Originally Posted By utahjosh <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.> There are a few out there that could work. They may not all be blockbusters, but they all could easily inspire incredible themeing and attractions: Tron - Not a fit for AK, but a land in the game grid would be pretty sweet. Pirates - Yes, we have the ride (and part of an island) but a Tortuga to walk through and visit..not just ride through..could be fun. Narnia - Well, maybe not. But I still adore the books. And coming soon: John Carter of Mars, and Pixar's BRAVE.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "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." LOL. Peter Pan is fine for the size and scope that it is. ET was billed as a major "E Ticket" type ride and to me it failed (although I thought the queue was quite something). Yeah, I can be tough, even on Disney. For those who know me I have pretty negative view of The Country Bears, Captain Eo, and The Enchanted Tiki Room, all of which I think are beyond horrible. In addition, Sleeping Beauty Castle is too short and I can't stand the Halloween overlay for DL's Haunted Mansion. There, I said it.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Disney is no longer a creative company... it's just a "placeholder"" True, but how is that any different than any other media company today? As much as it bugs some of us, Disney probably couldn't survive if it didn't operate this way.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 ^^^The shame of that statement (which I think is probably true) is that a company that stands at the front of innovation and pushing the limits can be the best company out there. Disney used to be the innovator in the theme park industry. They aren't anymore. They can be but they choose not to be and that's disappointing
Originally Posted By fkurucz I'm late to the dance, but here are my thoughts: "Dances with Smurfs" will never be a franchise comparable to Harry Potter or Star Wars. The movie was eye candy, but that was really it. We'll see if the sequels have any legs. I doubt it. I'm not excited about this.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 It's natural for most sequels to not have any legs. But this seems to be a little different. Avatar didn't follow the template of a normal blockbuster which make the lion's share of your gross in the first week, big drop off in week two and then stabilize after that. My guess is Cameron will follow the same pattern have both ready for the Holiday season and while I don't expect either to top the first movie, it wouldn't surprise me if Cameron had the top four grossing films domestically and worldwide when it's all said and done.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<ET was billed as a major "E Ticket" type ride>> So was the Disneyland Railroad in 1959. ET, for the time it was built, was definitely an E-ticket experience. No longer, of course.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<It's natural for most sequels to not have any legs. But this seems to be a little different. Avatar didn't follow the template of a normal blockbuster which make the lion's share of your gross in the first week, big drop off in week two and then stabilize after that.>> Avatar also was released during a string of blizzards on the east coast. I think that had a huge impact on the way Avatar grossed. <<My guess is Cameron will follow the same pattern have both ready for the Holiday season and while I don't expect either to top the first movie, it wouldn't surprise me if Cameron had the top four grossing films domestically and worldwide when it's all said and done.>> I'd definitely be surprised. I don't seeing Avatar 2 and 3 making it above Deathly Hallows 2, but that's just me.
Originally Posted By leobloom The more control Cameron retains, the better this turns out to be, I suspect. It's my impression that one of the reasons Potter turned out so well was because of Rowling's insistence. From what Lee said, it sounds like Disney just paid off Cameron to use the name and characters, which doesn't exactly make this sound like Cameron will have a major hand in how this all develops. (Maybe this is more like thier partnership with Lucas?) I can easily imagine WDW thinking they will have a winner on their hands because of the name recognition alone and thinking that there's no need to go as immersive as Potter is. I think that'd be a big mistake, especially since the Potter expansion is supposed to be opened by that time. I still think you can look at T2:3D and get a sense of what kind of attraction Cameron would support (meaning complicated story, a necessary familiarity with the characters, etc).
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Avatar also was released during a string of blizzards on the east coast. I think that had a huge impact on the way Avatar grossed.>> That was just the first weekend. I'm over at box office mojo on their forums and I remember talking about Avatar prior to its release saying it would probably be a blockbuster 750 million world wide with 250 coming from the US. So with this I'm buying high.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> 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. << Didn't see anyone had addressed this. Empire over Star Wars, I can see. But Last Crusade over Raiders? Dude, Raiders is the best Indiana Jones in every way possible. Last Crusade is fun, but doesn't hold a candle to the original.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt “The shame of that statement (which I think is probably true) is that a company that stands at the front of innovation and pushing the limits can be the best company out there. Disney used to be the innovator in the theme park industry. They aren't anymore. They can be but they choose not to be and that's disappointing” Well sure, but the strategy isn’t limited to Disney or the theme park industry. Look at technology: so many of the US leaders in that sector have grown not by innovating, but through acquisitions. Microsoft, Adobe Systems, Oracle (I think they’ve bought around 25 different companies in the past 5-10 years), and Google are just a few examples. I agree that it’s sad, especially for a company with a creative legacy like Disney’s, but it’s a long term growth strategy that businesses in certain industries have found to be very successful.
Originally Posted By Britain Last Crusade is weird in that it's the only one with some actual character development (Indy and his Dad) which gives it a bit more depth than Raiders. But the action scenes and plot template are too derivative of fresher, snappier scenes and plot in Raiders. Raiders wins.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 "Its interesting that when the Character friendly Fantasyland expansion was first announced a lot of people laughed it up and said Disney had to do more. Now we have Avatar everyone wants Disney to go back to animated movies." But "Avatard" IS an "animated movie". And not a very good one, at that.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> Last Crusade is weird in that it's the only one with some actual character development (Indy and his Dad) which gives it a bit more depth than Raiders. << Indy and Marion didn't have depth? Did you catch the reason he hasn't seen her in years? Or the fact that he's dealing artifacts on the black market. I actually really like Crusade for Sean Connery's performance, but Raiders is arguably the best adventure movie ever made.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt <<ET was billed as a major "E Ticket" type ride>> "So was the Disneyland Railroad in 1959." In 1959. Yep, in 1959. They had to have something to round out the roster of attractions on the newly created E coupon category that was launched specifically for the Matterhorn, Subs, and Monorail that were launched that year. "ET, for the time it was built, was definitely an E-ticket experience." No it wasn't. At least not for me. Although it was ambitious, I found the final product to be incredibly cheesy.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 "And poor Mickey this will be the second area of a park at WDW that he's been evicted from in recent years." Ummmmm..........you DO know he is not real and doesn't have feelings, right?
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<No it wasn't. At least not for me. Although it was ambitious>> As a kid it completely blew me away. Loved every minute of it. <<I found the final product to be incredibly cheesy.>> Which can also be said about the vast majority of Disney's Fantasyland attractions, which ET is comparable.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt <<I found the final product to be incredibly cheesy.>> "Which can also be said about the vast majority of Disney's Fantasyland attractions, which ET is comparable." Not even close, unless you're trying to tell me that Snow White's Adventures and Mr. Toad were supposed to be elaborate E Tickets. I will say though that ET was roughly comparable to the original Subs at DL and WDW for me, which were pretty lame for all the hype.
Originally Posted By leobloom Last time I rode ET, I had some of the best laughs I've ever had at a theme park. And the ET acid-trip home planet was just hysterical to me at the time. So I think I'm with Hans and Jim on this one.
