Say.... What if Avatarland got cancelled?

[xdan0920]

I had no idea you had so much power within Disney...

Shows what you know. Just the other day I got a special invitation to take an online survey in regards to WDW. They don't just send them out to anyone ya know.

 

[Reddog]

I love Star Wars. It's an important part of my childhood. But let's not kid ourselves. The characters in Star Wars are as two-dimensional as anything in Avatar. They have just seeped deeper into the culture.

Aside from a little character development in Empire, I would not hold out characterization as a strong suit of the Star Wars series.

Regardless of whether it was good characterization, there were (and still are) little kids running around pretending to be Han Solo or Boba Fett or whoever.

My point is that people love the Star Wars characters and that helps draw them to the Star Wars theme. I don't see that with Avatar.

 

[Da Man]

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.

Fortunately, your troubles with my opinion matter not.

And, actually, my opinion is worth noting for a very important reason - I never saw the films in theaters due to scheduling and lack of desire (better things at the time in cinema). The reviews I read of trusted reviewers and word of mouth from friends all had two clear mantras repeated over and over -
-The story itself is a derivative of every one of Cameron's films seen to this point and the characters are all as one dimensional and overall clear good or bad (no middle ground, like, I don't know, in reality?).
-The MAIN DRAW was the cinematic 3D experience taken to an entirely new level. Once that had passed, the lack of 3D on the big screen coupled with a running time I just cannot justify currently in my life, left me with the aforementioned zero desire to see it.

Why is this opinion and outlook important? Because once the buzz died down and this film was no longer in the theater, cinephiles such as myself couldn't be bothered. Or put another way, the buzz generated around this movie dissipated and it left the public's 'pop culture' radar, it became an after thought of foot note in movie-dom, and people have moved on.

Not good for a massive park expansion. Also, asking several people who did see the movie and thought the 3D and special effects made up for a lack luster story and cardboard characters what they felt about Avatar 2 & 3, the answer was a resounding 'meh'.

Not good indeed.

 

[PirateFrank]

There's definitely the potential for disaster. But if Disney doesn't take any chances, we just wind up getting more of the same. And that's not any better than taking a few chances.

If Disney cheaps out, that could ruin any project. Just as it has ruined many projects. That's part of the appeal of the Avatar project. Someone (Cameron) is there to keep Disney from cheaping out.

You know, that's an excellent point....and one worth dwelling on if this process continues. My fear is that you've got a company that has been very gun shy of shooting at the big game....and a guy who would spend a billion dollars to prove himself right. That's a combination that doesn't work very well together. It may yield positive results, but more often than not, it just ends up that someone sues someone else....

Pretty sure you don't get a vote. Iger gave no indication that the project was anything but on track today during the shareholders' meeting. Seems people like dwelling on defunct rumours.... :shrug:

OK, you can't just pop in here, dump that on the table and walk out.

*what* did he say??

Shows what you know. Just the other day I got a special invitation to take an online survey in regards to WDW. They don't just send them out to anyone ya know.

:ROFLOL:

 

[WDW1974]

Pretty sure you don't get a vote. Iger gave no indication that the project was anything but on track today during the shareholders' meeting. Seems people like dwelling on defunct rumours.... :shrug:

That's not how business works at that level.

And you quick Canadian, you beat me to this morning's meeting as that was the only thing I wanted to address on this never-ending discussion.

But Iger ONLY addressed Avatar when questioned by a fanboi ... only. He did an entire presentation highlighting P&R and their future and he talked about everything from Shanghai and HKDL to DCL expansion to DCA's makeover to our modest little Fantasyland beautification project. Nothing about Avatar ... not ONE piece of artwork that hides most details to whet appetites. He ONLY left out the largest capital investment coming to the flagship resort ... the one announced at $500 million ... the one for DAK ... the one with tall blue aliens that are slaughtered by people who look a whole lot like the very military families he covets as guests (he did mention the military prominently and then took questions on veterans deals).

In other words, he responded to what some Spirits in the fan community (and behind his own doors in Glendale and Burbank) are saying about the troubled project by saying almost nothing other than basically status quo or what Jim Hill got from his source in PR.

It means nothing ... no, actually, it means less than nothing.

Very telling when this word has been going around for 3-4 months now that he couldn't show off 1-2 renderings and even call them 'possible concepts' for the land ... and he damn well couldn't because the thing is a disaster.

Only surprise from the meeting: no questions about exec compensation and no questions about releasing Song of the South.

~Iger lies~

 

[RSoxNo1]

Here is my issue with that...

Wait and see is 99% of the time, the right attitude to take. For example, that the BatB resturant. Maybe I don't like BatB, maybe I think it sounds dumb to eat in Beast's castle. However, building a resturant is a relatively minor investment, and has the potential for alteration going forward.

AvLand is an enormous investment, not just money, but time as well. Having a wait and see approach could very well lead to a very bad decade for WDW fans. I personally feel it has a low chance of success. So I would rather nip this thing in the bud and move on.

That's not how business works at that level.

And you quick Canadian, you beat me to this morning's meeting as that was the only thing I wanted to address on this never-ending discussion.

But Iger ONLY addressed Avatar when questioned by a fanboi ... only. He did an entire presentation highlighting P&R and their future and he talked about everything from Shanghai and HKDL to DCL expansion to DCA's makeover to our modest little Fantasyland beautification project. Nothing about Avatar ... not ONE piece of artwork that hides most details to whet appetites. He ONLY left out the largest capital investment coming to the flagship resort ... the one announced at $500 million ... the one for DAK ... the one with tall blue aliens that are slaughtered by people who look a whole lot like the very military families he covets as guests (he did mention the military prominently and then took questions on veterans deals).

In other words, he responded to what some Spirits in the fan community (and behind his own doors in Glendale and Burbank) are saying about the troubled project by saying almost nothing other than basically status quo or what Jim Hill got from his source in PR.

It means nothing ... no, actually, it means less than nothing.

Very telling when this word has been going around for 3-4 months now that he couldn't show off 1-2 renderings and even call them 'possible concepts' for the land ... and he damn well couldn't because the thing is a disaster.

Only surprise from the meeting: no questions about exec compensation and no questions about releasing Song of the South.

~Iger lies~

What's funny is that us fans have been clamoring for Disney to be bold with their new projects. Avatar could be exactly that - clearly it's not as safe as they anticipated, but if it's built and if they knock it out of the park with innovative attractions and visuals then they will have done what us fans have asked of them.

It seems that if it's cancelled, that any replacement would be on the safe side. Something like Australia would be safe. Something like Star Wars would be safe (although it could still impress). Something like an entirely new concept of mythical animals in the Animal Kingdom would probably be more bold than Avatar, as the former at least the familiarity of the source material.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Fortunately, your troubles with my opinion matter not.

And, actually, my opinion is worth noting for a very important reason - I never saw the films in theaters due to scheduling and lack of desire (better things at the time in cinema). The reviews I read of trusted reviewers and word of mouth from friends all had two clear mantras repeated over and over -
-The story itself is a derivative of every one of Cameron's films seen to this point and the characters are all as one dimensional and overall clear good or bad (no middle ground, like, I don't know, in reality?).
-The MAIN DRAW was the cinematic 3D experience taken to an entirely new level. Once that had passed, the lack of 3D on the big screen coupled with a running time I just cannot justify currently in my life, left me with the aforementioned zero desire to see it.

Why is this opinion and outlook important? Because once the buzz died down and this film was no longer in the theater, cinephiles such as myself couldn't be bothered. Or put another way, the buzz generated around this movie dissipated and it left the public's 'pop culture' radar, it became an after thought of foot note in movie-dom, and people have moved on.

Not good for a massive park expansion. Also, asking several people who did see the movie and thought the 3D and special effects made up for a lack luster story and cardboard characters what they felt about Avatar 2 & 3, the answer was a resounding 'meh'.

Not good indeed.

Yes, but Avatarland is neither based upon the story nor the lead characters in Avatar. It's based in the world of Pandora--the part of the film that most people rave about. This is not The Alien World of Jake Sully. The focus is this:

not this:

 

[PirateFrank]

Yes, but Avatarland is neither based upon the story nor the lead characters in Avatar. It's based in the world of Pandora--the part of the film that most people rave about. This is not The Alien World of Jake Sully. The focus is this:

not this:

Are you an imagineer? I'm curious to know how you have such inside information....

 

[ChrisM]

Fortunately, your troubles with my opinion matter not.

And, actually, my opinion is worth noting for a very important reason - I never saw the films in theaters due to scheduling and lack of desire (better things at the time in cinema).

Ah yes, you must have been so busy with "The Squeakquel", "New Moon", and "Old Dogs" you just couldn't find the time to work in "Avatar" during the sixteen weeks it remained in the Top 10 of box office charts. The thing was showing on over 1,000 screens into April.

There definitely were a few quality films out during that time span - "Up In The Air", "Precious", and "Invictus" among the major, media market releases (and a nice handful of slightly lesser known films). But I think you're betraying some other bias rather than a mere flight to quality.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Are you an imagineer? I'm curious to know how you have such inside information....

I read press releases and comments from insiders on this website.

 

[PirateFrank]

I read press releases and comments from insiders on this website.

Um, that was a rhetorical question.

Bob Iger said himself, today, that planning is just beginning. How on earth does anyone know exactly what the focus of avatar-land is going to be?

I think it's very safe to assume that it won't be Sully charging into the jarheads, war cry and machine-gun screaming away (they aren't *that* stupid, are they?)....but no one on these boards can say definitively that characterization and mythology will not be used in the parks, given the stage the project is currently at.

 

[lebeau]

I think it's very safe to assume that it won't be Sully charging into the jarheads, war cry and machine-gun screaming away (they aren't *that* stupid, are they?)....but no one on these boards can say definitively that characterization and mythology will not be used in the parks, given the stage the project is currently at.

You gotta admit though that as far as assumptions go, it's a relatively safe one.

 

[PirateFrank]

You gotta admit though that as far as assumptions go, it's a relatively safe one.

But there's two assumptions there. Not one.

The assumption that it won't be 'Sully charging in, guns ablaze, war cry, killing Jarheads' is a safe one. Especially given the heroes initiative Iger just spoke about today.

The assumption that there wont be any characterization/mythology in the new land...and that it's only going to be visual/thematic, is not safe at all. No one can definitively comment on that either way. We may very well see blue people walking around in AV-land on stilts praying to Eywa (or worse, animatronics). It'll be stupid...but we may very well see such a thing.

 

[NoChesterHester]

This is something I do for a living… “Just beginning design” doesn’t mean they just began design. It really doesn’t mean anything at all.

They have probably been working feverishly since announcement. Design takes far longer than most folks would believe. Don’t look to HGTV to provide guidance to the real process.

I’ve also had projects canceled or put on hold at every imaginable stage. “Just beginning design” can be used to describe the process overall too. If it went on hold or they are revaluating the concept it could be “just beginning.”

I’m not getting into this Avatar is a good or bad fit discussion again. :brick::brick::brick::brick::brick:

 

[PirateFrank]

This is something I do for a living… “Just beginning design” doesn’t mean they just began design. It really doesn’t mean anything at all.

They have probably been working feverishly since announcement. Design takes far longer than most folks would believe. Don’t look to HGTV to provide guidance to the real process.

I’ve also had projects canceled or put on hold at every imaginable stage. “Just beginning design” can be used to describe the process overall too. If it went on hold or they are revaluating the concept it could be “just beginning.”

well said.

I’m not getting into this Avatar is a good or bad fit discussion again. :brick::brick::brick::brick::brick:

smart man. This discussion is an emotional black hole of which nothing escapes.....

 

[lebeau]

But there's two assumptions there. Not one.

The assumption that it won't be 'Sully charging in, guns ablaze, war cry, killing Jarheads' is a safe one. Especially given the heroes initiative Iger just spoke about today.

The assumption that there wont be any characterization/mythology in the new land...and that it's only going to be visual/thematic, is not safe at all. No one can definitively comment on that either way. We may very well see blue people walking around in AV-land on stilts praying to Eywa (or worse, animatronics). It'll be stupid...but we may very well see such a thing.

You're right that we don't know what will or won't be in Avland as that is still being determined. Even Disney doesn't know. But I think it's pretty safe to say that the focus will be on the world of Pandora rather than the specific plot of the movie. That was implied in the announcement and it makes sense as well.

I'm going to give Disney and Cameron credit that they won't do something that is obviously stupid. Disney may try to cheap out, but they won't make the worst possible theme park attraction.

 

[Captain Chaos]

it could be an unmitigated disaster.

Couldn't any project be an unmitigated disaster though??? Splash Mountain could have been... The FLE could very well be... Soarin could have been... Heck all of WDW could have been... You know what else could be an unmitigated disaster? Mysterious Island, Beastlie Kingdomme, Star Wars land.. Yes, they all COULD BE disasters... But that doesn't stop fanboys from crying about wanting these, does it??? No... Does that mean play it safe and leave a mound of dirt, or take risks and see if it pays off??? Disney used to be about taking risks... Now they play it too safe and the results are showing in WDW: stale parks... So, if something shouldn't be built because it could be an unmitigated disaster, then we shouldn't ever look for anything else to ever be built, because, as said, ALL projects could wind up disasters...

I can appreciate your posts and your arguments against though PF... You are one of the few against the project that have presented mature discussions and reasonable thoughts... They are a joy to read...

Regardless of whether it was good characterization, there were (and still are) little kids running around pretending to be Han Solo or Boba Fett or whoever.

My point is that people love the Star Wars characters and that helps draw them to the Star Wars theme. I don't see that with Avatar.

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening...

Fortunately, your troubles with my opinion matter not.

And, actually, my opinion is worth noting for a very important reason - I never saw the films in theaters due to scheduling and lack of desire (better things at the time in cinema). The reviews I read of trusted reviewers and word of mouth from friends all had two clear mantras repeated over and over -
-The story itself is a derivative of every one of Cameron's films seen to this point and the characters are all as one dimensional and overall clear good or bad (no middle ground, like, I don't know, in reality?).
-The MAIN DRAW was the cinematic 3D experience taken to an entirely new level. Once that had passed, the lack of 3D on the big screen coupled with a running time I just cannot justify currently in my life, left me with the aforementioned zero desire to see it.

Why is this opinion and outlook important? Because once the buzz died down and this film was no longer in the theater, cinephiles such as myself couldn't be bothered. Or put another way, the buzz generated around this movie dissipated and it left the public's 'pop culture' radar, it became an after thought of foot note in movie-dom, and people have moved on.

Not good for a massive park expansion. Also, asking several people who did see the movie and thought the 3D and special effects made up for a lack luster story and cardboard characters what they felt about Avatar 2 & 3, the answer was a resounding 'meh'.

Not good indeed.

There is no proof that the movie if an after thought though... And of course haters of the first Avatar would greet Avatar 2 and 3 with a "meh"... But fans of the first movie were excited and are excited about sequels, and were disappointed when the news came out that the sequels were delayed... Just like I can't stand the first (and all for that matter) Twilight and I met the sequel announcement with a "meh" doesn't mean everyone did... and box office numbers prove that... Your choice of people to ask was prejudiced against the movie, getting your desired result... Fans of the movie will be waiting on line to see the sequels... The people you described, probably won't be...

 

[JustInTime]

Still beating the dead horse, I see.

Um, that was a rhetorical question.

Bob Iger said himself, today, that planning is just beginning. How on earth does anyone know exactly what the focus of avatar-land is going to be?

I think it's very safe to assume that it won't be Sully charging into the jarheads, war cry and machine-gun screaming away (they aren't *that* stupid, are they?)....but no one on these boards can say definitively that characterization and mythology will not be used in the parks, given the stage the project is currently at.

Exactly. So why are you worried about it now? Seems like you just want to fire up a stale debate. The pictures above obviously show the feel that Disney wants to capture with Avatarland. Just watch the video of them talking about it. They are passionate about bringing the world of Pandora to life. Not the story of Avatar. They said it themselves. So the pictures above are fairly accurate of the feeling they'd like to capture.

 

[JustInTime]

smart man. This discussion is an emotional black hole of which nothing escapes.....

Told you. Don't waste your energy worrying about how it fits. Leave that to the people who get paid to do it. There is a reason why we aren't Imagineers.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Told you. Don't waste your energy worrying about how it fits. Leave that to the people who get paid to do it. There is a reason why we aren't Imagineers.

Because we are either too young, don't have the proper degrees, don't know the right people, lack the ambition, or don't want to constantly come up with ideas that are shot down?