Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I figured it wasn't really photoshopped, but it kind of looks like it was.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<I've lost count how many different incarnations of this stupid land have been milled in the shop.>> That statement actually makes me feel better about this whole Avatarland thing. Lets keep our fingers crossed.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper << It doesn't seem to be any further advanced in the nearly three years since we first started working on it.>> Wait. Wait. They been working on this for THREE YEARS? I thought the whole Avatar deal was a shock to everyone at the company and WDI had nothing done for it at the get go? You're telling me they've been working on it for years!?
Originally Posted By Manfried The announcement was made in September 2011. Prior to that, no work was done at all on the new land. So it's only been just a little bit over two years. The supposed expert here better check their calendar. When the announcement was made, Joe Rohde was in Hawaii opening up that disaster, and had no clue. So until Joe returned to WDI, no work was done. So they didn't actually start work, from my sources, until November that year. Making it two years they've spent working on it.
Originally Posted By ReelJustice ^actually, it's only been a little over a year since the announcement.
Originally Posted By leemac <<They been working on this for THREE YEARS?>> My attempt at exaggerated humor. It hasn't been three years - but feels like it. <<The announcement was made in September 2011. Prior to that, no work was done at all on the new land.>> The announcement was made in September of last year but work had been done on the concept over the summer - Rohde was nowhere near it as he had Aulani and vacation. Nothing stuck but TOS wanted to know what could be done on the concept. Worth saying that this was almost the complete opposite of what happened with Potter. Potter was a protracted negotiation that saw WDI working on numerous concepts whilst the discussions were taking place. Rowling and her reps wanted to see specific concepts before closing the deal. Avatar came about because of an offhanded remark between Iger and Cameron over lunch last summer. Neither of them stopped to consider whether it was an appropriate fit to DAK or whether it would be possible to render those worlds.
Originally Posted By TP2000 So Avatarland came about from an Iger/Cameron lunch in the summer of 2011. Let's say the lunch was on the 4th of July, for a patriotic flourish, and about 10 weeks later they announce Avatarland on September 20th, 2011 to the collective sound of silence as most Disney fans went "Huh?". In early December, about 15 months after they announced it with no artwork or models, they have a media party at WDW and plead with everyone to believe them that the project is still on track for some future unknown date with a future unknown construction timeline. And to prove it, they release a weird picture of four men standing around a slab of green Styrofoam with no buildings or structures on it (except a snack bar by Staggs' elbow) which is supposed to be the "model". Yup. Sounds like everything is going great to me! Stay classy Orlando.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros From the sounds of it, Orlando is just caught in the middle of this situation. It's Burbank and Glendale that are the ones causing the 'classy' situation, since that's where the decision-makers are. Orlando is just where the physical space is.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt In his latest column Al Lutz weighs in on the Avatarland development: <a href="http://micechat.com/17757-avatar-land-just-say-no/" target="_blank">http://micechat.com/17757-avat...-say-no/</a>
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Interesting read. It is difficult for me to get excited about Avatarland as I can careless about the characters in the Avatar movie. Plus, I still have no idea just what rides Disney plans on putting in there. As far as the rest of Lutz's comments regarding WDW in general. I absolutely agree.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Lutz describing DCA <“Hip and Edgy” they demanded the park would be, so Mickey Mouse wasn’t going to be allowed on property, and the one live show would feature Finding Nemo fish-head hatted dancers grabbing their crotches.> LOL! What's the show with the crotch-grabbing fish?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "What's the show with the crotch-grabbing fish?" If my memory serves me right I think he's talking about Eureka. I get what Al and others are trying to say about Avatarland, however I still think it's about strong attractions and storytelling, not about the franchise. I couldn't care less about Cars, or the characters from the films, but Carsland was a pretty cool experience. If Disney can create something equally breathtaking and entertaining based on Avatar why should it matter whether or not the characters and situations from the films are memorable or not?
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper Hans, I've thought long and hard about the questions you just posed, because I think there's merit to them, and I think I've come to a conclusion on why people aren't agreeing with that point of view. It's because it's an entire land based of a franchise no one particularly loves. Avatar was a mediocre movie released at the right time with a genius marketing team behind it, but has fostered no long lasting love. It's something people saw, thought was cool, and moved on. Little merch was sold, and it didn't create a fan community. Now, many here may not be fans of Cars, I know I'm not, but it's still a franchise that the 3-10 range absolutely LOVES. It's one of the biggest merch sellers of the past 10 years, and at this point shows no signs of slowing down. Same can be said about Harry Potter, which is a phenomenon. But Avatar isn't either of the above. And to base a whole land off of it rubs people the wrong way, because they know it isn't loved. Avatar isn't going to have a large section of regular people going "I need to go see that!" like Cars and Potter had. And I think people kind of have the trepidation of knowing 400-500 million is going to be spent on such a franchise. Compare that to what Universal did with say...Transformers. Transformers will make one great attraction that will probably pull people in, but would you base a land off of it? I know I wouldn't want that. And a single attraction is easy to retheme when the time comes.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom But, what if you did plan on creating an over the top new land in DAK. I don't see why that can't happen with an Avatar themed land. I don't think Avatar would be a draw to a new land. But on the other hand I don't see how it automatically takes away from a new land. I really think the focus should be on creating some over the top new rides. It seems to me that the proposed rides for this area will be current technology and nothing new.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Compare that to what Universal did with say...Transformers. Transformers will make one great attraction that will probably pull people in, but would you base a land off of it?" I didn't even want a Transformers attraction, yet from what I can tell, it looks like something I'd really like. So, sure, why not build a Tranformers themed land? If it's as well produced as people say the attraction is then I go for it. "But on the other hand I don't see how it automatically takes away from a new land. I really think the focus should be on creating some over the top new rides." If Avatarland fails (assuming that it actually gets constructed) it'll be because its poorly executed and has mediocre content, not because of the lack of a strong Avatar franchise. I find it hard to believe that if Disney builds a revolutionary mind blowing theme land with great rides people won't come in droves to see it, no matter what the theme.
Originally Posted By TP2000 The crotch grabbing fish were in Steps In Time. It was reworked quickly after its soft openings in January '01, and was pulled entirely a few months later. It was bad. As for Avatar, for the past two years I've been conducting a Halloween costume survey in my very, very busy Villa Park neighborhood on Halloween night. And so far, not a single Pandora character has shown up at my door. Not a one. Hundreds of Disney princesses, lots of Star Wars (a favorite father-son costume theme), and the little guys are still heavily favoring Cars themed costumes as McQueen pit crew guys or a memorable little tyke who was dressed up as Mater complete with cardboard tires and a swinging rope hook off his backside. And yes, lil' cardboard Mater got extra candy from me. But Pandora characters on Halloween? Never. But then again, try to go online and buy one single Pandora/Avatar toy or t-shirt or coloring set. They don't exist. It was a Billion dollar sci-fi movie that never sold any toys, and is forgotten every October when the kids pick what they want to be for Halloween. That's not a good sign.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<I don't think Avatar would be a draw to a new land. But on the other hand I don't see how it automatically takes away from a new land. >> Exactly. The franchise doesn't help or hurt the land. It's a negligible qualifier that Disney is spending money on to try and be "cool". If the IP isn't going to attract people...why bother with it? As I read on another site, Avatar isn't only an unloved franchise, it's the butt of jokes at this point. No one brings up Avatar as a positive. Well, except for Life of Pi's marketing team...and that didn't go over all that well.
Originally Posted By leemac <<It's because it's an entire land based of a franchise no one particularly loves.>> No-one loves? This is where I'm totally perplexed by the Disney fanbase. Avatar is still the domestic box office champion (nearly $100m over Titanic and $137m over The Avengers), the worldwide box office champion ($2.8bn - nearly $600m more than Titanic and over $1.2bn more than The Avengers in third) and it is the DVD king over the past three years (more than 10m units shifted in the US). Why did people see the movie and buy the discs if they didn't appreciate the movie? I've not seen the movie and have no intention of ever doing so - not my bag at all. However to deny its box office performance is ridiculous - folks saw it over and over again. I just don't get the love within the fanbase for Star Wars and Indy which can't even come close to Avatar's success (Phantom Menace is down in 11th on the all-time global chart). I don't profess to knowing why Avatar was the phenomenon it was - but to dismiss it entirely is very unwise. I also don't particularly want to see the concept in DAK but it does fit the current mission statement whether you agree with it or not.
Originally Posted By leemac <<The crotch grabbing fish were in Steps In Time. It was reworked quickly after its soft openings in January '01, and was pulled entirely a few months later. It was bad. >> Nemo was over two years after DCA opened. The fish scene was Under The Sea which became some weird catwalk number. That version of the show didn't even last a month.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I look at it this way. One time while at Universal I went on the ET ride.... really didn't have much intrest getting on it. But, since I was there, what the hey. I enjoyed it. But, not enough for it to draw me back to Universal. Now, I also have been on MIB 3 and Mummy. Both are incredible and I would absolutely go back to Universal to do those rides again. Interms of what has been proposed for Avatarland, the Soaring like ride and the boat ride. I would just assume enjoy Soaring and the Jungle Boats, Mexico, or the boats in the Land pavallion. Right now, for what is proposed for Avatarland would draw me to DAK to experience those rides. Now, having said that. I still would like to see a Star Wars themed land somewhere on WDW property. That would draw me to which ever park it was placed in.
