Say.... What if Avatarland got cancelled?

[Lee]

Anyone see this website?

http://www.disneygossip.com/

They've only had 3 updates in the past 9 months but the 2 newest articles are interesting. One talking about the postponement of Avatarland and the other talking about it possibly moving over to Tomorrowland.

Just wondering if any of the insiders can comment on it's validity.

On hold? Yes, probably.
Tomorrowland? Nope. Not in the plan.

 

[NoChesterHester]

Anyone see this website?

http://www.disneygossip.com/

They've only had 3 updates in the past 9 months but the 2 newest articles are interesting. One talking about the postponement of Avatarland and the other talking about it possibly moving over to Tomorrowland.

Just wondering if any of the insiders can comment on it's validity.

The online twitterverse seems to be jumping all over this. Most of the rumors on that website are pretty far fetched. At least... we haven't yet see them come to fruition.

 

[PirateFrank]

So, sorry I offended. That was not my intent. But yes, I am dismissing the argument that Avatar doesn't fit in DAK because any reasonable person can see that it does. The question isn't "does it fit" but "how well does it fit"?

Hopefully we can agree on that.

Not a problem at all. However, I do think you need to recognize the fact that there's a large percentage here (maybe even a majority) that feels avatar land is ill-conceived. Whether or not we're right. Obtuse and or stubborn isn't a good way to describe us and I'll tell you why.

I recognize that the conservation/nature theme in the movie avatar is very well positioned to mate with a similar theme in AK. Heck, there's even a massive tree to go along with the big tree in the movie. I get it. I really do. Is that enough to craft and theme an entire section of a park, where the title "Avatar Land" sits on a big sign as you enter the park?

It had better. Because if it's not, its doomed.

The characterization and mythology, in my opinion, are far more important. That's what's driving potter-ville down I4. Not the theming...anyone can make a big ole castle set in scotland. Every kid, mom and dad that walks in there wants a wand, a picture in front of Hogwarts and a glass of butter beer in a souvenir cup. Without the characterization and draw to the mythology of the Harry Potter universe, Uni isn't getting 30 minute waits on the butter beer carts. They simply aren't. Without the endearing qualities of the characters, good or bad, they aren't selling $30 wands hand over fist. These sorta things are going to be timeless draws for WWoHP.

None of those qualities exist in Avatar. No Sam Worthington dolls. No big bad capitalist pigs or their mercenaries. There's seriously northing endearing about the movie. It was a great movie. It doesn't make my kids want to put on blue war paint.

When the excitement over this land dies down and it will (or worse, if the second and third movies are flops)...there won't be anything left to hold onto. Worse, is that the name 'Avatar Land' will still be hanging from the sign above the entryway to the park. Then there'll be a richly themed area that's intrinsically attached to a name that's meaningless. That's what we fear, as fans that don't agree with this project. It's not the fact that we don't like avatar. It's the fact that when the movie fades away, a land tied to it's name will have no meaning. That's not obtuse and that's not stubborn. We're concerned with the viability of the project, long term. You might not agree with us. Fine. We'll all have to wait and see...but just because we don't agree with you, there's zero need for name calling.

This is the central flaw in the anti-anything argument. You don't get to pick what to do with the money if a project gets canned.

If we could cancel Avland and divy up the money as we see fit, sure. Great idea. But that's not going to happen. It's more likely that the money just won't get spent on anything.

Yes, but I'll submit that there's plenty of flaws to the 'use it or lose it' mentality as well...You never get a good product from that. Our public school systems are proof.

My feeling that the land itself is ill-conceived, that spending money in such an area, if it does prove to be a mistake, could be dreadfully costly.

Like I said above...What if the second and third Avatar movie prove to be box-office clunkers. What if the hype surrounding the first movie is proven to be just that, hype? What if the fact that the characters in this mythology prove to be the turn off that some here feel?

If that happens, TDO will have ended up pouring millions or billions of dollars into a project that becomes a very visible failure. Retheming the land may be possible, but because it's so VERY specific and intrinsically tied to this movie (especially if Disney ante's up and satisfies Cameron's ego), it will definitely be costly.

So yes....in this particular instance. If it's a choice of avatar land or nothing at all, I think I'd rather see nothing at all. I feel strongly, despite loving the movie, that Avatar-land is a potential thermonuclear bomb of failure...and presenting Avatar in a way that is endearing, rich and timeless is something that I am not sure Disney is capable of right now.


Regardless, this is all my humble opinion...and I respect yours. I've always said, that if they're going to build it...I hope they build it well and do it justice...and to that end, if they do that, I look forward to seeing what they do.

However, given the fact that there is currently a chance the plug may be pulled, I revert back to my original misgivings on the project and feel it would be a better decision to cut and run now, then cause a charlie fox even greater than the current situation, yeti and all, in the AK.

 

[misterID]

I think the negativity comes down to a few things: They hate the movie. Politics, and their "anti tree hugger" stances... This "Purity" vision some people have of Disney and WDW that no longer exists. And when people see them spending all this money and land on one project that they believe that money, land and resources is being taken away from other "fantastical" projects they have in their head, that in reality don't exist.

I'm sorry guys, we've seen how they view WDW and how it's run. Outside the possibility of a carsland clone, you're not getting anything HUGE and original, at least not on this scale.

 

[xdan0920]

I think the negativity comes down to a few things: They hate the movie. Politics, and their "anti tree hugger" stances... This "Purity" vision some people have of Disney and WDW that no longer exists. And when people see them spending all this money and land on one project that they believe that money, land and resources is being taken away from other "fantastical" projects they have in their head, that in reality don't exist.

I'm sorry guys, we've seen how they view WDW and how it's run. Outside the possibility of a carsland clone, you're not getting anything HUGE and original, at least not on this scale.

What scale? Do you have some information about what Imagineering is developing?

 

[PirateFrank]

I think the negativity comes down to a few things: They hate the movie. Politics, and their "anti tree hugger" stances...

I really do think that if they do this, they are going to significantly tone down the political undertones of the movie to a) be more palatable for mass appeal and b) mate whatever remaining undertones of the movie with the current conservation theming already in place at AK.

That's really not the issue for most people, I think, especially since AK already has a similar theme in place. The issue is that the characterization and mythology of the movie are simply not endearing. They don't draw people in. People see the movie and go "ooohh ahhh, the colors" but no where in the movie do people feel like they're drawn into the main characters. They don't feel like they're part of the Navi.

I've said this before in this thread. My kids are having light saber battles on their beds. My kids are grabbing sticks in the yard, pointing them at each other and yelling "expeliarmus!" ....they are *not* putting on tails and blue war paint and battling big bad capitalist mercenaries. That's as plain as it gets. Without the endearing qualities of the characterization and mythology that WWOHP brings, all you have is a castle set in scotland with a bunch of dragon rides. That's been done before and no one is diverting vacation plans to go to Busch Garden's Williamsburg instead of WDW.

 

[Da Man]

I really do think that if they do this, they are going to significantly tone down the political undertones of the movie to a) be more palatable for mass appeal and b) mate whatever remaining undertones of the movie with the current conservation theming already in place at AK.

That's really not the issue for most people, I think, especially since AK already has a similar theme in place. The issue is that the characterization and mythology of the movie are simply not endearing. They don't draw people in. People see the movie and go "ooohh ahhh, the colors" but no where in the movie do people feel like they're drawn into the main characters. They don't feel like they're part of the Navi.

I've said this before in this thread. My kids are having light saber battles on their beds. My kids are grabbing sticks in the yard, pointing them at each other and yelling "expeliarmus!" ....they are *not* putting on tails and blue war paint and battling big bad capitalist mercenaries. That's as plain as it gets. Without the endearing qualities of the characterization and mythology that WWOHP brings, all you have is a castle set in scotland with a bunch of dragon rides. That's been done before and no one is diverting vacation plans to go to Busch Garden's Williamsburg instead of WDW.

This sums up my sentiment perfectly. I also think the reason this project has 'gone dark' is because the Disney execs sat down and re-watched the movie and realized the same thing.

It's hard to sell mechanized war exoskeletons and automatic rifles in Animal Kingdom. Unfortunately, the party (Iger getting to walk beside James Cameron in DAK while the media filmed breathlessly) is over and the hangover (Iger and some Imagineers sitting through the movie several times, while the stark realization there is very little marketable material to sell ad naseum inside the park) is just now setting in.

Rumor has it that the Imagineers were left in the dark about this until after the announcement. I wonder how many Imagineers and product marketing people have been quietly murmuring 'Next time you want to commit a billion dollars or more, maybe it would be prudent to get our take first. Not like we know anything about this stuff'.

:shrug:

As a side note - I haven't seen Avatar, and frankly, due to the length of the movie and no 3D set-up at home, have zero intentions in the near future.

 

[DocMcHulk]

From the shareholder meeting today:
Design work is "just beginning" on the Avatar project

 

[RunnerEd]

This sums up my sentiment perfectly. I also think the reason this project has 'gone dark' is because the Disney execs sat down and re-watched the movie and realized the same thing.

It's hard to sell mechanized war exoskeletons and automatic rifles in Animal Kingdom. Unfortunately, the party (Iger getting to walk beside James Cameron in DAK while the media filmed breathlessly) is over and the hangover (Iger and some Imagineers sitting through the movie several times, while the stark realization there is very little marketable material to sell ad naseum inside the park) is just now setting in.

Rumor has it that the Imagineers were left in the dark about this until after the announcement. I wonder how many Imagineers and product marketing people have been quietly murmuring 'Next time you want to commit a billion dollars or more, maybe it would be prudent to get our take first. Not like we know anything about this stuff'.

:shrug:

As a side note - I haven't seen Avatar, and frankly, due to the length of the movie and no 3D set-up at home, have zero intentions in the near future.

I thought it worked quite well on DVD and later on Blue Ray. We rented it on regular Blue Ray after the announcement and it looked beautiful. The story did not live up to the scenery. If you have Netflix, it's worth adding to your queue but I wouldn't go out and buy it for any reason.

 

[ToTBellHop]

This sums up my sentiment perfectly. I also think the reason this project has 'gone dark' is because the Disney execs sat down and re-watched the movie and realized the same thing.

It's hard to sell mechanized war exoskeletons and automatic rifles in Animal Kingdom. Unfortunately, the party (Iger getting to walk beside James Cameron in DAK while the media filmed breathlessly) is over and the hangover (Iger and some Imagineers sitting through the movie several times, while the stark realization there is very little marketable material to sell ad naseum inside the park) is just now setting in.

Rumor has it that the Imagineers were left in the dark about this until after the announcement. I wonder how many Imagineers and product marketing people have been quietly murmuring 'Next time you want to commit a billion dollars or more, maybe it would be prudent to get our take first. Not like we know anything about this stuff'.

:shrug:

As a side note - I haven't seen Avatar, and frankly, due to the length of the movie and no 3D set-up at home, have zero intentions in the near future.

I don't think that's the problem at all. Imagineers are, not surprisingly, creative. The problem is money. In order to complete this project up to James Cameron's standards, WDI requires more funding than Disney is willing to shell out.

Cameron doesn't really settle. So either Disney ponies up the cash to complete Cameron's vision, or the project will die.

Kids don't dress as Na'vi because Avatar was a movie for adults. If Disney started selling plastic Pandora guns, stuffed dragons, and a Bibbiti-Bobbiti-Boutique-esque get made-up as a Na'vi experience, the kids would come.

As a side note, I have trouble taking someone's opinion on a movie and its marketability seriously when they haven't seen it.

One thing is undebatable:

Avatar cost $237 million to produce (lots of money, like the lots of money required to build Avatarland).

Avatar made $2.78 billion

I believe if they complete this project up to Cameron's standards, word of mouth alone would get people down to WDW.

 

[misterID]

What scale? Do you have some information about what Imagineering is developing?

No. Just that any expansion to a single park this size is very, very, very rare.

Pirate Frank, why are you speaking for everyone on what they feel regarding Avatar? I know you're using your kids as an example, but I'd figure if AvatarLand was built and it's as emersive as they say it would/will be, I have a lot of doubt that people wouldn't be interested in seeing it.

It's the same with "original lands" like Mysterious Island. It was based on a novel over a hundred years old and not exactly what kids were going crazy for, yet it's one of the most popular lands at any Disney theme park. If you build anything original you're starting from scratch. And you are vastly underestimating Disney's ability to market merchandise that'll appeal to people and kids; you're pointing out the worst end of what can be marketed... To prove your point

And "A Christmas Carol" is THE most politically left wing and liberal film ever created. Yet, people still flock to see it, not matter how many times it's made and remade, and no matter what their political affiliation is. I think the theme of conservation is, or at least should be a universal theme.

Like how FOX NEWS and republicans attacked the new Muppets Movie for having a "liberal" agenda. Didn't stop Disney from showing it. Now does this mean you don't want anymore Muppets used in DHS... I mean, that's all I've heard from people since joining this site is MORE MUPPETS.

 

[Reddog]

On hold? Yes, probably.
Tomorrowland? Nope. Not in the plan.

Is that a "no" to Avatar at Tomorrowland or a "no" to the whole Tomorrowland redesign?

 

[Reddog]

I really do think that if they do this, they are going to significantly tone down the political undertones of the movie to a) be more palatable for mass appeal and b) mate whatever remaining undertones of the movie with the current conservation theming already in place at AK.

That's really not the issue for most people, I think, especially since AK already has a similar theme in place. The issue is that the characterization and mythology of the movie are simply not endearing. They don't draw people in. People see the movie and go "ooohh ahhh, the colors" but no where in the movie do people feel like they're drawn into the main characters. They don't feel like they're part of the Navi.

I've said this before in this thread. My kids are having light saber battles on their beds. My kids are grabbing sticks in the yard, pointing them at each other and yelling "expeliarmus!" ....they are *not* putting on tails and blue war paint and battling big bad capitalist mercenaries. That's as plain as it gets. Without the endearing qualities of the characterization and mythology that WWOHP brings, all you have is a castle set in scotland with a bunch of dragon rides. That's been done before and no one is diverting vacation plans to go to Busch Garden's Williamsburg instead of WDW.

I said this in another forum:

"Disney is counting on the popularity (ticket sales) of Avatar to translate to theme park attendance. From the responses I've seen since Avatarland was announced, it seems like it is having the opposite effect.

I think if there was no Avatar, and Disney announced a new land in Animal Kingdom called "Pandora" that featured "a lush alien landscape filled with strange creatures and a unique indigenous alien race", it would actually have been better received."

It's like you said, the endearing characters and themes of Star Wars and HP pull people into the story and theme park attractions but it seems that they are actually pushing people away from Avatar.

 

[misterID]

I said this in another forum:

"Disney is counting on the popularity (ticket sales) of Avatar to translate to theme park attendance. From the responses I've seen since Avatarland was announced, it seems like it is having the opposite effect.

I think if there was no Avatar, and Disney announced a new land in Animal Kingdom called "Pandora" that featured "a lush alien landscape filled with strange creatures and a unique indigenous alien race", it would actually have been better received."

It's like you said, the endearing characters and themes of Star Wars and HP pull people into the story and theme park attractions but it seems that they are actually pushing people away from Avatar.

I heard the same thing about Harry Potter at UNI. We know how that turned out. :lookaroun

 

[PirateFrank]

As a side note - I haven't seen Avatar, and frankly, due to the length of the movie and no 3D set-up at home, have zero intentions in the near future.

You really need to see the movie. 3D or not, Bluray or not, it's a stunningly visual movie that is entertaining. I may not feel it works for a long term theme park project, but that doesn't take away from the fact that this movie was hugely successful.

I don't think that's the problem at all. Imagineers are, not surprisingly, creative. The problem is money. In order to complete this project up to James Cameron's standards, WDI requires more funding than Disney is willing to shell out.

Cameron doesn't really settle. So either Disney ponies up the cash to complete Cameron's vision, or the project will die.

Creative individuals, like WDI Imagineers, would likely love the challenge. I do think that they should have been referenced *prior* to committing resources to this project.

This is sorta like asking a builder how much it's going to cost to erect a house, buying the land for the house....and never talking to an architect. It doesn't really make sense.

Kids don't dress as Na'vi because Avatar was a movie for adults. If Disney started selling plastic Pandora guns, stuffed dragons, and a Bibbiti-Bobbiti-Boutique-esque get made-up as a Na'vi experience, the kids would come.

You're kidding right? While Walt said himself, "if you focus solely on kids, you're dead." The fact of the matter is that if you exclude them, you're equally dead.

Build it and they will come doesn't work here. You can not manufacture the qualities that drive children to want to buy Harry's wand or Luke's lightsaber or (insert merch here). These qualities existed in the films long before there were toys going along with it. Avatar doesn't have it. it has plenty of things. But not that. Sorry. :shrug:

One thing is undebatable:

Avatar cost $237 million to produce (lots of money, like the lots of money required to build Avatarland).

Avatar made $2.78 billion

A few things to that. Released today, Avatar doesn't make nearly that much. The 3D fad is gone. Will it still have been hugely successful. You bet. But not like the above.

Also, if the above is the undebatable reason why one should build a theme park land, why do we not have "Titanicville" or "Passion of the Christ Corner" or "Forrest Gump's" ????!

Finally, a vast majority of Avatar was constructed in the digital realm. That $237M price tag is going to be several times that, if you wanted to transfer such visuals to reality.

I believe if they complete this project up to Cameron's standards, word of mouth alone would get people down to WDW.

I'm not quite so sure that word of mouth works here. Word of mouth has resulted in a significantly negative reaction from the public over this before it's been built (or even designed).

The other problem is 'Cameron's standards'. If he's going to approach theme parks with the same unmitigated, exploding budgets that he approaches movies, this is going to be an unattainable goal.

 

[PirateFrank]

I heard the same thing about Harry Potter at UNI. We know how that turned out. :lookaroun

Absolutely not. If such things were said about WWOHP, it was clearly in the minority. WWOHP, upon announcement, was generally met with positive reaction from fan and industry.

 

[lebeau]

Absolutely not. If such things were said about WWOHP, it was clearly in the minority. WWOHP, upon announcement, was generally met with positive reaction from fan and industry.

There were plenty who were down on it here. Heck, there still are. How many Potter vs. Star Wars threads have their been over the last several years.

 

[ChrisM]

Trying to compare every possible new initiative to tWWoHP is a fruitless endeavor. Potter is a unique property: one that combines fantasy elements with the modern world and is directed at children. It developed a massive following in literature, and then film, and there are effectively no other properties out there that could replicate its success (absent Star Wars).

Comparing Potter and Avatar as properties is foolish at face. As an overall property, Avatar is never going to have the following that Potter has. But that doesn't mean an exceptionally well executed theme park experience can't be created using the Avatar property. Quite the contrary.

Universal has chosen to make their Potter attractions very focused on the story from the books and films. It is extremely unlikely that James Cameron presents James Cameron's World of Avatar by James Cameron is going to follow the same approach. The property won't be presented so that you're entering the story from the movie, rather that you are traveling to Pandora and will experience an alien ecosystem as bold adventurers. It will be focused on hard science and the amazing sights and sounds of another planet (well, moon in this case).

Everyone is so wrapped up in Potter and how it's been implemented at Universal that they can't conceive of how differently this will be handled elsewhere. Not all theme park attractions are just introductions into the story of a book or movie and being based on such isn't the only recipe for success.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I think it's really hard to gauge negative reaction. We're living in an overly cynical society right now where the loudest voices are usually the most irrational and/or dellusional. This happens in many facets of life, most notably politics, religion and of course... sports. I'll use sports as the comparison because it's most likely to stay in the thread.

Going into last season, everyone assumed that the World Series was going to be the Red Sox vs. the Phillies because they were the best teams on paper. Just for fun, the other 28 teams decided to play that season as well and sure enough, the masses were wrong.

In the case of Avatar, we need to let them "play the games" so to say before we can truly see what happens. We are basing our opinions on our views of the movie Avatar "on paper". Yes, we were able to see the movie in 3D, but until the 3D world is truly recreated it's difficult to determine what the quality level will be. Keep in mind that the designers of World of Avatar do have a decent track record of creating new things.

Sadly, the realistic, rational opinions are never the loudest voices. A cry of "WAIT AND SEE!!" doesn't really resonate.

 

[misterID]

Absolutely not. If such things were said about WWOHP, it was clearly in the minority. WWOHP, upon announcement, was generally met with positive reaction from fan and industry.

You need to take a trip back through this forum to threads that were made when it was being built, bud. I can't tell you how many people were saying it was going to bomb, that it didn't have a strong franchise, that Harry Potter fever had passed, kids didn't like it anymore, it wasn't Star Wars, UNI was stupid, etc....