WDW1974
Well-Known Member
Congrats on the stay ... and you should have made a list of everyone who signed in ... there are people here who want lists and names and PROOF of every word you write.:xmas:
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Uni's New Plan For Potter Could Make Significant Dent To WDW
- Thread starter Ignohippo
- Start date
Congrats on the stay ... and you should have made a list of everyone who signed in ... there are people here who want lists and names and PROOF of every word you write.:xmas:
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
I became a Potter fan because I wanted to be familiar with the source material when the Wizarding World opened up. I had seen the first movie in theaters with my ex girlfriend, and then when Universal made their announcement I started reading. I read each book and then watched each movie. I wound up seeing the last two in theaters.
I had seen the original Star Wars trilogy as a child, and then I saw the new trilogy as they came out (Revenge of the Sith in theaters, the remaining two on DVD/Blu Ray). I decided that because of the new Star Tours I should re-watch them all. At this point I enjoyed The Harry Potter series more.
I've seen both Cars movies and I'm amongst the few that enjoyed the second movie more than the first. I will probably re-watch them both before visiting Carsland next year.
I saw Avatar in IMAX and left it with the comment that most had, "it looked great and the floating mountains were cool". That's my hope for this project, that they can recreate the visuals. Like others have said, I have little to no attachment to the characters, but I do think the movie lends itself to a themed environment.
Many have speculated that Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit is the next big franchise. If that happens, I will probably force myself to watch these movies as well. I watched the first hour of the first one and couldn't get into it so I turned it off.
These are excellent points. The TDO Beancounter comment is accurate, I wasn't trying to defend the choices I was explaining them. Your point on the principles of the park are very well stated. I think we all claim to fear change, but if the change is for the better then we're supportive. Recently, so many of the changes have resulted in a decline in quality
NoChesterHester
Well-Known Member
I dont really subscribe to the sky is falling philosophy and try to approach the changes to the parks with a wait and see attitude. I dont find fault in a lot of the items that you and some of the tearing fanboys decry.
I do however understand the difference between the quality of the scope of an attraction like Horizons and the failed Mission Space. Newer definitely doesnt equate to better for me either.
So, I was just a young lad in the 'heyday' 1980's Epcot Center. I remember it fondly, but dont remember all the details. I was a teenager in the early 90's when all began to change. At the time I got caught up in the change and was excited. I wasnt alone thinking Horizons was tired, Test Track was awesome, and Universe of Energy was now more entertaining.
In hindsight the 90's is when a lot went awry. Funny though that many on this board refer to the 90's as glorious, mainly due to the rapid pace of expansion. That WAS exciting.
So I look at the 2000's as a period of decline. I started to notice the broken light bulbs and wondered why there werent more attractions opening. Was this due to awareness or reality?? probably a little of both.
We took a break from Disney for a while, but found a lot of positive on our last trip. The parks were noticeably cleaner, the attractions looked in better repair, and there were lots of new things (some smaller additions, but new none the less). Major expansions are underway and other refreshes (like constant construction in World Showcase) seem to be the norm again.
So is everything going to h*ll in a handbasket? I dont think so. I am disappointed some things got to such a state of disrepair, but believe there is some positive to lean on.
I do believe we tend to remember these parks in a certain bais based on the period of our first 'crush' on the place. 1980's... golden age... 1990's... golden age... recent day = total crap!
brightlillstar
Member
Actually, my first thought was "That's awesome!"
I think this WILL impact Disney, and will take one more day away from them.
For me personally I have been to Disney World 6 times as an adult. I never got to go as a child but I always dreamed of it. I had heard of Universal, and thought some of the rides I saw looked interesting but did not dream of going there. Uni has a long way to go before it becomes the primary draw to Central FL.
I've never been to Uni. Dh went as a child. We always saw it as a "would be nice to go someday" but never wanted to take away Disney days for it, especially since we have APs at Disney and just recently bought in at DVC.
However, since Potter opened, I've been DYING to go. DH and I are both big Potter fans. We were planning a trip in Spring 2012 to spent about 4-5 days at WDW and 2-3 at Uni. Now I'm thinking of putting off that trip until HP world is complete, or we'll have to go twice, and on the second trip, we will need more time! Also, with Uni's front of the line passes, and the popularity of HP world, we would definitely stay in a Uni hotel, even though staying at WDW s substantially cheaper with our AP discounts or DVC points.
We're trying to plan a friends trip for Food and Wine next year, and several people have said "Yes, we're coming, but it has to include a few days for HP"..not "I want to go to Uni" but "I want to go to HP." That's the power of that franchise.
I think the Hogwarts Express is a phenomenal idea. They'll probably put up some kind of ticket deal so the park hopping isn't too prohibitive, but honestly, many people would pay $35 JUST for a ride on the Hogwarts Express, especially if it's themed well, let alone a whole new area full of attractions. DH and I paid $40 apiece to see the Harry Potter exhibit in Times Square. All it was was a collection of props from the movies, not a state of the art ride, and you didn't get to do anything as interactive as riding the train.
I can see how people see this is a rip off of the consumer, but I think it just makes Uni more of the "4 parks 1 world" that WDW tries to be. So just like people who primarily are interested in HP will have to go to 2 parks, people who are primarily interested in Pixar have to go to all 4 Disney parks to experience all of the Pixar attractions. If you're a coaster enthusiast, you have to pay for entry to 3 Disney parks to ride all of the coasters. If you're interested in Princesses, you have to attend 3 of the 4 parks to experience all of the Princess-related attractions. We're just used to it at Disney. I know it seems different at HP since it's essentally one "land" divided into 2 parks, but I think people will be willing to pay it.
I really wish Uni WOULD get lower priced hotels, though includng them might make the front of line access not as effective a benefit. We priced out 2 nights/3 days at Uni at their cheapest hotel and it was going to be $800 bucks. Unreal, but we'll prob pay it even though we could do the same thing at Disney for $150 (2 night at Pop on an AP rate and we already have the APs). Because of HP world, I'm willing to spent $650 MORE to do to Uni instead of Disney, and I don't think I am alone.
I think this WILL impact Disney, and will take one more day away from them.
For me personally I have been to Disney World 6 times as an adult. I never got to go as a child but I always dreamed of it. I had heard of Universal, and thought some of the rides I saw looked interesting but did not dream of going there. Uni has a long way to go before it becomes the primary draw to Central FL.
I've never been to Uni. Dh went as a child. We always saw it as a "would be nice to go someday" but never wanted to take away Disney days for it, especially since we have APs at Disney and just recently bought in at DVC.
However, since Potter opened, I've been DYING to go. DH and I are both big Potter fans. We were planning a trip in Spring 2012 to spent about 4-5 days at WDW and 2-3 at Uni. Now I'm thinking of putting off that trip until HP world is complete, or we'll have to go twice, and on the second trip, we will need more time! Also, with Uni's front of the line passes, and the popularity of HP world, we would definitely stay in a Uni hotel, even though staying at WDW s substantially cheaper with our AP discounts or DVC points.
We're trying to plan a friends trip for Food and Wine next year, and several people have said "Yes, we're coming, but it has to include a few days for HP"..not "I want to go to Uni" but "I want to go to HP." That's the power of that franchise.
I think the Hogwarts Express is a phenomenal idea. They'll probably put up some kind of ticket deal so the park hopping isn't too prohibitive, but honestly, many people would pay $35 JUST for a ride on the Hogwarts Express, especially if it's themed well, let alone a whole new area full of attractions. DH and I paid $40 apiece to see the Harry Potter exhibit in Times Square. All it was was a collection of props from the movies, not a state of the art ride, and you didn't get to do anything as interactive as riding the train.
I can see how people see this is a rip off of the consumer, but I think it just makes Uni more of the "4 parks 1 world" that WDW tries to be. So just like people who primarily are interested in HP will have to go to 2 parks, people who are primarily interested in Pixar have to go to all 4 Disney parks to experience all of the Pixar attractions. If you're a coaster enthusiast, you have to pay for entry to 3 Disney parks to ride all of the coasters. If you're interested in Princesses, you have to attend 3 of the 4 parks to experience all of the Princess-related attractions. We're just used to it at Disney. I know it seems different at HP since it's essentally one "land" divided into 2 parks, but I think people will be willing to pay it.
I really wish Uni WOULD get lower priced hotels, though includng them might make the front of line access not as effective a benefit. We priced out 2 nights/3 days at Uni at their cheapest hotel and it was going to be $800 bucks. Unreal, but we'll prob pay it even though we could do the same thing at Disney for $150 (2 night at Pop on an AP rate and we already have the APs). Because of HP world, I'm willing to spent $650 MORE to do to Uni instead of Disney, and I don't think I am alone.
71jason
Well-Known Member
I have to disagree. Other than a fairly generic rain forest with twinkling lights, there's not much to Pandora.
Example: What should a Pandora restaurant look like? What would it serve? When WWoHP is complete, it will likely have five eateries, each one described in the book, with a distinctive decor and menu. In Radiator Springs, clearly you have a 50's style drive-in called Flo's V-8 Cafe (heck they stole that for the Dream even). In a Tolkein land, there's the pub where the hobbits meet Aragorn, maybe a burrow-themed restaurant that serves "second breakfast," could even do the mead hall of the Rowan king (I think it was in the books).
Potter, Star Wars, Cars, LOTR...all offered much more complete worlds than Avatar. Other than some scenery, there's not much of a "real world" in Pandora to borrow from.
PhilharMagician
Well-Known Member
All of which already have more than one movie in the series to already draw from.
I have to assume you are not a fan of AK? Forest is what AK is built on, Pandora can give the imagineers a fresh new idea to build on.
lebeau
Well-Known Member
So because no one in Avatar went to a restaurant, they shouldn't build a themed land in an amusement park? :shrug:
I think we all expect Avatar 2 & 3 to be dogs like the Matrix sequels. Hopefully, they'll be more like Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi.
Iger doesn't strike me as an idiot. He must've seen enough about 2 & 3 to conclude they're going to be monster hits. I'm not a big fan of the Avatar addition, but has James Cameron ever had a misstep? He certainly hit it out of the park with T2.
I think a lot of animosity about Avatarland comes mostly from those of us that can't understand why Star Wars didn't get this treatment instead, It seems a much more obvious success and a perfect fit for WDW. The only thing I can figure is that there must be some serious holdup on the part of Lucas. Either he wants his own park (which I don't believe Dis would ever do), he hasn't liked the proposals from Imagineering or he wants an incredible financial commitment. From what I've heard, Lucas was nothing but completely amicable and very easy to work with on the ST refurb. Financially, I'd think Iger could figure out a deal. I really wonder if Avatar isn't partly a way for Disney to try to burn a fire under Lucas' butt.
Iger doesn't strike me as an idiot. He must've seen enough about 2 & 3 to conclude they're going to be monster hits. I'm not a big fan of the Avatar addition, but has James Cameron ever had a misstep? He certainly hit it out of the park with T2.
I think a lot of animosity about Avatarland comes mostly from those of us that can't understand why Star Wars didn't get this treatment instead, It seems a much more obvious success and a perfect fit for WDW. The only thing I can figure is that there must be some serious holdup on the part of Lucas. Either he wants his own park (which I don't believe Dis would ever do), he hasn't liked the proposals from Imagineering or he wants an incredible financial commitment. From what I've heard, Lucas was nothing but completely amicable and very easy to work with on the ST refurb. Financially, I'd think Iger could figure out a deal. I really wonder if Avatar isn't partly a way for Disney to try to burn a fire under Lucas' butt.
NoChesterHester
Well-Known Member
Everyone assumes we already know the story... more of the same. Cameron is way too good for that. His track record speaks for itself.
I doubt he has seen any of Avatar 2. Have they even got a story yet? ?? I agree with you though that Cameron sure seems to make great sequels. I cant think of a flop that he headed up.
I dont know about the "fire" part, but I'm sure the lack of a Star Wars based presence is because of the licensing cost. From what we understand the agreement with Cameron is pretty standard and affordable.... Lucas has a far more established franchise. His fees are high. Very high. As they should be.
I also believe that the Avatar deal got cut in hopes that the sequels were monster hits. A licensing deal after a second major hit would be far more expensive. There is also the arguement that thry were actually trying to be proactive. Get out in front of the popularity rather then jump on it too late only too see it wane. (See American Idol)
AEfx
Well-Known Member
AK is just one big forest. It's difficult to tell one land from another other than the language on the signs of the faux-dilapitated signage.
AK is very pretty, don't get me wrong - but it's just a big forest. I think the scale of the forest has some people thinking it's amazing theming, when it's actually amazing placemaking; similar, but not the same thing.
You and I are NOT friends anymore.
I honestly think it was simply to get the word in the papers that Disney has signed a big deal, as they must have known that Potter 2.0 was on the verge of being announced. I'd be surprised if Iger has even seen Avatar.
The question about the sequels isn't so much "can Cameron do it again", because he can't. That was a perfect storm. It's kind of like Jackson's Thriller - it was the right place, at the right time, in the right industry - it's doubtful any single album will ever sell that much again (partially because how music consumption has changed, but that's a relatively recent change).
Avatar made a zillion dollars because : it was Cameron, it was the first "real" 3-D film, it was at a time when 3-D was hitting the height of it's gimmick popularity, it's a movie aimed at the biggest spenders of movie money (male teenagers, specifically those that go to films repeatedly, like he got with female teens and Titanic), and a summer light on major releases compared to the previous.
The chances of that happening again are pretty slim. People are already sick of 3-D (not that it ever was as popular as some put forth - it simply made a lot of money quickly because of novelty and inflated ticket prices - the "3D tax"). The teenage boys who made the first one successful will be college aged/post college again, and we don't know if the kids who are 10 or 11 now will be all that primed about it.
As others have pointed it, culturally the film is already all but disappeared. I think part of the problem is the generic name he gave the film - not only is avatar a general-use word, it's also the name of a kids show/franchise that already existed. That was a long-term mistake, I think, as the kids familiar with that Avatar today are the ones that would be his audience in five years for the next ones.
That's also part of it. I mean, I could come up with a half-dozen ideas off the top of my head without even thinking about it that would make rockin' restaurants :
1. Jabba's Court - With a "live" show with an animatronic Jabba on center stage
2. The Cantina Cantina - Duh
3. Cloud City Cafe (with "fake" windows making it look like you are in the sky)
4. Ewok Eatery (OK, bad name, but you get the idea - BBQ amongst huts that appear in trees - kind of like Garden Grille but better with decent food - and imagine all the "Can we eat Ewok?" jokes)
5. The Diner from Ep II
OK, there is five, LOL. In about sixty seconds. Of course, some couldn't be done as well as they could be (Jabbas and Ewok come to mind) because of some of the themes - having to appeal to families with small kids, etc - but it's endless. And that's just restaurants...it's incredible what we'd have to work with.
My dislike of Avatar has nothing to do with Star Wars, though. I know why we don't get more Star Wars stuff - there is no incentive for anyone to do so. Lucas doesn't seem so gung-ho about theme park rides so he's not pushing, and any licensing would be a pittance to him. For Disney, as we all know, the main draw is merchandise - and they already sell so much Star Wars merch between normal year-round ride exit sales and Star Wars Weekends (I mean, the lines to buy stuff are the biggest in the park - and we willingly do it, to spend $100's of bucks on stuff we really don't need already) that even if they had new rides probably wouldn't increase THAT much over what it already is (much less enough to justify spending $100's of M that it would take to build new SW attractions).
The reason I don't care for Avatar is because it simply isn't a very good film, in my opinion, and add the attitude of the director and chants of fanboys don't help my opinion improve. And I also just don't care a lick for 3-D features. I love Philharmagic, or those types of attractions (though one per park is plenty, thanks!) but for 10-15 minutes. A good cinematographer can make the images pop as needed without having to bash one over the face with it. It's sort of a lazy way out of true cinematography (which, is funny because technically 3-D is very difficult to film, because it needs so much light, etc., whereas true cinematography is a much deeper combination of artistic eye/talent, not so much a technical expertise past a certain point).
No, because Avatar didn't really create a world. They made you feel like you were in one due to the 3-D, but that world had no depth to it. (Ironic as that sounds, it's the perfect fit for Avatar on a lot of levels.)
Yodadudeman
Member
This is the reason for the Avatar-land. Disney has to have to have something that is as popular and current as Avatar on the premise. However, I don't really think that any MORE Harry Potter will impact Disney World. Maybe a little at first, but Disney has many projects of its own that are either being built or in development. If anything, this expansion will encourage Disney to continue making improvements, which is not a bad thing at all!
lebeau
Well-Known Member
Did you read the headlines about people suffering clinical depression because they couldn't visit Pandora in real life?
You make these statements based on your own opinion as though they are factual. So many people disagree with your opinion that it actually made headlines!
Here's a 101 page forum thread to help you cope with your PAD (Post Avatar Depression). Yep, it was common enough to be named.
disneyrcks
Well-Known Member
Did you read the headlines about people suffering clinical depression because they couldn't visit Pandora in real life?
You make these statements based on your own opinion as though they are factual. So many people disagree with your opinion that it actually made headlines!
Here's a 101 page forum thread to help you cope with your PAD (Post Avatar Depression). Yep, it was common enough to be named.
:hurl: I have another word for people with Post Avatar Depression but it would be inappropriate to use here :lol:
lebeau
Well-Known Member
Say what you will, but there's no denying that a lot of people wanted to visit the place.
Disney will have a word for them as well, paying customers.
disneyrcks
Well-Known Member
Hey I have no problem with Avatarland but it is just plain silly to become clinically depressed because you cannot go to or live on Pandora. I also would not use this article (that is clincally baseless and I would eat my sneaker if PAD were added to the DSM) to support a point. That is all I was referring to, I have no issues with Avatar or it being added to Disney. I have an issue with complete and total BS (not by you but whoever wrote the source you cited).
disneyrcks
Well-Known Member
:lol:-Like I said no prob with Avatarland or Disney. My issue is with a bunch of idiots who diagnose themselves as clinically depressed with the sole trigger being that they cannot live at a fictional place. Though perhaps on a WDW forum this is considered normal and acceptable ( I just reread that and it did not sound at all as I meant it to sound), What I meant by it is that we can all identify a bit because we are fans of going to a fictionalized place that makes us all very happy. I get a little (ok, a lot) sad whenever I leave Disney but for goodness sake, it does not cause a chemical imbalance in my brain that needs to be treated with medication.
You might not but there people who do get clinical depression post vacation. From what I have read many are already clinically depressed and the vacation causes a high followed by a post vacation low. It is my understanding that the depression associated with Avatar is something similar.
ChrisM
Well-Known Member
The astronomers, planetary geologists, biologists, and aerospace engineers that assisted Cameron in creating as accurate and authentic of a fictional world as possible would like to have a word with you.
lebeau
Well-Known Member
Somehow they managed to overlook the ready-made counter service restaraunt that is apparently necessary to be considered a fully functional finctional world...