Originally Posted By DouglasDubh It will be interesting to see what they do with this. I'm skeptical about it. I could definitely see an attraction based on Avatar at MK or DS or AK, but I'm not sure how they can build a land. What would it look like? Imagineering can do some amazing things, but they can't create floating islands. Other than that, what does Pandora have? Giant trees? AK has one of those. I don't are how you build a themes land around 8 ft tall blue guys and strange and colorful creatures. Maybe the sequels will give us some unusual architecture they can incorporate.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Another question about this announcement: why wasn't it announced at the D23 Expo a few weeks ago? That would have been the perfect place to generate a lot of excitement, with very little actual content (like what today's press releases were hoping for). There was a huge audience of Disney fans looking for announcements left and right, yet there were none. Perhaps they were scared that this would go over like a lead balloon, just like the original version of the Fantasyland expansion did at the last Expo.
Originally Posted By DiscoYeti I think this is quite the coup for Disney. Let's not forget that Avatar is the highest grossing movie of all time domestically and internationally, and it picked up Oscar nods for Picture/Director. It's not like they're trying to take down Harry Potter land with a National Treasure attraction. This is definitely something I would have expected to show up at Universal. I applaud Disney for showing some initiative on this one. I have high hopes that we'll get an immersive and innovative attraction out of this.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <-- saw the first 5 minutes of the first Harry Potter movie. I became bored and never saw another Harry Potter movie. As a result, The WWOHP does nothing for me.
Originally Posted By tashajilek At least people cant say nothing is going on at WDW anymore. If it's a quality project then who can complain?
Originally Posted By tashajilek Oh and i was really didnt want to see Avatar at all and it ended up being a really beautiful movie.
Originally Posted By dagobert Here is the Q & A with Tom Staggs: <a href="http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2011/09/answering-your-questions-about-avatar-at-disney-parks/" target="_blank">http://disneyparks.disney.go.c...y-parks/</a> I didn't like the movie, but I'm really happy that there will be something new not based on Princesses or other Disney cartoons, although I would have prefered Star Wars or Indiana Jones or something original like Beastly Kingdom. I still think it would fit better in the Studios park.
Originally Posted By Bolna <<Here is the Q & A with Tom Staggs:>> Does anyone believe that Tom Staggs really sat down and personally answered questions submitted by the readers of the Disney Parks Blog???? I am sure that all of this had been written beforehand and they just added a few quotes as appropriate... And why do they answer a question about the film being rated PG-13 by mentioning that there will be two sequels?? Still can't make up my mind about it. I see the potential for an interesting addition. I just don't like it when they limit themselves to just one "world" which reduces the creative possibilities. Which btw is something I don't like about lands like Carsland and Harry Potter as well. I prefer an old fashioned Adventureland at the MK or Asia at AK as my idea of a perfect theme park land.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>I prefer an old fashioned Adventureland at the MK or Asia at AK as my idea of a perfect theme park land.<<< I absolutely agree...sadly this seems to be the modern trend. But still, I am pleased at the potential this has.
Originally Posted By u k fan I avoided this film on release as the trailer made it look dumb. I saw it recently on TV - it is dumb, but it's extremely beautiful and the idea of being able to visit that world is very exciting. Let's hope the sequels don't suck! I wasn't convinced about the location at first, but I don't see why this would be any more out of place than Beastly Kingdomme. Which brings me to my next point, I think I'd still rather have seen Beastly Kingdomme happen (I'm guessing it will never happen now), but I think that shying away from the obvious HP comparisons with Dragons and mythical beasts may be a wise idea. I'm cautiously excited over this!!!
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>Let's hope the sequels don't suck!<<< I wouldn't count on that. Do you know any sequels which are better than the first one? The second Star Wars (original trilogy) is better than the first, or the third Indy is better than the first. I didn't like the first one and so I'm not looking forward to part three and four. Until yesterday I didn't even know Cameron is planning sequels.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Not really. All of the classic attractions have a simple premise<<< Yeah, created in house, and based off of archetypes. Not someone's half cooked movie script. Disney is creatively dead.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>At least people cant say nothing is going on at WDW anymore. If it's a quality project then who can complain?<<< It's not happening. Yet. This is all blue sky, as said on the blog. Blue Sky can get shelved...
Originally Posted By Bolna <<It's not happening. Yet. This is all blue sky, as said on the blog. Blue Sky can get shelved... >> I think it is even pre-Blue-Sky. Didn't they say that they are starting the Blue Sky phase now. So, I agree, we are far away from whatever the end result will be. However, it seems that a deal of one sort or another has been agreed on between Disney and Cameron. And if I were Cameron I would have negotiated some sort of safeguard in any agreement that Disney actually uses my intellectual property if I give them an exclusive (I guess it is exclusive?) license. So I am sure Disney will have a very strong financial incentive to actually get something built.
Originally Posted By Bolna <<Disney is creatively dead.>> Well, wasn't there some talk about how Iger wants TWDC to become more a distribution company instead of being concerned with content. In a way this is using the parks as distribution channels...
Originally Posted By DiscoYeti "However, it seems that a deal of one sort or another has been agreed on between Disney and Cameron. And if I were Cameron I would have negotiated some sort of safeguard in any agreement that Disney actually uses my intellectual property if I give them an exclusive (I guess it is exclusive?) license. So I am sure Disney will have a very strong financial incentive to actually get something built." Absolutely. James Cameron is a smart businessman. I doubt this would have been officially announced if both parties weren't locked into delivering. The announcement may be very early in the process, but it makes sense from Disney's perspective to shake the perception that they're sitting idly by while Universal wins praise for WWoHP. The sequels shouldn't be too much of a concern. Even if they suck, the name recognition will still ensure that people see the movie. I don't see Avatar 2 performing any worse than say....Iron Man 2, which made tons of money despite being viewed as a disappointment.
Originally Posted By Doobie I have no reason to believe this won't actually happen - and I hope it does. But when I saw construction wasn't set to begin until 2013, the first thing that popped into m y head was David Coperfield's Magical Underground. Doobie.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Do you know any sequels which are better than the first one?>> Aliens and Terminator 2 directed by James Cameron.
Originally Posted By dagobert >>Aliens and Terminator 2 directed by James Cameron.<< Totally agree with you on Terminator 2. Haven't seen Aliens yet.
