautionary tale. A film which you have never even seen. Aside from the fact they are both science fiction movies, I can't think of anything else Avatar and Waterworld share in common. And yet, you drew a comparisson.

It shows the level of your credibility on the subject. Which is none.

 

[lebeau]

And, yes, because I have seen Avatar, I know it will not be good for a theme park. The popularity of what the film, which is essentially James Cameron's insane worldview packaged as an expensive movie, baffles me.

Hey wow, what a surprise. You didn't like Avatar because of the "worldview". I wonder if that's code for politics?

 

[ToTBellHop]

Because your original comparisson was so hysterical that I find it funny to remind everyone that you compared the highest grossing movie of all time to a film in which Kevin Costner drinks his own urine. A film which failed at the box office and is only remembered as a cautionary tale. A film which you have never even seen. Aside from the fact they are both science fiction movies, I can't think of anything else Avatar and Waterworld share in common. And yet, you drew a comparisson.

It shows the level of your credibility on the subject. Which is none.

I think all the Waterworld really shows is that even bad films can make great attractions. Splash Mountain shows this, too. At the end of the day, good attractions are good attractions. It doesn't really matter what it's based upon. Execution of the attraction itself is what matters. A ride based upon the movie Avatar would not fit into Animal Kingdom--nor did they ever intend to build such a ride. A ride set in the world of Pandora has/had the potential to be amazing.

 

[GLaDOS]

I think all the Waterworld really shows is that even bad films can make great attractions. Splash Mountain shows this, too. At the end of the day, good attractions are good attractions. It doesn't really matter what it's based upon. Execution of the attraction itself is what matters. A ride based upon the movie Avatar would not fit into Animal Kingdom--nor did they ever intend to build such a ride. A ride set in the world of Pandora has/had the potential to be amazing.

Key word you use in this post is "ride".

Personally, I'd find this a lot easier to swallow if it was a singular ride in let's say DHS, rather than a complete land. I think the movie could make a decent ride. I don't think the movie could make a decent land.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Key word you use in this post is "ride".

Personally, I'd find this a lot easier to swallow if it was a singular ride in let's say DHS, rather than a complete land. I think the movie could make a decent ride. I don't think the movie could make a decent land.

I agree--a single ride might be more practical and it would be the type of ride that could easily be placed at many of Disney's other properties down the line (DCA, WDSP, possibly even DisneySea).

 

[misterID]

Hey wow, what a surprise. You didn't like Avatar because of the "worldview". I wonder if that's code for politics?

That's what I caught onto a while ago...

 

[lebeau]

That's what I caught onto a while ago...

I find it to be a common theme among those who are very vocal about hating Avatar. People who think it was over-rated? Sure, I can see that. People who thought it was derivative? Can't argue. But people who won't shut up about how awful it was? They usually have other reasons that have nothing to do with storytelling.

 

[yoda_5729]

Yeah, it was eventually profitable. I even debated using the word "flop". But perception is reality. Waterworld was and is viewed as a notorious flop even if the box office paints a slightly sunnier picture.

Point being that while Avatar may not currently be at the peak of its cultural relevance, comparing it to Waterworld (or just about any other movie that was not at one point the most popular movie in history) is silly.

Often times people report that Avatar or Titanic before it were the most popular films of all-time. That is not accurate. When figuring for inflation, Avatar is the 14th greatest movie ever at the box-office. People can say that Avatar did make more money then any other movie (again because of inflation and 3d showings), but it was't the most popular.

A good example of this is Star wars vs. Titanic. When Star Wars came out in 1977, an average movie ticket cost $2.50. When Titanic came out, the average movie ticket cost $5.00. That would mean in the unadjusted box-office Titanic would have had to double Star Wars take (at least most of it's take since Star Wars has been rereleased at times) which is something it didn't even remotely achieve.

Though Star Wars got there with $2.50, Gone With the Wind and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs got there during the great depression by nickles and quarters. This is the list of top movies by box-office when figuring for inflation. Just as a comment 101 Dalmatians beats Avatar.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

This system isn't perfect either, but it's a heck of a lot more representative of what the older movies did. Looking at the unadjusted it's mostly all new movies because of the changes in prices for a ticket. This all being said, I agree with you, comparing Avatar and Waterworld in box-office is unfair to Avatar. In theme though they both had an affect on culture, but neither of them were as jolting to movie history as some of the top movies on this list.

As a side note, I do now realize that's just US domestic box-office, and Avatar did do well worldwide. I can't find a chart for that, so if Avatar did marketedly better worldwide, it's possible I'm wrong. I was just trying to give light to the fact that many times Hollywood advertises a movie bigger then it actually is, to attract an even larger audience. If the movie is the biggest of all-time many people feel "well, I guess I really should see it" type of thing.

 

[lebeau]

Often times people report that Avatar or Titanic before it were the most popular films of all-time. That is not accurate.

Fair enough. I even thought about this before posting, but decided to go with the popularly accepted idea that by being the highest grossing film of all times, it is essentially "the most popular".

Point is, there are very few movies that have achieved a level of success anywhere near Avatar. Waterworld is nowhere near that league.

 

[AvengersWDW]

I really don't wish to pry or anything. When i said i wished i knew more about you, i was just saying it sort of in passing, like "he knows a lot, would be interesting to know him". I have no desire to invade your privacy or anything though. You don't owe me any questions.

But i'd be glad to attempt to summarize the mess that went on during the past several pages. Keyword being "attempt", looks like the mods had a deletion party on some of the posts. And there was a bit of a minor flamewar going on in regards to a certain member (who may have been banned). I will try, and it won't be in any particular order-

- AvengersWDW claiming people were evil for wanting TDO members fired
- AvengersWDW saying profit is up and that's all that should matter for Disney (or any corporation)
- Argument on Disney being profit vs quality, comparison to Apple
- "trolololololo" ~AvengersWDW
- Avengers saying you can't love the parks AND criticize them
- Avengers saying Walt would have eventually destroyed the company with his plans
- Avengers claiming the company was saved by dropping Walt's quality ideals
- Everyone else: "Yup, he's a troll, no more feeding it" (insert picture of three headed troll from Maelstrom)
*mods sweep posts* (though not all his quotes ironically)
- Discussing if there was any backlash for closing Jaws (compared to Mr Toad)
- "When Universal closes something, they replace it with something better"
- "When WDW closes something, they replace it with something worse or nothing at all"
- Universal upping standards with Hogwarts Express and Gringotts E Ticket
- Pondering what WDW would do next if this expansion were canned
- Pondering whether guests really NEED something familiar (movie character or pop culture) for an attraction to be a success
- Some wishing for Beastly Kingdom to come back
- Some wondering whether Disney will try to do an attraction based on John Carter
- Posts on whether Avatar was good or not
- "Yay it's canceled, hated it anyways"
- "Boo it's canceled, they won't replace it with anything else anyways, so lose-lose scenario"
- "Fix the things that exist before expanding" (refurbs, better Future World, Yeti, etc")
- Jungle Cruise desperately needs infrastructure repairs
- Comparing Disney of the past with Apple (quality vs disregard of quality for better profit)
- Walt similar to Steve Jobs, both willing to spend money to make money, knowing customers would pay for quality
- Hopes that Cars Land is a huge success and encourages Disney to spend more money
- Hope that John Lasseter would give attention to WDW (not just pixar stuff)
- Last page or so debating whether or not you're an insider

It was a bit messy because that Avengers guy had all his posts deleted, but i tried to piece together what happened during the last bunch of pages. The mods seem to have missed the quotes of people responding to him!:lol:

If you don't wish to answer this, don't. I won't ask for any personal information. But i will ask for a personal opinion on something-

In your opinion based on your knowledge of the company, is there any hope for a brighter future at WDW like how it used to be run (before the quality dropoff)? Stuff such as maintenance, major new attractions, and general quality of show. Or do you think they'll just continue to disregard quality forever in favor of profit?

Most of my posts were not deleted and i am not a troll

 

[RSoxNo1]

I think best case scenario is a land based around mythical animals that can include a single avatar attraction, a john carter attraction if it's successful, and/or other concepts based on the very general theme of mythical animals. An Avatar attraction can fit into that land without the land being restrictive to a single franchise.

 

[lebeau]

I think best case scenario is a land based around mythical animals that can include a single avatar attraction, a john carter attraction if it's successful, and/or other concepts based on the very general theme of mythical animals. An Avatar attraction can fit into that land without the land being restrictive to a single franchise.

Deadline has already reported that John Carter is "cratering". Once again, Disney has flubbed the franchise. No surprise. I have heard rumors that Disney torpedoed this one on purpose. If not, they were grossly incompentent.

This is why Disney needs to keep turning to outside companies or buying them outright. They can't launch a franchise to save their souls. The only successful franchise they have launched in the 21st century is Pirates.

 

[The Duck]

I think best case scenario is a land based around mythical animals that can include a single avatar attraction, a john carter attraction if it's successful, and/or other concepts based on the very general theme of mythical animals. An Avatar attraction can fit into that land without the land being restrictive to a single franchise.

THIS, I can see but not an entire land.

 

[Hakunamatata]

I think best case scenario is a land based around mythical animals that can include a single avatar attraction, a john carter attraction if it's successful, and/or other concepts based on the very general theme of mythical animals. An Avatar attraction can fit into that land without the land being restrictive to a single franchise.

I bet we end up with at least a scene in TGMR at DHS.