True-Life Adventureland
AVATAR-Land
AVATAR-Land
Posted Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 9:41p Pacific Time
Disney announced "AVATAR-land" today, headed for the Animal Kingdom some time in 2014 or 2015. Though Disney didn't say so, it's been positioned by press and fans as the company's response to Universal's super-successful Wizarding World of Harry Potter.
I don't buy that: I don't think Disney truly needed to respond to Harry Potter either financially or creatively. It's not clear Disney's lost business to Universal; indeed, they may be benefitting from overall increased vacationing in Orlando. And artistically, sure, Harry Potter is excellent. But does the creative war that goes on between the two companies really matter to anyone besides us theme park geeks? I don't think so.
So while I don't think there's a business need to one-up Universal, here's what Wizarding World did do: it provided Disney a template for the next generation of theme park experiences. Over-the-top attractions, while still important, are a little less so now. What matters most in this new world is the themed environment: immersive, fantastical…transporting.
And it's here, in creating Avatar's over-the-top alien world, where Avatar-land might—might—succeed. It'll be beautiful, no doubt. Its fluorescent forests and animals will look amazing at night, solving one of Animal Kingdom's biggest problems by giving people a reason to stay after the giraffes go to sleep. (I'm envisioning a high-end restaurant overlooking a glowing Pandoran forest…mmm, could be amazing.)
But as beautiful as the world of Avatar is, it is a little…creepy. I'm not sure I want to bump into 10-foot-tall Na'vi walking around the park. (For that matter, will 5-year-old children want to?) I'm not sure I want to eat Pandoran food. If Disney was looking to respond directly to Harry Potter, then Avatar is a fairly weak comeback. (Much better would have been, say, a Star Wars Land over at Hollywood Studios, Star Wars being one of the only properties that's in the vicinity of Harry Potter in terms of fan base and loyalty.) But if what Disney was looking for was an shot-in-the-arm for Animal Kingdom specifically, especially to give it more nighttime activities…well, Avatar's a decent choice.
A brilliant choice? No. The world of Avatar doesn't seem to mesh with the feel of a Disney theme park. Should Disney be populating Animal Kingdom, a park that's supposed to be about the very real topics of animals and the environment, with fantasy creatures? Probably not. And for those reasons, Avatar-land feels like a business decision more than a creative one.
Yet I'm cautiously—very cautiously—optimistic. I admit, I do want to see what a real-life Pandora looks like. If enough other people do too, and Disney figures out a way to make 10-foot-tall blue aliens feel at home in a Disney park (I'm getting a little queasy even typing that sentence) then maybe it can be something special.
67 Comments • permalink • link with comments
Comments
I'm just saying that based on what is happening, not what people want to happen, that maybe they need to come up with movie ideas at the same time.
Posted By EPCOT Explorer Monday, October 3, 2011 at 4:45a Pacific Time
Why do they need to be tied to movies in the first place?
Posted By Manfried Sunday, October 2, 2011 at 3:16p Pacific Time
So maybe the Imagineers need to come up with new original movies to go with their new original lands.
Posted By CDF2 Sunday, October 2, 2011 at 9:24a Pacific Time
<<So wait a second, we didn't like that Disney wasn't doing anything to challenge Potter. And now that they have we still don't like it? Look Avatar wouldn't have been my first choice either, I would have prefered a Star Wars land over at DHS or something involving LOTR if it would have been possible. >>
What was wrong with the original "Beastly Kingdom" concept that was thrown out there when the AK park was first talked about? Didn't they disply a dragon head in one of the images over the entrance to the park and didn't they say something about the park regarding past, present and imaginary creatures?
Now, given that the guys up the road had their own dragon-themed coaster at IOA does that mean that Disney should have given up on some kind of dragon ride or theme? Dragons are pretty much a universal type of animal showing up in a lot of literature over the ages - does that fact that Harry Potter used them now make them off-limits for Disney or others in terms of attractions? Disney didn't back down from doing a Dinosaur ride based upon the Indy ride when Universal clearly had the upper hand with the Jurassic Park franchise.
From the standpoint of "legs", will Avatar really have any lasting fans that will provide a "must-see" mentality for a theme park attraction? Or might James Cameron even go so far as to add some kind of plot or theatrical justification for a theme park ride in one of his next two movies in the Avatar franchise? Soarin over Pandora? Traveling in some kind of transport through a Pandora jungle environment? Pandaora Tours? How well will such an attraction work for persons who have never seen the movie?
Posted By LP Watcher Friday, September 30, 2011 at 1:01p Pacific Time
It IS
Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Friday, September 30, 2011 at 8:48a Pacific Time
It does!
Posted By CarolinaDisneyDad Friday, September 30, 2011 at 5:31a Pacific Time
Thanks Dr. Hans
Looks Like a lifesize slot
car track
Posted By Bob Paris 1 Thursday, September 29, 2011 at 4:02a Pacific Time
Or how about one million shares in the DCA Golden Gate Bridge.
Oh.
Uuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmm............500,000, then?
Posted By Manfried Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 8:40p Pacific Time
<<As long as they have Animal Kingdom, I think they will be keeping him.>> And if you truly believe that can I sell you my 1 million shares in the Brooklyn Bridge?
Posted By 2001DLFan Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 8:38p Pacific Time
<<So wait a second, we didn't like that Disney wasn't doing anything to challenge Potter. And now that they have we still don't like it? Look Avatar wouldn't have been my first choice either, I would have prefered a Star Wars land over at DHS or something involving LOTR if it would have been possible. >>
Well, you pretty much answered your own question, since Avatar won’t be “doing anything to challenge Potter”.
<<Another question is Joe Rhode still an Imagineer?>>
Think so. As long as they have Animal Kingdom, I think they will be keeping him.
Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 1:38p Pacific Time
"A lot of people don't think this is a good idea."
And that's OK. What happens though, and tell me if I'm wrong, is that a few folks get fired up by these announcements and like to fuel the fire of online competitiveness between the two resorts. It's one thing to not like the project based on your personal tastes, or to question Disney's decision making but to constantly make disparaging remarks while comparing it to WWoHP is something different Doobie.
Posted By Doobie Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 1:16p Pacific Time
Just because they're now doing something to challenge Potter doesn't mean we have to think what they're doing is a good idea. I don't think that logic's too hard too follow, is it? I don't think people wanted them to do ANYTHING to challenge Potter, I think they wanted t hem to do something good to challenge them. A lot of people don't think this is a good idea.
Just speaking generally here, I personally am not very negative on the idea and think the results will be great.
Doobie.
Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 1:12p Pacific Time
"So wait a second, we didn't like that Disney wasn't doing anything to challenge Potter. And now that they have we still don't like it?"
Yes. That's right. Welcome to the wonderful topsy turvy World of Disney Park Fandom.
Posted By DDMAN26 Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 12:35p Pacific Time
So wait a second, we didn't like that Disney wasn't doing anything to challenge Potter. And now that they have we still don't like it? Look Avatar wouldn't have been my first choice either, I would have prefered a Star Wars land over at DHS or something involving LOTR if it would have been possible.
Another question is Joe Rhode still an Imagineer?
Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 9:09a Pacific Time
The land will be a replica of Radiator Springs from the film Cars. Here's the concept art:
http://tapbanana.com/wp-conten...ped2.png
This link shows construction progress:
http://disneygeek.com/progress..._count=0
Posted By CarolinaDisneyDad Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 4:39a Pacific Time
anybody got a link for what cars land entails. I have a hard time visualizing what it would be.
Posted By Bob Paris 1 Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 3:51a Pacific Time
Now THAT is a reality show I would watch!!!
Posted By oc_dean Tuesday, September 27, 2011 at 11:46p Pacific Time
>>>
"And with their record - What are the chances Disney will cut corners .. and make it subpar?"
I hear you Dean, but surely you've been following the developments of Cars Land and Buena Vista Street, both of which are hardly sub par in terms of execution.
<<<<
You're right Hans. The DLR seems to have an executive team with a lot clout, and seriously backing it up with Quality! But way over in Florida .. we keep hearing one too many stories ... that it's a completely different "world" for WDW.
I'm not snorting any pixie dust to think that a ho-hum remodel of Fantasyland .. and nothing else for the rest of the entire resort is convincing me TDO executives have the best intentions.
Radiator Springs Racers a FIASCO?
I'd love to know what is going on .. to be called "a fiasco".
The project apparently is having no construction/construction timeline "hiccups". So .. it must be internal politics amongst WDI employees.
Wouldn't surprise me, if true. Creative environments can produce enough divas to rival any reality TV show! LOL
Posted By mrkthompsn Sunday, September 25, 2011 at 11:42a Pacific Time
I think it should be a four-sided building with a flat roof (and lightening rods in the corners). Inside the building will be purple and green inflatable slides and bouncy-houses. Italian ice stand outside.
Posted By Bellella Saturday, September 24, 2011 at 4:55p Pacific Time
Two words. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!
Posted By Manfried Saturday, September 24, 2011 at 1:06p Pacific Time
<<And John's influence in the parks is largely limited to CarsLand now - especially the $400m fiasco that is Radiator Springs Racers. I've not seen him involved in any other major project recently.>>
The first and third parts may be true, but the $400m fiasco? Let the WDI fine art of backstabbing begin...
Posted By leemac Saturday, September 24, 2011 at 10:06a Pacific Time
<<Makes you wonder what Lee could've said that needed to be Admin'd. It's no wonder people in the know rarely post around here these days.>>
Well as it was Admin'ed you won't ever find out! Anyhow I understand why it was Admin'ed and have no issue with the removal of that paragraph - it was the right decision.
Posted By leobloom Saturday, September 24, 2011 at 9:40a Pacific Time
>> Haha. Cameron is an ego - a monumental ego. Rohde can match him in that department. There will be fireworks.
[Post Edited by Admin] <<
Makes you wonder what Lee could've said that needed to be Admin'd. It's no wonder people in the know rarely post around here these days.
Posted By Bob Paris 1 Saturday, September 24, 2011 at 8:22a Pacific Time
If you wanna make some fast money, I'd say go and buy shares in ANY paint company specilaizing in black light paint.
Something tells me, thanks to them having to deck out a massive shed with the stuff, within a few years those shares are going to be worth a mint!
Posted By CDF2 Saturday, September 24, 2011 at 6:42a Pacific Time
Well, given the past history of Lucas' involvement which resulted in Star Tours, Indy and Alien Encounter, one can at least expect something interesting to result from Jim Cameron having a crack at a theme park attraction. Certainly the first two attractions have been well received and while the third had some problems with figuring out who the intended audience should be, you have to admire the execution of the attraction from the preshow segments through the actual encounter.
Won't the restriction of using the robot arm technology be lifted by the time this project would be ready? Are there other technologies that might be used? Cameron's Pandora certainly has a wide variety of possibilities in terms of how one or more attractions could be presented.
Posted By leemac Saturday, September 24, 2011 at 6:06a Pacific Time
<<The same was spoken about of John in 2004/2005 and we've seen his reach amount to costuming and lighting schemes for a load area. Let's hope both John and James will exert more control in the future (-ducks and hides from Lee-)>>
Haha. Cameron is an ego - a monumental ego. Rohde can match him in that department. There will be fireworks.
[Post Edited by Admin]
And John's influence in the parks is largely limited to CarsLand now - especially the $400m fiasco that is Radiator Springs Racers. I've not seen him involved in any other major project recently.
Posted By Doobie Saturday, September 24, 2011 at 3:53a Pacific Time
Sounds like what Harry Potter did (though they didn't even get a new spinner). The execution is what matters.
Posted By Bob Paris 1 Saturday, September 24, 2011 at 3:44a Pacific Time
It's the cookie cutter Disney way, these days.
E ticket, spinner and restaurant/shops. Sprinkle in some meet and greets and voila........new land!!!
Posted By leobloom Friday, September 23, 2011 at 11:08p Pacific Time
>> So there's going to be a simulator ride akin to Body Wars, or even worse, Mission Space, where "something goes wrong...." (c) (tm), along with a stupid dragon thing spinner. There will be bored Orlando teens dressed as giant blue cat smurfs wearing those leg spring things and then there will be a cheesy restaurant like that Rainforest Cafe place and some shops selling neon blue cat smurf tails. <<
You make it sound so appealing, Bob!
And I wouldn't be surprised if you just described exactly what this place will be like.
Posted By leobloom Friday, September 23, 2011 at 11:06p Pacific Time
>> Roman Polanski and Woody Allen are also known for being cutting edge and having high standards but I don't think they are a good match for Disney either. <<
It'd be an okay match if we could get a "Chinatown" ride or an "Annie Hall" show.
Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Friday, September 23, 2011 at 6:11p Pacific Time
"And with their record - What are the chances Disney will cut corners .. and make it subpar?"
I hear you Dean, but surely you've been following the developments of Cars Land and Buena Vista Street, both of which are hardly sub par in terms of execution.
Posted By Bob Paris 1 Friday, September 23, 2011 at 6:03p Pacific Time
"And I'm almost positive that reaction is based on Disney's history of making big announcements ... just to find out .. they aren't really all the exciting, once the bean counters have their say - and turn a wonderful project into a 'ho hum' project! Or worse .... It's "postponed" or canned!
Too many examples to list, to prove the point!"
Or, in the case of Chester and Hesters, it got built!
Posted By Bob Paris 1 Friday, September 23, 2011 at 6:02p Pacific Time
Like I said elsewhere - it will consist of a giant shed with some blacklight effects. Since the attraction will be visited by litigious modern day Americans, you cannot have guests that are known for checking their brains at the main gate wandering over hills and through valleys of a made up environment with folliage and things that can ensnare their ankles, so what is the solution?
Well, the military will have since visited Pandora and will have paved the planet with walkways, nice safe walkways with HIGH railings so nobody can jump into the undergrowth, hurt themselves and then sue Disney.
What does THAT mean?
It means the environment is no longer like the one in the movie - instantly it is compromised.
Anyway, just another example of how this cannot be done in the way people may envision it. And then, what, floating mountains at the back of the eighty story show building?
Of course not. So it's going to be digital projections on the back of the shed wall. I can go to the movies to see film.
So there's going to be a simulator ride akin to Body Wars, or even worse, Mission Space, where "something goes wrong...." (c) (tm), along with a stupid dragon thing spinner. There will be bored Orlando teens dressed as giant blue cat smurfs wearing those leg spring things and then there will be a cheesy restaurant like that Rainforest Cafe place and some shops selling neon blue cat smurf tails.
NEXT!!!
Posted By oc_dean Friday, September 23, 2011 at 5:55p Pacific Time
Also ...
rather interesting ... the largest vote (so far) at 35% ... is "Not Excited at All".
Not surprised. ;-)
And I'm almost positive that reaction is based on Disney's history of making big announcements ... just to find out .. they aren't really all the exciting, once the bean counters have their say - and turn a wonderful project into a 'ho hum' project! Or worse .... It's "postponed" or canned!
Too many examples to list, to prove the point!
Posted By oc_dean Friday, September 23, 2011 at 5:50p Pacific Time
Pardon my pessimistic reaction -
I'll believe it, when I see it!
And with their record - What are the chances Disney will cut corners .. and make it subpar?
I'd say ... based on their recent history: Pretty good!
If they are willing to change their ways - Then HALLELUYAH!
Posted By Bob Paris 1 Friday, September 23, 2011 at 5:30p Pacific Time
I was there in October 2001 and the whole dead elephant thing and the poachers was still happening then.
Posted By Kennesaw Tom Friday, September 23, 2011 at 4:52p Pacific Time
<<why not partner up with a guy like Cameron who is known to be cutting edge and has very high standards?>>
Roman Polanski and Woody Allen are also known for being cutting edge and having high standards but I don't think they are a good match for Disney either.
Posted By HokieSkipper Friday, September 23, 2011 at 3:54p Pacific Time
<<That story makes me miss Eisner. >>
I miss Eisner every time Iger opens his mouth.
Eisner sure screwed up royally in his final years with the company, but at least the man had passions and a love for the company, even if it became heavily tainted.
Iger just seems myopic and bored with everything.
Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Friday, September 23, 2011 at 3:25p Pacific Time
That story makes me miss Eisner. Please don't hate me.
Posted By sjhym333 Friday, September 23, 2011 at 2:21p Pacific Time
Yes, during AK previews Kilimanjaro had a large Elephant figure laying down on it's side, Little Red in the back of the jeep and actors playing a warden and poacher. It didn't last long. I opened Kilimanjaro and within a day the number of guest complaints (and children screaming about a dead Big Red) were amazing and Big Red was removed from the attraction. Over the years so has the jeep chase which I thought was a cool effect when it worked.
Michael Eisner was a big proponent of the whole message thing at AK. He loved the whole Big Red is dead thing as well as Kali River deforestation thing. It took a lot of convincing to have them remove Big Red but after standing at unload for a bit he was convinced that the message was wiping away everything else Kilimanjaro was offering. Kilimanjaro was further sanitized several years ago to tone down the message even further.
Posted By RickJM Friday, September 23, 2011 at 10:29a Pacific Time
Long Time. First Time.
"Its fluorescent forests and animals will look amazing at night, solving one of Animal Kingdom's biggest problems by giving people a reason to stay after the giraffes go to sleep"
I wouldn't count on DAK staying open later than it already does. Well, maybe winter hours might increase a little. I live in one of the largest cities in the U.S. and in the middle of the summer, the zoo still closes at 5:00. The San Diego zoo, probably the most prestigous zoo in the U.S., closes at either 5:00 or 6:00. I think DAK's hours have more to do with the animials than anything else. Maybe there is some Zoological Society rule about operating hours. In the summer it doesn't get dark until 9:00. I'm curious to see how Disney handles this since the color palette is probably the best part of Avatar.
Posted By Doobie Friday, September 23, 2011 at 7:09a Pacific Time
Very true! Ride nor movies.
Posted By Bob Paris 1 Friday, September 23, 2011 at 7:03a Pacific Time
And besides, Doobie is very well known for not really liking POTC!
; )
Posted By Doobie Friday, September 23, 2011 at 6:58a Pacific Time
I don't agree. There is tons of coverage now but does it matter? It's not opening for years. I think once it does open, Disney would get just as much or nearly as much coverage with or without Avatar (assuming its a high quality creation). I think Universal needed a licensee to pull in new people. I really don't think Disney does. If it's sub-par, having Avatar attached will help a lot. But if it's high quality, I don't think Avatar will make much difference.
Doobie.
Posted By u k fan Friday, September 23, 2011 at 6:06a Pacific Time
In regards of being a response to WWoHP I think a non-Disney property was the only way to go. I've seen coverage of this on lots of news sites yet I doubt Beastly Kingdom would have even got a mention from mainstream media.
Only a POTC "land" would be as big a draw IMHO and it wouldn't fit in DAK and causes all kinds of complications unless it's added to MK where it's signature attraction already lives!!!
Posted By Bob Paris 1 Friday, September 23, 2011 at 4:51a Pacific Time
It's Nah-tah-ZOO!!!!
Posted By CDF2 Friday, September 23, 2011 at 12:54a Pacific Time
On the one hand, this seems like a complete copy of the Potterland scenario that successful at Universal being dropped into DAK - on the other hand, with past attractions such as Indy and Star Wars, why not partner up with a guy like Cameron who is known to be cutting edge and has very high standards?
There are additional Avatar movies planned and one suspects there will be ample opportunities for synergy between those movies and theme park attractions.
So it seems like a decent and actually somewhat "typical" scenario for Disney to do this.
Posted By FerretAfros Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 9:49p Pacific Time
Wasn't the original version of Kilimanjaro Safari far more political than it is now? Didn't it include an AA dying elephant ('Red', who is still in the script but not seen) and live actor as a poacher at the end? I never saw it, but I heard it was quite heavy-handed. The current version still gets the point across oh-so-clearly, but manages to not be so preachy.
And Kali is among the preachiest attractions ever. Not that there isn't a place for that in a zoo (yes, it's a zoo), but it doesn't have to be the focal point of every single experience there.
Posted By leobloom Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 8:26p Pacific Time
>> The fact of the matter is that DAK is turning more and more into an "politically agenda" driven park. <<
Oh, you can be sure it will be watered down to the point where the political message will be a middle-of-the-road conservation-is-good message.
I'd be surprised if they allowed it to be more political than that, although it would probably make the area more interesting.
Posted By Kennesaw Tom Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 8:20p Pacific Time
I sat down and though about all the reasons why this move on Disney's part bothers me so much. I came up with this and posted it in another thread.
<Why would Disney want to create an attraction based on a moon that has an atmosphere poisonous to humans? Will quests be dodging strip mining equipment and armed Marine mercenaries? Will the evening show consist of blowing up the Tree of Life each night? The movie Avatar has an upsetting political theme: alien tree-huggers vs. space Marines. James Cameron has made it abundantly clear that the film is linked to both the war in Iraq and the War on Terror. What is unbelievable to me is that Avatar's theme is blantantly anti-military and WDW is home to Shades of Green, the only Armed Forces Recreation Center (AFRC) located in the continental U.S.
People go to WDW to get away from all the politics and troubles of our world. Why then create a ride/ attraction that immerses guests into the heart of the pro-environment, anti-military arguement?>
The fact of the matter is that DAK is turning more and more into an "politically agenda" driven park.
Posted By FerretAfros Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 8:11p Pacific Time
>>From the start DAK was supposed to be a place that celebrated animals of the past, present and fantasy. The fantasy never came to be (until now) but it's not a new notion and I think it can work just as well as the animals of the past do.<<
I'm fine with using mythical creatures, but I think they should be ones of folklore, not ones that were created a couple years ago for a blockbuster film. I'd even be fine with using film versions of mythical creatures (like the ones in the Pastoral Symphony from Fantasia), but so much of the park is based on the cultures and traditions of the world that something so new seems out of place. Everest does a great job of using a mythical creature, but keeping a bit of realism to it.
I guess what it boils down to is that I feel like this is going to have the same level of depth as Dinorama. While I am one of the few fans of that area, it works because of the balance with the rest of the park. That area works because it is so out-there, while everything else is hyperrealistic. Add in another very out-there area, and I think both will hurt as a result. While I still don't think it would be the right place, an Avatar land at MK seems to fit the overall feel of the park much more to me. I hope I am wrong, but this just seems like such a huge departure from everything else in the park. Hopefully the end result will fit in better than what I'm picturing.
In other news, the poll has 815 votes on it. Who knew we got that much traffic through here?!?
Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 5:30p Pacific Time
"But NOW Disney has TONS of it's own sucessful properties to chose from."
And they are milking them to death. Pirates, Tinkerbell, Tron, Disney Channel, Pixar, you name it.
Posted By ChiMike Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 11:04a Pacific Time
>>The truth is, no one really knows what's important to John Lasseter. People just assume they understand his personality and motivations, but he's kind of a cypher.
Only one thing is well-understood about Cameron, and that's his dedication to his vision. (It's not clear if the same can be said for Lasseter.) He's going to make AVATAR-land as authentic and real as he possibly can, especially since he's not footing the bill. Put another way: would I trust Cameron to run WDI? No. But do I trust him to build a good AVATAR-land? Yes. (Whether a good AVATAR-land is good for Disney or Animal Kingdom is another question entirely.)<<
Another great post!
I agree, but, people right now are equating Cameron with JK. J.K. was working with a group that understood they needed to bend over backwards, a far cry from WDI!!! LOL!
WDI is a group that is composed of folks who think quite highly of their own talent and their career achievement. Remember, I think it was my fan favorite who will now go nameless, when a certain imagineer got into an argument with John about the quality of Toy Story character animation for Midway Mania?!?! Whether it was 'good enough'.
Takes a lot of guts and/or ego to argue with the creator of Toy Story about the quality of 3d animation of Woody. Wow.
So, while I agree Cameron has a great track record in terms of pushing for his projects, he hasn't sat down to work with the cracker jack crew of Vogans at WDI yet. God bless 'him, he needs all of our thoughts and prayers!
Posted By gmaletic Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 10:51a Pacific Time
> Good to see you posting Greg. I would recommend Greg's awesome documentary "Tilt" in reference to Pinball and Williams.
Thanks very much!
Posted By gmaletic Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 10:51a Pacific Time
>We shall see. The same was spoken about of John in 2004/2005 and we've seen his reach amount to costuming and lighting schemes for a load area. Let's hope both John and James will exert more control in the future (-ducks and hides from Lee-)
The truth is, no one really knows what's important to John Lasseter. People just assume they understand his personality and motivations, but he's kind of a cypher.
Only one thing is well-understood about Cameron, and that's his dedication to his vision. (It's not clear if the same can be said for Lasseter.) He's going to make AVATAR-land as authentic and real as he possibly can, especially since he's not footing the bill. Put another way: would I trust Cameron to run WDI? No. But do I trust him to build a good AVATAR-land? Yes. (Whether a good AVATAR-land is good for Disney or Animal Kingdom is another question entirely.)
Posted By ChiMike Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 10:32a Pacific Time
>>From the start DAK was supposed to be a place that celebrated animals of the past, present and fantasy. The fantasy never came to be (until now) but it's not a new notion and I think it can work just as well as the animals of the past do.
<<
I do too. I am not one that has ever really cried about Beastly Kingdom. More used it as a punchline in relation to Eisner visiting IOA for the first time.
In my head I wrote off the concept years ago, so if they were to add Avatar as the mythical component, I think it is the most realistic approach to fulfilling that void from the original park plan.
I do have my concerns that they really need to create unique groundbreaking attractions if they want to rise above the limits of the first movie's appeal and longevity. They need to create a theme park space first, not just be a retread of the film. If they can accomplish that they will rise above the notion that Avatar is a consolation prize.
>>But I firmly believe a land done as well as I expect this to be done but not attached to a known property would have given Disney the same or nearly the same benefit as this will. And without paying the licensing fee. <<
I can't agree more Doobie! It is the after-effect in what happens after you make bad decision after another in cultivating a firm such as WDI. We're stuck with the bad decisions made by folks who in part are no longer around when the "bill is due"
It sucks for anyone who has a love for Disney.
>>The one part of this I am happy about is James Cameron is known for his high standards. Hopefully he will not let Disney get away with any corner cutting like they would be able to get away with using their own properties.<<
We shall see. The same was spoken about of John in 2004/2005 and we've seen his reach amount to costuming and lighting schemes for a load area. Let's hope both John and James will exert more control in the future (-ducks and hides from Lee-)
Posted By ChiMike Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 10:26a Pacific Time
>>@Doobie Regarding the need to bring existing franchises into the park rather than have Imagineering create their own...it's the same thing that's happened in the pinball industry.
Stern—the only pinball manufacturer left—only builds games based off of movies and TV shows. (Indeed, they've even built an Avatar pinball machine.) They've gained a built-in market in exchange for the ability to offer a truly novel experience. With Stern it's understandable, because they're fighting for their survival. Disney's not, so it would be nice for them to be more adventurous.
<<
Good to see you posting Greg. I would recommend Greg's awesome documentary "Tilt" in reference to Pinball and Williams. I drew some unfortunate parallels to WDI.
>>You'd think that a property like Pirates would show that original, valuable properties can come directly out of Imagineering. (Though I wonder: given that Imagineering hasn't been creating many original "stories" for a few decades now, do the kind of storytellers that want to tell original stories even work there anymore? As an organization, is it still up to that task?)<<
My suggestion would be that management realizes they got rid of the good storytellers/designers a long time ago in all the political decisions over the years. Easier to buy someone else's proven property than take a major gamble on the same people who have spoiled the minor gambles of Figment, Stitch, Monsters, Pooh, Iago, etc. Even the implementation of the Little Mermaid and Nemo characters have fallen under question.
I wish that wasn't the case and we could see more of the new adventures like Mystic Manor where WDI is creating properties from scratch. I just don't think there is enough talent left at WDI to pull a lot off other than acting as a GC or refurbishment specialist. Let's hope they don't slap Avatar on Soarin or a B&M coaster. It would be nice to see a fresh approach taken.
Posted By gmaletic Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 9:56a Pacific Time
>The one part of this I am happy about is James Cameron is known for his high standards. Hopefully he will not let Disney get away with any corner cutting like they would be able to get away with using their own properties.
Yes, completely agree. I think that's the one thing that kept Wizarding World on-track is J.K. Rowling's insistence on excellence. Cameron is probably even more demanding.
Posted By Manfried Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 8:52a Pacific Time
Cameron is known for high standards and not suffering fools, something WDI seems to be full of these days. Maybe this will shake things up at WDI the way they should.
Posted By Doobie Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 8:45a Pacific Time
From the start DAK was supposed to be a place that celebrated animals of the past, present and fantasy. The fantasy never came to be (until now) but it's not a new notion and I think it can work just as well as the animals of the past do.
<<<
You'd think that a property like Pirates would show that original, valuable properties can come directly out of Imagineering.
>>>
I have no doubt that WDI can create environments like this. They did at DisneySea not so long ago. I just don't think Disney wants to take that risk right now. At least with their own properties I can understand the economic benefits of the cross promotion. But now, not only does it not benefit Disney if the Avatar brand is promoted in the park, they're actually paying for the privilege to do it. Universal clearly needed that kind of boost for their parks. IOA was a great park and it stall lagged in attendance. It needed the WWOHP name to put it over the top. But I firmly believe a land done as well as I expect this to be done but not attached to a known property would have given Disney the same or nearly the same benefit as this will. And without paying the licensing fee.
The one part of this I am happy about is James Cameron is known for his high standards. Hopefully he will not let Disney get away with any corner cutting like they would be able to get away with using their own properties.
Doobie.
Posted By gmaletic Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 8:32a Pacific Time
@Doobie Regarding the need to bring existing franchises into the park rather than have Imagineering create their own...it's the same thing that's happened in the pinball industry.
Stern—the only pinball manufacturer left—only builds games based off of movies and TV shows. (Indeed, they've even built an Avatar pinball machine.) They've gained a built-in market in exchange for the ability to offer a truly novel experience. With Stern it's understandable, because they're fighting for their survival. Disney's not, so it would be nice for them to be more adventurous.
You'd think that a property like Pirates would show that original, valuable properties can come directly out of Imagineering. (Though I wonder: given that Imagineering hasn't been creating many original "stories" for a few decades now, do the kind of storytellers that want to tell original stories even work there anymore? As an organization, is it still up to that task?)
Posted By SuperDry Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 8:13a Pacific Time
<<< What about 5+ years from now, when the place finally opens? >>>
That's about when Avatar 2 and 3 will have come out and will be appearing on BluRay. I think a comparison could be made to Indy and Star Wars: the references the related attractions make to the film franchises are somewhat timeless. People relate to them even though the film may not have been this year's blockbuster.
<<< DAK so far has had a pretty consistent vision. This throws all that away. >>>
The park currently has references to real live animals as well as extinct ones. I think there always the notion that they'd also like to cover mythical ones as well - that and the jungle setting seem to make it fit to me.
From what I've read so far, it at least has the potential to be something very immersive with a "sense of place" much like WWOHP. My only disappointment so far is what Doobie said:
<<< There was a time when Disney would just create a great land that wasn't based on a franchise but, at least under current thought, that seems to be a thing of the past. >>>
Yea, those were the days. I liked when there were things in the park that existed only in the park, with the exception of souvenir items and a soundtrack that you could buy. The point was that there were experiences you could only have in the park itself and couldn't have at home on DVD. Given that this isn't that, it sounds pretty good to me.
Posted By Doobie Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 5:20a Pacific Time
I agree if Disney has to do a property this is a good fit. I can't think of anything else in the world of Disney/Pixar/Marvel that really would fit for Universal Studios. But I don't think Avatar on its own will necessarily be a huge draw and wish Disney didn't feel the need to anchor a major Animal Kingdom expansion on an existing franchise. There was a time when Disney would just create a great land that wasn't based on a franchise but, at least under current thought, that seems to be a thing of the past.
Doobie.
Posted By FerretAfros Wednesday, September 21, 2011 at 9:07p Pacific Time
I'm not sure that Avatar will have the pull that Disney seems to think it will have. Yes, it made a lot of money, but there are very few people still talking about it, 18 months later. What about 5+ years from now, when the place finally opens? Will it be 'relevant'? Will anybody care?
And I'm not convinced that it's a good fit for DAK. Yes, it could fill in some voids in the park's lineup, but at what expense? DAK so far has had a pretty consistent vision. This throws all that away. Variety, yes; good fit, notsomuch.
I'm fine with Disney stretching beyond their own properties, but this one is a head scratcher.
Posted By gmaletic Wednesday, September 21, 2011 at 4:42p Pacific Time
@jedited I think the answer might be: what Disney property would work -at Animal Kingdom-? Is there one you can think of that has the pull of Avatar? (Which is, admittedly, unknown, but at the very least, it's the most successful movie of all time.) I can't think of a recent Disney property that works there, but maybe I'm forgetting something.
I think they were specifically addressing shortcomings with Animal Kingdom, e.g., its evening performance.
Posted By jedited Wednesday, September 21, 2011 at 4:37p Pacific Time
First, If the movie wasn't so dumb, then maybe this would be a good idea.
Second, I think this is a BAD business decision. Why would Disney promote a property it doesn't own?!? I know, "what about Star Wars and Indiana Jones?" Those 2 properties were added originally when Disney had nothing else going for it. The studio was dying and it was a way for Disney to re-invirgorate itself. But NOW Disney has TONS of it's own sucessful properties to chose from.
Posted By Disneymom443 Wednesday, September 21, 2011 at 4:51a Pacific Time
I'm looking forward to it, I know my DS and DH will really like it.
:)
Share This
Find Us
Advertisement
MouseEarVacations.com
Making Vacations Magical Since 1987
Specializing in Disney Destinations, Cruises, and Customized Vacations Around the World
Visit our website for more info!
LP Live Recent Picture
One hour to go!
Posted: 5/25/13
Now Playing
Monsters, Inc March
Riders in the Sky / Monster's Inc Scream Factory (Monsters Inc)