Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA When I 'see' an 'Avatar' attraction scene in my mind, I can't help but jump to those cheesy show scenes from the old 'E.T' attraction at Universal Studios. You know, where we visit 'E.T's home planet, and it's all dark with the black light paint and fiber optics. Or like that final scene in 'World of Motion' -- showing the city of the future. Let's hope that current technology helps this particular project be more immersive.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>That was always the sticking point for WDP&R's negotiations with WB/JKR.<< I'm sure they are kicking themselves over that one. What is a percentage multiplied by zero again? Something of nothing. I said it early yesterday, and I'll say it again. This is a great move if it pans out to what people already expect. It is certainly good for AK, if again, the attractions end up being blockbusters. However, it is without question a consolation prize that is only resulting from seeing all the 8 year old boys roaming 'Disney Parks' with Harry potter capes and wands.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Let's hope that current technology helps this particular project be more immersive. << I'm sure it will. Seriously. The only rub is that it will also come with a heavy reliance on screens/vr and less so on complex set pieces. One of my biggest beefs (If I really have one) with HP.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt “Would the money be better spent developing an attraction based on an existing property that TWDC already owns?” Although the scale of this project is unprecedented for this kind of partnership for Disney, this isn’t the first time the company has been down this road. Star Tours, the various Indiana Jones attractions and the Pixar attractions that were built before Disney acquired the company are prime examples. The reality is that in Hollywood the term “owned property” is kind of loosely defined. It seems rare for a film project to originate with the studio that produces and distributes it. Avatar is a case in point: the film was released by 20th Century Fox, yet how many people associate it with Rupert Murdoch and News Corp? Media companies like Disney are really nothing more than distribution channels for projects that they believe will turn big profits and leave the risky business of creating content to other people (Pixar comes to mind). I’m not a fan of this way of doing business, but Avatar is a pop culture phenomenon, so strictly from a business strategy point of view Iger was very wise to claim it before someone else did.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Media companies like Disney are really nothing more than distribution channels for projects that they believe will turn big profits and leave the risky business of creating content to other people<< True, the Harry Potter films were created by Warner Bros., not Universal.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "No ticket receipts sharing like Uni has for Potter though. That was always the sticking point for WDP&R's negotiations with WB/JKR." Wow, Uni agreed to that? Interesting. I wonder if the deal expires at some point. Eventually popularity for the attractions will wane and WB/JKR will still be collecting a percentage of the gate receipts.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "You know, where we visit 'E.T's home planet, and it's all dark with the black light paint and fiber optics." That was such a bad attraction Jim. Loved the queue, but the ride was just laughable. I only did it once, but I still remember what a let down it was.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Wow, Uni agreed to that? Interesting. I wonder if the deal expires at some point. Eventually popularity for the attractions will wane and WB/JKR will still be collecting a percentage of the gate receipts.<< Lee might have far better insight into this but the way it has been explained is that there is a sliding scale of rev share over the term, which is also tied into some sort of proportion of what is operated with the license (for future growth).
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>That was such a bad attraction Jim. Loved the queue, but the ride was just laughable. I only did it once, but I still remember what a let down it was.<< Man Hans, you're tough! I think it's a great little attraction. I can't imagine what you would say about some of Disney's dark rides. Peter Pan in WDW, even.
Originally Posted By Pentacat Is this a way to increase AK's operating hours as well? Adding attractions that can operate after dark seems like something that AK needs badly.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I really love ET Adventure and was very sad they took it out of USH. It is better than any of the Fantasyland Dark Rides IMHO.
Originally Posted By Bolna <<I think a team of 8 lawyers and 1 social marketing "guru" sat down and argued about adverbs.>> Ah, totally forgot about the lawyers... How could I? <<That's a great point. Best on I have read yet in all the fodder on various sites.>> Thanks for the compliment! I think using a certain franchise always opens up the discussion about its content. That's why people are discussing whether they have seen Avatar, whether they liked it - same with Potter. You have people who are extremely excited about exploring that world and others who don't get it why there is a blue car that smashed into a tree... Understanding the story of a land is so much easier if it is tied to a certain franchise. Everyone who is familiar with it will immediately understand the story of the land. But it has the potential to make it less accessible for those who aren't familiar with that story yet. And it eliminates the layers of story a land can have because everything is already out in the open. So in the end there is less to explore for the guest as well.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Is this a way to increase AK's operating hours as well? Adding attractions that can operate after dark seems like something that AK needs badly.<< Let's hope so. And let's hope that the Yeti is fixed before 2016
Originally Posted By leemac <<Lee might have far better insight into this but the way it has been explained is that there is a sliding scale of rev share over the term, which is also tied into some sort of proportion of what is operated with the license (for future growth).>> It is a tough one to explain - WB/JKR get a fixed percentage of total IoA gate receipts (along the lines of WDP&R's deal with OLC on TDR). There are some caps and floors involved though. That is on top of a license fee and the merchandise share. Plus there are the fees paid to the stars to use their likenesses. That is a huge amount of cash to hand over to someone else irrespective of its perceived success.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I'm sure they are kicking themselves over that one. What is a percentage multiplied by zero again? Something of nothing.>> Not quite. WB/JKR wanted a share of total gate receipts for the park that would have been home to PotterLand. Incredibly difficult for WDW as they rely so heavily on park hoppers.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>It would have been so much more than the usual themed restaurants like Mars 2012 that is still virtually opposite the NYC location.<<< HAH. I was enthralled with that place as a kid... was in NYC a month ago, and was shocked to see it still there... and... kicking. LOL
Originally Posted By ChiMike I understand what you are saying. I guess I still look at it as a win. There is that sliding scale (your floor and cap reference). There is the same issue with Universal having two gates and a hopper system I still look at it as a win, because I can't imagine they are worse off for doing it. Might be too simplistic an approach, and I understand how to approach it with more 'savvy', but at the same time it has to be a net net win for them. I also believe that if Disney could hop into Universal's Delorean, they might approach the HP deal differently than they did originally. In the end, it worked out great. I don't think Disney could have delivered Potter to the level Universal did, and now Disney gets to have a reason to go mythical at AK. Everyone really wins here unless we get more Living Character and WII Sports Fit garbage.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>I see a lot of positives in this (Welcome to the dance, Disney! Nice of you to finally show up!), while I also agree with the negatives posed by EE and others. But the long and short of it is this: This only happened because Avatar is the #1 moneymaker of all time - and there's 2 more on the way. Story, asthetics, placement, theme - irrelevant. Bob must be in a state of unparalleled euphoria right now. It's like having a PoC level franchise dropped in your lap. Like he went Wil E Coyote and pulled one out of the 'ACME Insta-Franchise' box. (Just add water) They don't even have to create the movies!! It's the pinnacle of the new Disney!!! I would love to see what the merchandising agreement looks like.<<< Anyone who doubts Iger's love of Brand and Synergy has their head in the sand at this point... Disney is no longer a creative company... it's just a "placeholder". Treading creative water, and drowning.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 Funny that Doobie mentioned David Copperfield's. I was just thinking about that the other day. The sign sat outside the Studio front gates even after it became apparent that the restaurant wasn't going to be built. If I remember correctly, wasn't this part of the Disney Decade? How much control did Cameron retain over the attraction/use of his creations? I have mixed feelings about this. The first thing that struck me is that it is kind of sad that Disney isn't/hasn't put out film projects that wouldn't require them to go out of studio to build an entire land. Maybe Staggs needs to look at what's going on in his film division. While AK most definately needs some more attractions, I think this might have been better suited to the Studios which has an identity crisis of it's own. Disney couldn't come up with something else that fits into the AK theme? Will this happen? With no tangible plans yet there is a lot of room for this to fall apart. I hope it doesn't but I have seen enough things fall apart that I remain skeptical. Can Disney step up to the plate on this. This new land may help us see if Disney is able to put together a great new land and group of attractions still. Considering the detail at HP over at IOA, Disney can't afford to cheap out. Will the Avatar franchise be an attendance builder? I haven't seen the movie, but even my son who saw it twice (he is 21) was kind of "eh" when I told him about this new land. He said "why, are they doing that?" I honestly thought he would be excited but he wasn't. He is a big fan of the WWOHP at Universal, which is his theme parks of choice at the moment
