Say.... What if Avatarland got cancelled?

[JustInTime]

The opinions on this are deeply divided...and there are plenty of people that don't feel it fits at all. Obtuse? No Your opinion? Yes.

I was very curious to hear how it 'meshes incredibly well'....besides the obvious "big tree" in both AK and the movie...and the question still stands to Captn Neo.

If feels like a rhetorical question that has been beat to death at this point. If you'd like to read up on themeing details, read the original Avatar thread. I for one don't feel like explaining how it fits yet again. I am sure Captn Neo doesn't either. It's not worth arguing over at this point.

 

[Prototype82]

God this idea was a...

from the start. Just a knee jerk reaction to try to combat Harry Potter.

I pray that the project is completed so that you can be proven wrong and that I can explore an immersive environment that only Disney can make possible.

 

[Prototype82]

The rumors about the Avatar land demise are completely false. Jim Hill reports today that he has checked with Disney and that it is still very much on. He will have a follow up report as to what is behind the rumors - what purpose does the false rumor serve.

This made me happy. It also gave me hope that Disney is still a competent company. :so happy: I don't know where these rumors are coming from. Maybe people are such sticks-in-the-mud that they'd do anything to prevent the next best thing from happening.

 

[sittle]

Maybe people are such sticks-in-the-mud that they'd do anything to prevent the next best thing from happening.

"Next Best Thing for DAK" could possibly be 2012's "Bold and new vision for PI".... :ROFLOL: ...

 

[lebeau]

The opinions on this are deeply divided...and there are plenty of people that don't feel it fits at all. Obtuse? No Your opinion? Yes.

I was very curious to hear how it 'meshes incredibly well'....besides the obvious "big tree" in both AK and the movie...and the question still stands to Captn Neo.

Avatar has a strong conservation theme. Animal Kingdom has a strong conservation film.

Animal Kingdom was intended to have a section that tells stories about fantastical creatures. The world of Avatar includes fantastical creatures.

I'm not saying it's as natural a fit as another zoo attraction. But no one should need to have this explained at this point.

What's the basis for saying it doesn't fit?

 

[disney fan 13]

I pray that the project is completed so that you can be proven wrong and that I can explore an immersive environment that only Disney can make possible.

Same here...

 

[PirateFrank]

If feels like a rhetorical question that has been beat to death at this point. If you'd like to read up on themeing details, read the original Avatar thread. I for one don't feel like explaining how it fits. I am sure Captn Neo doesn't either. It's not worth arguing over at this point.

The question wasn't directed to you.

If you don't want to defend your position on this....by all means, recuse yourself from this discussion. However, if someone is going to counter an opinion (which has a strong number of supporters) with "It meshes extremely well" I'd like to know exactly how.

Moreover, an Ad Hominum attack leveled by lebeau, by calling people who don't sit on the same side of the discussion as "Obtuse" is something that should not be left unchallenged. If a large percentage of people here are going to be blanketed with an offensive moniker, I wanna see that person justify it.

If you don't want to support your position because you're too tired to or you can't...fine. I'm waiting for Neo or Lebeau to...

 

[PirateFrank]

Avatar has a strong conservation theme. Animal Kingdom has a strong conservation film.

Animal Kingdom was intended to have a section that tells stories about fantastical creatures. The world of Avatar includes fantastical creatures.

I'm not saying it's as natural a fit as another zoo attraction. But no one should need to have this explained at this point.

What's the basis for saying it doesn't fit?

Your attack on people who don't agree with you as Obtuse is flat out offensive. There have been plenty of comments in this thread that present an equally valid pov that suggests it's NOT a fit. Mine are already on record.

Try phrasing your defense of your pov without attacking those that don't agree with you....

 

[JustInTime]

The question wasn't directed to you.

If you don't want to defend your position on this....by all means, recuse yourself from this discussion. However, if someone is going to counter an opinion (which has a strong number of supporters) with "It meshes extremely well" I'd like to know exactly how.

I didn't realize the rule of, "speak when spoken to" applied to the internet. But once again, if you haven't figured it out at this point, you haven't been paying attention. If you don't get it by now, you won't.

Anyway...I'd say if we don't hear anything in the next few months, Avatarland will join the ranks of Beastly Kingdom.

 

[MAF]

I can explore an immersive environment that only Disney can make possible.

Sorry, Universal already did it with Harry Potter...

 

[Honest John]

I read that they need $400M to break even on John Carter. What's the correct number?

Caveat 1: 'Hollywood accounting' is built to obfuscate the true tallies of such things so that media companies don't have to pay out huge royalties. Companies are going to 'spin' budget numbers to serve an interest that may or may not be reflective of the truth and may either over-inflate or underestimate the true profit, depending on the structures of the royalty and distribution deals, the mood of the market, shareholder interests, etc.

Caveat 2: Remember that breaking even is still kinda, sorta a disaster for a big budget epic that costs hundreds of millions of dollars. Remember that an investment like this is an opportunity cost -- Disney took money it could have potentially put to produce uses elsewhere. If you put 250 million in the bank from back when John Carter got greenlit 3-4 years ago and got 3% ROI every year, you'd make 30 million just on interest alone (I'm not claiming Disney spent all 250 million upfront, mind you). The point is when a big media company outlays 250 million dollars over 4 years and gets 250 million back, that's still a decent sized loss, relative to what they could have invested the money on instead. So nominally breaking even is still a loss.

Caveat 3: Remember that Disney doesn't get every dollar of box office. Movie theaters take a cut. Promotions have to be done.

The *general rule* is that the movie's producer is going to get 50-60% of the box office...so, assuming a $250 million outlay, Disney would need to generate $400-$470 million to break even, true enough. Now, there are other revenue streams: licensing, toys, other merch, secondary distribution channels later on like DVD/Blu (an eroding market), OnDemand, airplane, etc. But that's *not* counting promotional costs (probably $100+ mil on a huge picture like this) and as I said, doesn't count opportunity lost. And now, what a bomb like this might do to the share price/market value of the company...

So the accounting is hard. Needless to say, spend $250 million on a movie, you need to make ALOT back.

 

[disney fan 13]

Sorry, Universal already did it with Harry Potter...

and again with phase 2 ...

 

[FigmentJedi]

Avatar has a strong conservation theme. Animal Kingdom has a strong conservation film.

Animal Kingdom was intended to have a section that tells stories about fantastical creatures. The world of Avatar includes fantastical creatures.

I'm not saying it's as natural a fit as another zoo attraction. But no one should need to have this explained at this point.

What's the basis for saying it doesn't fit?

Because creatures that only exist in the land of James Cameron's ego (which is about the size of that whole planetary system) aren't nearly as compelling as the creatures that have captured and inspired man's imaginations for centuries. It also seems rather out of place for an outside property to exist at a WDW park that isn't the Studios, seeing as guests have been conditioned to think of the Studios as the place stuff not owned by Disney goes in Florida.

 

[JustInTime]

Harry Potter is mind blowing. I'd like to see Disney's answer to that fully fleshed out and available to the public. I want to see Disney really flex their muscles. We all know they got em'.

 

[misterID]

I have yet met a creative minded person who didn't have an ego. I think Avatar fits just as well to Ak as a land about mythcal creatures does. Nature, enviorment, conservation and animals are all a natural fit to AK, to me anyway.

btw, Rain Forest Cafe isn't owned by Disney, and it's at Animal Kingdom.

Your attack on people who don't agree with you as Obtuse is flat out offensive. There have been plenty of comments in this thread that present an equally valid pov that suggests it's NOT a fit. Mine are already on record.

Try phrasing your defense of your pov without attacking those that don't agree with you....

That was a well thought out, respectful reply he gave you. Obtuse could have been replaced by "in denial, " "stubborn," "jaded," etc.

 

[PirateFrank]

That was a well thought out, respectful reply he gave you. Obtuse could have been replaced by "in denial, " "stubborn," "jaded," etc.

The one he gave me? sure.
The blanket statement a few comments above it? not so much....replace the word with whatever you want. The textbook definition is essentially 'difficult to understand / dim-slow witted'. Anyway you slice it, it's an insult. Pick a better word and be prepared to explain yourself.

Listen, I love the back and forth of this subject. I squarely sit on the side that avatar was a mistake better cancelled now than a few years into construction....but I respect the pov that otherside has regarding this.

What I do NOT respect is when someone plasters a group of people with an offensive label in an effort to undercut their position. It's often done in politics and it's just as cowardly.

 

[smw]

this says there are 34 pages but it wont let me go past 31.

weird.

 

[ctxak98]

Universal already had a whole land about mythical creatures like dragons and unicorns and they basically scrapped it to create harry potter. Why would Disney want to build a copy of that with Beastly Kingdom now? How is that more creative then Avatarland? I dont see how people can say it doesnt fit. Its fits better in my opinion. I guess its the same way I see pixar at Disneys hollywood studios and at Epcot. I REALLY HOPE that they follow through on avatar. Disney needs it. There is nothing else I feel that will steal some thunder. Make avatar....get some popularity back, then refurb and create Classic attractions we know and love. Disney needs to get back on track

 

[misterID]

I think there was incredible potential for AvatarLand and what WDI could have done with it, but like most projects planned for WDW I doubt we'll see anyone with the drive or desire to make anything happen.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Universal already had a whole land about mythical creatures like dragons and unicorns and they basically scrapped it to create harry potter. Why would Disney want to build a copy of that with Beastly Kingdom now?

Because it wouldn't be a copy. It would a Disney version, hopefully, with all the "plussing" such a version entails. And people are more aware of, and more fond of, unicorns and dragons than they are big blue pussycats. Avatar's kitties appeal to a certain demographic, while the classic fantastical beasties appeal to ALL demographics. Just like Harry Potter does. :shrug: