Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of: <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/Blogs/Maletic/View-319.asp" target="_blank"><b>9/20/11 AVATAR-Land (True-Life Adventureland)</b></a>
Originally Posted By Disneymom443 I'm looking forward to it, I know my DS and DH will really like it.
Originally Posted By jedited 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.
Originally Posted By gmaletic @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.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros 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.
Originally Posted By Doobie 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.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< 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.
Originally Posted By gmaletic @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?)
Originally Posted By Doobie 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.
Originally Posted By Manfried 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.
Originally Posted By gmaletic >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.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>@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.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>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-)
Originally Posted By gmaletic >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.)
Originally Posted By gmaletic > Good to see you posting Greg. I would recommend Greg's awesome documentary "Tilt" in reference to Pinball and Williams. Thanks very much!
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>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!
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "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.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>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?!?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom 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.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> 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.
