-
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
menamechris
Well-Known Member
3, huh? I am curious what the third is...
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Yes, the world lacks depth. Depth is not measured in scientific quantification. My writing is actually rather specific, should you not pick out one word and make assumptions about the rest of what I have said has been.
The world in Avatar has a shimmer over it, a fakeness, that is all an overcoat to...nothing. So whatever he consulted these scientists on didn't do a tinkers darn worth of making that world feel deep, alive, and compelling.
It was just pretty.
There is nothing "authentic" about a digitally created landscape, no matter what equations scientists came up with to "authenticate" it. That's a science experiment, not a deep, compelling world to build stories on.
But as you seem to be one of those who think this film is somehow an ethereal experience and not the cheap trick popcorn movie it was, I guess I shouldn't waste my time, either.
lebeau
Well-Known Member
No doubt! See ya there. :wave:
If it doesn't open, I'll catch ya at FLE. Or whatever they actually get around to building.
Not sure what you found so funny. But I'm glad you're so easily amused.
I thought I was making a fairly simple point. Really not sure how you missed it other than willfully. It's not about whether or not Avatar causes clinical depression. I'm fairly certain it doesn't. My point is just that a lot of people felt immersed in the fictional world it created. So much so that there were headlines indicating that it was a world people wanted to visit.
You can bet Iger and company discussed those headlines before striking the Avatar deal.
Is that a simple enough restating of the obvious? Cause I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear... :hammer:
Okay, now I'm convinved. You're just willfully missing the point. They were consultants. To make the world more believable. Didn't work for you apparently. Worked for plenty of others.
There are a few factors that contributed to Avatar being the #1 movie of all times. Yes, Cameron got lucky with the timing and getting out in front of the 3-D fad. That can't be over-estimated. But a big factor was also repeat viewings (just as it was with Titanic). Avatar opened in December and remained the #1 movie through most of early 2010.
Where you found the story engaging or not, whether you found the world immersive or not, a lot of people were very engaged and immersed in the world and story of Avatar. That is evident by the film's strong legs. You really can't reasonably argue against that.
Yes, there was a backlash. Yes, the film has flaws. Like a lot of Cameron films, the characters are thin and the plot is derivative. You can find a lot of people who don't like it. The "green" and "anti-military" messages made it extra polarizing.
But to say that Cameron didn't create an immersive world is just silly. It's a matter of opinion. And since many, many theater-goers were clearly of a differing opinion the best you can say as that the world of Pandora didn't interest you.
Thankfully, I don't think Disney is banking on your attendance to make the project a success (although I'm sure you'll go anyway if it opens).
I grew up on Star Wars. Star Wars was very special to me. In many ways, it still is though I don't love it the way I did as a kid.
You're romanticizing Star Wars a bit. The cantina scene was a typical Western scene with cheap Halloween masks. The fact that people later went back and provided back story for the extras in fright gear doesn't make it especially great story-telling.
Also, the comparison between a decades-spanning franchise and a single film is silly. Obviously, there's more to explore in the Star Wars universe. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. For a variety of reasons that can only be speculated upon, Disney is moving forward with Avatar (or so they say) and not Star Wars. What's the use arguing that Star Wars is a better candidate when it is not a candidate in reality.
For the time being, it is self-contained.
If Imagineers can make Splach Mountain out of Song of the South, they should be able to make an entire land out of the highest grossing movie of all time.
Just sayin'.
Arguing that Avatar (or any IP really) is an unfit basis for an attraction is really pointless. We all know that's not true.
Well, if you don't care for it I guess Disney shouldn't bother, right?
Skipper03
Member
No doubt! See ya there. :wave:
If it doesn't open, I'll catch ya at FLE. Or whatever they actually get around to building.
Not sure what you found so funny. But I'm glad you're so easily amused.
I thought I was making a fairly simple point. Really not sure how you missed it other than willfully. It's not about whether or not Avatar causes clinical depression. I'm fairly certain it doesn't. My point is just that a lot of people felt immersed in the fictional world it created. So much so that there were headlines indicating that it was a world people wanted to visit.
You can bet Iger and company discussed those headlines before striking the Avatar deal.
Is that a simple enough restating of the obvious? Cause I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear... :hammer:
Okay, now I'm convinved. You're just willfully missing the point. They were consultants. To make the world more believable. Didn't work for you apparently. Worked for plenty of others.
There are a few factors that contributed to Avatar being the #1 movie of all times. Yes, Cameron got lucky with the timing and getting out in front of the 3-D fad. That can't be over-estimated. But a big factor was also repeat viewings (just as it was with Titanic). Avatar opened in December and remained the #1 movie through most of early 2010.
Where you found the story engaging or not, whether you found the world immersive or not, a lot of people were very engaged and immersed in the world and story of Avatar. That is evident by the film's strong legs. You really can't reasonably argue against that.
Yes, there was a backlash. Yes, the film has flaws. Like a lot of Cameron films, the characters are thin and the plot is derivative. You can find a lot of people who don't like it. The "green" and "anti-military" messages made it extra polarizing.
But to say that Cameron didn't create an immersive world is just silly. It's a matter of opinion. And since many, many theater-goers were clearly of a differing opinion the best you can say as that the world of Pandora didn't interest you.
Thankfully, I don't think Disney is banking on your attendance to make the project a success (although I'm sure you'll go anyway if it opens).
I grew up on Star Wars. Star Wars was very special to me. In many ways, it still is though I don't love it the way I did as a kid.
You're romanticizing Star Wars a bit. The cantina scene was a typical Western scene with cheap Halloween masks. The fact that people later went back and provided back story for the extras in fright gear doesn't make it especially great story-telling.
Also, the comparison between a decades-spanning franchise and a single film is silly. Obviously, there's more to explore in the Star Wars universe. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. For a variety of reasons that can only be speculated upon, Disney is moving forward with Avatar (or so they say) and not Star Wars. What's the use arguing that Star Wars is a better candidate when it is not a candidate in reality.
For the time being, it is self-contained.
If Imagineers can make Splach Mountain out of Song of the South, they should be able to make an entire land out of the highest grossing movie of all time.
Just sayin'.
Arguing that Avatar (or any IP really) is an unfit basis for an attraction is really pointless. We all know that's not true.
Well, if you don't care for it I guess Disney shouldn't bother, right?
Wow... Why such long posts?!
lebeau
Well-Known Member
Hi, I'm long winded and prone to rambling. In real life, I tend to be brief. But online, I like the sound of my own voice.
Nice to meet you. :wave:
Captain Neo
Well-Known Member
I wonder if Disney will agree to giving Avatar an even larger budget and more attractions now that Harry Potter is expanding. Seems reasonable.
If not please revamp Epcot Center. The Wonders of Life pavilion sits empty, Universe of Energy and Journey into your imagination are attractions so old and cringe worthy that they are completely uninteresting to guests. Spaceship Earth needs new narration that doesn't talk down to the audience and a satisfying ending and world showcase could use a new country or two or at least a few more rides.
If not please revamp Epcot Center. The Wonders of Life pavilion sits empty, Universe of Energy and Journey into your imagination are attractions so old and cringe worthy that they are completely uninteresting to guests. Spaceship Earth needs new narration that doesn't talk down to the audience and a satisfying ending and world showcase could use a new country or two or at least a few more rides.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
Given the initial luke warm response to the Avatar announcement I would guess that if anything the budget would be cut and moved to other projects.
ChrisM
Well-Known Member
Yes, the world lacks depth. Depth is not measured in scientific quantification. My writing is actually rather specific, should you not pick out one word and make assumptions about the rest of what I have said has been.
The world in Avatar has a shimmer over it, a fakeness, that is all an overcoat to...nothing. So whatever he consulted these scientists on didn't do a tinkers darn worth of making that world feel deep, alive, and compelling.
It was just pretty.
There is nothing "authentic" about a digitally created landscape, no matter what equations scientists came up with to "authenticate" it. That's a science experiment, not a deep, compelling world to build stories on.
But as you seem to be one of those who think this film is somehow an ethereal experience and not the cheap trick popcorn movie it was, I guess I shouldn't waste my time, either.
The depth I'm referring to is that there's a plausible and justifiable reason for effectively everything in the world portrayed in Avatar. From the reason why organisms on Pandora are largely hexapodal, to the prevalence of bioluminescence, to the floating mountains, to the history of mankind's discovery of the planetary system around Alpha Centauri and how the transportation system from Earth to Pandora functions. There's an incredible wealth of backstory to read and, frankly, I found that material far more compelling than the film which I enjoyed but fell well short of loving.
And why does this matter? It matters because when I'm entering Animal Kingdom, I'm not looking for utter fantasy, I'm looking for some real attempt at natural authenticity. And plopping in something that was just manufactured whole cloth with no effort towards making it somewhat plausible would be ridiculous. What Avatar's ecosystem represents is our current best thinking as to what an actual exo-ecosystem could possible look like, with a soundly researched and authenticated scientific explanation for all of it. It's effectively the Animal Kingdom's version of Tomorrowland.
I'm sorry that it doesn't float your boat.
The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
That actually makes it sound real cool. Thanks for that! I hadn't considerd it this way before.
I thoroughly dislike crypto-zoology. I don't need Yetis or unicorns or six-legged horses with USB connections.
But hypothetical zoology has actual merit. Indeed, it overlaps with paleontology and theoretical evolution. I'm a bit more enthusiatic about Avatarland now that I've thought about it in this way.
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
Like merchandise and character dining, probably.
DisneyBoi1215
New Member
Funny, as I was in ImageWorks the other day and heard guests say nothing but positive comments regarding the ride and EO. Maybe it's a sign? lol.
So let me get this right: mythological creatures based on culture and history you dislike, but fake life on a fake planet that pretty much anyone can invent impresses you? Seriously?
ChrisM
Well-Known Member
So let me get this right: fake creatures sprung forth from the often drug or starvation induced hallucinations of our illiterate and largely uneducated ancestors impresses you, but prognostications from some of the most educated and well informed people that the world has ever seen you dislike?
Oh please. Anyone with 8th grade science could have come up with the biological lifeforms and the planet in Avatar. They aren't that complicated. The mythological creatures such as unicorns, the yeti, Loch Ness monster, etc. have a rich, vibrant and colorful history in folklore, which is a lot more interesting since there can be so many different sources.
ChrisM
Well-Known Member
On the other hand, apparently anyone can come up with creatures from folklore since so many different cultures have come up with effectively the same creature. Over and over and over again.
Bigfoot, Yeti, Saskwatch, Yowie. Nessie, Ogopogo, Champ, Auli. Even the unicorn comes from a variety of European and Asian sources.
Pretty bland. Not only "could" anyone come up with them, everyone actually did.
FigmentJedi
Well-Known Member
Lucas had plans to make a sequel regardless of how well New Hope did. That's why Splinter of the Mind's Eye was written, so it could be a Star Wars sequel on a lower budget.
ChrisFL
Premium Member
Yep, its becoming like the Fastpass debates, one person starts it on a random thread and thats all that gets discussed after that.
ChrisM
Well-Known Member
Scintillating, isn't it?