Say.... What if Avatarland got cancelled?

[EPCOTCenterLover]

I thought the movie was beautiful to look at but very lacking in characters you care about. No, I don't like the politics behind it, but that goes for many movies. But that has no bearing on my view of the artistry of storytelling that was lacking in this movie.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I may wind up watching Avatar tonight - it would be the first time since I saw it first in IMAX. I'm not really sure what my perspective will be now that I'm looking at it from a theme park environment standpoint.

 

[menamechris]

You're technically right, but what he probably meant is that Disney likely won't ever actually come out and confirm it's not going to happen. If it is canned, it will just never be built and the company heads likely won't ever speak of it (except perhaps from imagineers later down the road talking about plans and such). We'll probably know from insiders however well in advance if it's scrapped.

Granted though i'm not knowledgeable on how Disney handles cancellations of attractions on a public relations basis. I just can't see them coming out and saying something is canned (unless they think they can outdo what was originally intended or something). They wouldn't want to admit they massively screwed up and bit off more than they were willing to chew.

Exactly. Disney seems to have a rather strict policy lately of not announcing what could be admissions of fault, error, or bad news. All of which confirming a project is cancelled does. Look how long it took to get answers to closings like River Country or WOL. And I think we are still waiting for certain a countries to come to World Showcase...that were announced in the 80's.... Clearly they were cancelled, but Disney just never mentioned them again...

 

[OldAndBusted]

Good grief.

If James Cameron presents James Cameron's World of Avatar by James Cameron does not actually come to fruition, it will be yet another example of Disney proving it is run by imbeciles.

A company that makes big announcement after big announcement and doesn't follow through on them (wholesale post-announcement changes to FLE, Hyperion Wharf, Avatar) is a company that doesn't know what it wants to be. Or simply a company that's running a business it doesn't really want to be involved in any longer.

Successful businesses are wholly focused on their products and core competencies. Disney, as a whole, is focused on its media products; Parks and Resorts are largely a hobby business to the main power brokers, and possibly one they would rather divest themselves of. In the meantime, those in charge are happy to invest the bare minimum in the theme parks, leverage generational nostaliga while they still can, and fatten the balance sheet with their time share business.

That this is so readily apparent to someone who is hardly paying attention, namely me, is really quite damning.

I enjoy the parks for what they are, and fall into Disney's greedy hands by indulging in my own nostagia laden trips every few (sometimes 10) years, but P&R would clearly be better served if spun off entirely or sold to investors who actually saw the P&R themselves as the core business and not everything but.

Personally, I'd rather be called an imbecile for NOT building something that sucks, rather than being called an imbecile for building something that does suck.

 

[OldAndBusted]

I want something original

This is probably heresy to Disney executives, but I want them to expand with more original attractions/lands. I don't want more Pixar, more Star Wars, more of anything that already exists. Disney is so obsessed with their synergy, that they limit themselves. They can't even conceive of an attraction that isn't tied to an existing movie or TV show. I think Disney believes that unless they've already sold several billion dollars in merchandise from a film, it won't ever be considered as the basis for an attraction. Thus we're stuck with Pixar, Avatar, etc. Give us something we haven't seen before.

I know this is the same tired story mentioned by everybody that loves the Haunted Mansion and/or Pirates of the Caribbean. Both great attractions that have withstood the test of time. Neither based on a previous property. But I still think it's true.

And more specifically, Avatar was a political film. It's plot was based on Cameron's anti-military, anti-USA feelings. With such a film, you instantly alienate half your potential audience. Disney needs to try to create something that appeals to both red and blue state residents.

 

[AvengersWDW]

Bolded part made me laugh out loud Merlin... Great summary. Looks like he was banned after last night.



I 100% agree and don't buy it as a valid excuse. I especially thought this when one poster awhile back said that Pandora wasn't possible to recreate in a Theme Park world but Harry Potter's world is perfectly acceptable to be created. I'm sure it could have been done and been done well. You have to let go of reality a bit when it comes to these themed lands. As you said with the Matterhorn, does anyone really that there is a 200ft snow capped mountain sitting in the middle of Anahiem? No, but it doesn't matter because your imagination lets you accept it's there. With Pirates are we really in the middle of a Pirate ambush on a small island town in the Spanish Main? Of course not, but they did a great job with the effects.

If the budget is right, Pandora can be created and I bet it will be great. But if Disney isn't willing to put up the budget and wants to rely on 10 year old tech to recreate the world just with screens, I would prefer that they just don't do it.

Nope not banned troll

 

[Rasvar]

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.
.

Either way, they were grossly incompetent. The spectacularly horrific marketing job doomed this movie. It is, by far, the best Sci-Fi movie I have seen in years. Disney needs to fire a lot of people. I would say the entire marketing division deserves to be lost in the Pacific never to be found again.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Either way, they were grossly incompetent. The spectacularly horrific marketing job doomed this movie. It is, by far, the best Sci-Fi movie I have seen in years. Disney needs to fire a lot of people. I would say the entire marketing division deserves to be lost in the Pacific never to be found again.

So people deserve to lose there lives over this?:shrug:

 

[Rasvar]

So people deserve to lose there lives over this?:shrug:

Ever heard of hyperbole to make a point? But they should be fired, though.

Besides, I never said dead, I said Lost. Plenty of islands...you could make a TV show about it.

 

[lebeau]

Either way, they were grossly incompetent. The spectacularly horrific marketing job doomed this movie. It is, by far, the best Sci-Fi movie I have seen in years. Disney needs to fire a lot of people. I would say the entire marketing division deserves to be lost in the Pacific never to be found again.

Depends. If they actually wanted it to fail, then they should be commended for a job well-done.

 

[Rasvar]

Depends. If they actually wanted it to fail, then they should be commended for a job well-done.

If they were told to make it fail, they did. And whoever told them to do that needs to be fired or owes the company a couple of $100M for being a complete and total idiot. Either way, there is a large group of people somewhere in the company who deserve to never work in the industry again and should be looking for a job at their appropriate skill level as a Walmart greeter.

 

[lebeau]

P.S. I don't know why you wrote at length telling me that opinions are subjective. :shrug: Um, yeah, that's obvious.

Because you keep confusing opinion (I don't like Avatar) with fact (Avatar is bad).

You go so far as to say it can't be made into a compelling theme park attraction or land when history has shown us ANYTHING can be made into a compelling theme park attraction or land if the execution is up to snuff. Conversely, any property can be made into a lousy theme park attraction if the execution fails.

This should also be obvious, but your posts make me feel the need to point it out all the same.

 

[imagineer boy]

The thing that I hated about avatar was how virtually each and every last little thing about it was cliche beyond belief.

1. The Dances with Wolves Story (obviously)
2. Warrior Princess
3. Wise chief who ends up dying
4. Evil white-guy owned corporation after an oil metaphor
5. Country accented military commander who is obviously the bad guy the moment he steps on screen
6. Betrothed guy who doesn't trust hero at first
7. Hero who leanrs the ways of the natives
8. Wailing poetic singer during sad parts of movie
9. Obnoxious redneck stereo types who seem to enjoy destroying the enviroment.
10. Tom-girl mechanic who befriends the hero
11. The misunderstanding between the hero and the warrior princess that makes them hate each other for a while.
12. The terribly obvious native american metaphors

The list goes on and on.

 

[AvengersWDW]

So people deserve to lose there lives over this?:shrug:

These are the same people who think that everyone in TDO need to be fired and go homeless

 

[ctxak98]

I dont get how a movie with an EXTREMELY awesome world full of awesome sights and creatures....can make a ride....BUT not a land? its doesnt make sense at all. AVATAR IS! A LAND! ITS A WORLD. I think it will be awesome(if its ever built)

On another note, The whole "technology doesnt make a good ride" thing to me is kind of not put correctly because then what is the harry Potter attraction? To me without that ride system and some of the effects it wouldnt be much. To me it didnt have a real story going on except flying through different Places around Hogwarts dodging spiders, 1 dragon, the womping willow, and dementors....It just threw everything into one kettle pot. Dont get me wrong its a good ride but Its not spectacular without the inovation in ride technology.

 

[lazyboy97o]

On another note, The whole "technology doesnt make a good ride" thing to me is kind of not put correctly because then what is the harry Potter attraction? To me without that ride system and some of the effects it wouldnt be much. To me it didnt have a real story going on except flying through different Places around Hogwarts dodging spiders, 1 dragon, the womping willow, and dementors....It just threw everything into one kettle pot. Dont get me wrong its a good ride but Its not spectacular without the inovation in ride technology.

The difference is that Harry Potter and Forbidden Journey is not there solely to showcase the technology. It enabled.

The lack of a clear story is also nothing new in attractions. It is a series of experiences a la Pirates of the Caribbean and The Haunted Mansion.

 

[mp2bill]

Wow, this thread took off!

 

[ctxak98]

The difference is that Harry Potter and Forbidden Journey is not there solely to showcase the technology. It enabled.

The lack of a clear story is also nothing new in attractions. It is a series of experiences a la Pirates of the Caribbean and The Haunted Mansion.

But how do we know it would just be technology?
Also Pirates and Haunted mansion are just more creative to me in general because they were made up by Walt himself and To me he did creat a story and not just a bunch of random things going on. Idk just my opinion

 

[katarn112]

My family doesn't like Potter at all, never have.

Star Wars +++

Muppets ++

Pixar Land ++

Muppetsland... yeah, that'll sell.

I'm just trying to be realistic here. Take a quick survey of any group of your average Disney World guests (ie, people who you won't find on the wdwmagic forums), and ask them which expansion to a theme park they'd rather see... Muppets land, Star Wars land, Avatar land, or Pixar land. I guarantee Avatar land and Star Wars land will dominate, which Star Wars coming out on top.

 

[lebeau]

If they were told to make it fail, they did. And whoever told them to do that needs to be fired or owes the company a couple of $100M for being a complete and total idiot. Either way, there is a large group of people somewhere in the company who deserve to never work in the industry again and should be looking for a job at their appropriate skill level as a Walmart greeter.

There are reasons why some people at Disney might have wanted to see John Carter fail. It's not as uncommon as you might think.

I don't believe that happened. But I think it's possible they intentionally gave it less than their best effort.

The thing that I hated about avatar was how virtually each and every last little thing about it was cliche beyond belief.

1. The Dances with Wolves Story (obviously)
2. Warrior Princess
3. Wise chief who ends up dying
4. Evil white-guy owned corporation after an oil metaphor
5. Country accented military commander who is obviously the bad guy the moment he steps on screen
6. Betrothed guy who doesn't trust hero at first
7. Hero who leanrs the ways of the natives
8. Wailing poetic singer during sad parts of movie
9. Obnoxious redneck stereo types who seem to enjoy destroying the enviroment.
10. Tom-girl mechanic who befriends the hero
11. The misunderstanding between the hero and the warrior princess that makes them hate each other for a while.
12. The terribly obvious native american metaphors

The list goes on and on.

You can break down almost any movie to sound that cliche. Staw Wars is a grocery list of archetypes stright out of Joseph Campbell with swipes from movies Lucas liked as a kid or film student.

And some of the items on your list are a real stretch...

Both statements are subjective. Just because I don't start every subjective statement with "I think", "I like", "I believe", etc. doesn't mean I'm conflating my opinions with facts, despite your attempts to characterize it as such.


I disagree. Intellectual property is only ever adapted into a theme park if there is some compelling element to it that can be built upon. Otherwise, your theme park creation would bear no resemblance to the thing you are trying to adapt. Some properties, even good ones, just don't have anything that could make them work in a theme park.

I'll leave it to others to make up their minds about your arguments. I think you have been nothing short of ridiculous.

I thoroughly disagree with your disagreement. Plenty of intellentual properties have been developed into theme park attractions with a lot less potential than Avatar.

Avatar made headlines because there were people who were contemplating suicide because they could not visit Pandora in person. I can't think of any other IP in the world that can make a claim like that.

Meanwhile, Disney has an expensive e-ticket attraction based on Dinosaur - a movie even Disney fans have forgotten about.

Any IP can be adapted in the right hands. But Avatar is especially juicy, If the Imagineers couldn't make a compelling land out of Pandora, they need to find another line of work.

But how do we know it would just be technology?

Obviously, we don't. It's an empty argument based on a faulty assumption.

Muppetsland... yeah, that'll sell.

I'm just trying to be realistic here. Take a quick survey of any group of your average Disney World guests (ie, people who you won't find on the wdwmagic forums), and ask them which expansion to a theme park they'd rather see... Muppets land, Star Wars land, Avatar land, or Pixar land. I guarantee Avatar land and Star Wars land will dominate, which Star Wars coming out on top.

I wouldn't necessarily take that bet. But I do agree Muppetsland would be the least possible of the 4 choices. Pixar might surprise you though - especially if you take the poll at WDW.

By the way, do Star Wars fans realize that lots of people do not like Star Wars? Most people I know who are not males my age don't care for it.