Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>That is probably where you are in your life EE. Me too, though I love travel that combines real sites and theme parks. That is perfect.<< Not really... Most are just losing their value in my eyes. They are over priced, often time consuming, and entrapping, and if you are going to travel all that way, you might as well see something real. Of course, with unlimited funds and time, I could see myself open to going to California just for Disneyland, or France, for DLP, but... Even so... Give me something with a bit more meaning. I'll always love themed entertainment, but it has it's limits. YEAH, BRING ON PANDORA!!!!!
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo You need to try the baloo travel programme. It mixes real sites and theme parks. Culinary exploration, art, museums, architecture and much more. I do not think you saw our Netherlands trip report for august to give you a feel.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<I agree, I really like Avatar but I wonder if Disney parks can do anything completely original anymore that is not based on a movie,tv show, or character. I wonder if they are even trying or if the top brass will even allow them to try.>> No but this is really nothing new.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "You say that like it somehow excuses Disney's lack of creativity." It does... to a degree. Disney does not exist in a bubble unto itself. It sometimes sets the trends and it sometimes follows them. Walt himself put a merry-go-round in Disneyland despite the fact that he supposedly did not care for traditional amusement park rides. On the other hand one of Disneyland's first attractions was an exhibit based on Disney's film 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. And of course we all know that Sleeping Beauty Castle was named in honor of the animated film that was still on the drawing boards in 1955. I'm not excusing Disney by any stretch; I'm simply pointing out an important factor that has to be considered as part of the equation as to why Disney operates it's parks the way that it does today. "Just because other theme parks in the industry are doing nothing but movie tie-ins doesn't mean that Disney has to automatically follow suit." In some regards Disney sort of pioneered this kind of studio/theme park cross marking at Disneyland and Universal Studios expanded on the format. While Disney has gone whole hog now pushing its various media brands in the parks under Iger the existence of these things in the parks is hardly anything new. It's gotten really annoying, and I agree that creativity has taken a backseat to cross promotion, but it's a trend that isn't going anywhere.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 The Disneyland Tv show was originally just a giant advertisment for the parks.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<It does... to a degree. Disney does not exist in a bubble unto itself.>> That's true, but again, it's not like Disney HAS to do these things to get people in the gates - they were successful for many, many years with original content being more heavily promoted in the parks than attractions tied to existing properties. I'm just not convinced that Disney couldn't still do that today - they just don't want to spend the money on it. They're not interested in being a creative leader anymore. (And frankly, it's just another example of what's wrong with this country - it's all about making money as quickly and as easily as they can, not about actually creating anything new and unique anymore.)
Originally Posted By leobloom >> My guess is the movie really was popular with women aged upper 20s to 40s. Not sure that translates into lots of Disney guests. << Is that a joke? There's no way that was the demographic who most liked this sci-fi movie.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt <<It does... to a degree. Disney does not exist in a bubble unto itself.>> "That's true, but again, it's not like Disney HAS to do these things to get people in the gates - they were successful for many, many years with original content being more heavily promoted in the parks than attractions tied to existing properties." That's true, but back then there wasn't a Simpsons, Harry Potter, or Spiderman franchise with spectacular rides to compete with. In addition, there weren't ginormous media conglomerates controlling the combined content of their TV networks, movie studios, electronic games, theme parks, and the Internet. This is environment that Disney's parks are in today. Bundling all this together, branding it, and selling it to consumers is what it's all about. It's definitely not about creativity. "I'm just not convinced that Disney couldn't still do that today - they just don't want to spend the money on it. They're not interested in being a creative leader anymore. (And frankly, it's just another example of what's wrong with this country - it's all about making money as quickly and as easily as they can, not about actually creating anything new and unique anymore.)" I couldn't agree with you more.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>You need to try the baloo travel programme.<< I'd love to give it a try, but sadly I work in the US, so I don't get nearly enough time off to do it. If you can figure out a way to condense your travel programme (with the extra 'm' and 'e'), I'd love to give it a shot! Then again, my work week is way less intense than yours, so I guess it evens out.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Lol, indeed. One of the reasons I chose to stay in the UK rather than raise the kids in the US was the annual leave element. I find it very sad that most of the American visitors to Europe are either college students travelling in a blur or retirees. It is no wonder there are so many isolationists.
Originally Posted By oc_dean I have a question after 271 posts .. (which I need to catch up on :j ) 2011 Disney announces future Avatar attraction = 1990 Michael Eisner "Decade Decade" announcement ???? (Both announcements just a lot of hot air ... ready to deflate within a year or two - ???? )
Originally Posted By Bolna <<2011 Disney announces future Avatar attraction = 1990 Michael Eisner "Decade Decade" announcement ???? (Both announcements just a lot of hot air ... ready to deflate within a year or two - ???? )>> I really don't think the two can be compared. Cameron and Disney have certainly some sort of agreement which Disney gives an exclusive licence to use Cameron's IP. So at the moment Cameron cannot sell it to anyone else. Even for this Disney certainly will have to pay, so there must be some financial safeguard if Disney fails to build something. If Disney doesn not build, Cameron would not get his licensing fees from merchandise, but would have lost valuable years to market his IP to someone else. So there certainly will be some sort of clause in the contract which will guarantee Cameron a certain amount of money if nothing will be built and that is not going to be a small fee. Most likely the amount would be a very strong incentive to actually build something! With the Disney decade it was just plans from within Disney, no outside party involved which would at one point claim a licensing fee. I am certain that we will see at least one Avatarland (the one in AK) being built. Otherwise the shareholders will be extremely upset!
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I voted number 3 in the poll which reflects my feelings about the project. It could be the coolest thing ever or it could be the biggest bomb ever. But in the rush to judgment world of the internet to declare something the greatest or worst ever I realize that's not the popular way to go.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper So according to Cameron this is only going to be "12 acres of Pandora". That's basically half the size of Wizarding World of Harry Potter, which everyone moans about being too small. Red flag.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Could any of that have to do with they have to keep enough space for the animals?
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<Could any of that have to do with they have to keep enough space for the animals?>> Nope. They have plenty of open space not currently used by the wildlife in the park.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Red flag." Why? Since when is acreage a determining factor on how good, bad, or popular something will be? AK is the largest Disney park at WDW, yet its the least attended.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<Why? Since when is acreage a determining factor on how good, bad, or popular something will be?>> Because the way they made it out, this was going to be a sprawling addition. And every Dinsey fan moans and laughs at WWoHP for being so small, and yet this expansion is apparently going to be about half of it? I really don't care, but 12 acres is not big, especially for 500 million dollars. <<AK is the largest Disney park at WDW, yet its the least attended.>> No, it's not. DHS had the lowest attendance last year.
