Originally Posted By leemac <<It was a Billion dollar sci-fi movie that never sold any toys>> As Cameron tell it he hates consumer products and won't license the product. Lightstorm isn't set up to license product. Now that doesn't mean there are companies out there desperate to leverage the IP either. It just means that Cameron is a film maker that is focused on pushing the boundaries of technology and making films. He doesn't need to sell CP licenses and doesn't feel the need to do so. Also doesn't explain why Moms aren't making costumes for their kids either. It may just be that not seeing the brand in K-Mart or Target doesn't put it front and center of their minds.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Why did people see the movie and buy the discs if they didn't appreciate the movie?>> leemac, I don't think anyone is questioning the box office draw of Avatar. I think what folks here might be talking about it the continued and potential longivity of Avatar's popularity. I have to agree, whatever popularity the movie Avatar has enjoyed, it sure seems to have waned.
Originally Posted By leemac <<If the IP isn't going to attract people...why bother with it?>> Because it is safe and in Iger's world that is important. He hasn't dumped $16bn on three IP-related transactions to just make movies - he wants established IP to infuse all of the divisions. Iger's TWDC isn't' prepared to take gambles on creating IP - it wants to buy it. Iger's TWDC isn't prepared to arm cast members with the tools to create IP. He is only interested in buying it and pushing it out to every division. Iger's TWDC is more conservative than it ever was under MDE. He isn't prepared to take any gambles whatsoever hence why Cars Land and Avatar are pushed to the forefront.
Originally Posted By leemac <<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.>> Bingo. Existing IP should make it easy - like with FLE. However it shouldn't be the be all and end all of life. I have no interest in Avatar but that shouldn't automatically exclude it from DAK. However it is all about story - give me something compelling even if it is within the world of Avatar and I'm happy. The problem is that WDP&R have no interest in story these days - it is either about book report of films or creating loosely connected vignettes.
Originally Posted By leemac << I have to agree, whatever popularity the movie Avatar has enjoyed, it sure seems to have waned.>> By what measure? That is the point. You can't see Avatar product in stores because Cameron (allegedly) hates merchandise. He is happily preparing his next two features on the brand. I just don't see the evidence to suggest that the average consumer isn't interested in Avatar. It is all anecdotal commentary from a small sample size of Disney enthusiasts. I'm not disputing that that hypothesis is correct but I don't know how it is measured - I want imperial evidence to prove it isn't still popular.
Originally Posted By leemac <<It seems to me that the proposed rides for this area will be current technology and nothing new.>> And this is also dangerous - it shouldn't be about new technology either unless it is the only way to take you to Pandora and immerse guests in that environment. It has to be about story and accessible characters. New technology is great but only if it is the only way to tell a compelling story.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<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 think we're confusing love with success here. Avatar was EXTREMELY successful. There's no denying. But loved? I don't think so. As for the whole "money" argument, this is a great take on that: <a href="http://www.overthinkingit.com/2010/01/13/6-reasons-avatar-sucks/5/" target="_blank">http://www.overthinkingit.com/...sucks/5/</a>
Originally Posted By leemac <<I think we're confusing love with success here. Avatar was EXTREMELY successful. There's no denying. But loved? I don't think so.>> Again I'm not disagreeing with you - just playing devil's advocate. Why does the IP need to be loved? It doesn't. There are plenty of examples from within the Disney universe of IP being used that wasn't successful or accessible - like Song of the South for Splash Mountain. Existing IP gives you an immediate "in" - either in setting up the concept or in having guests know the characters immediately. Spider-Man wasn't even close to the Raimi reboot when IoA opted to use that character and story for their E-Ticket. I'm sure a lot of kids back then had only a fleeting knowledge of the character. Spider-Man is an incredible attraction due to the tech.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I think we're confusing love with success here. Avatar was EXTREMELY successful. There's no denying. But loved? I don't think so.>> And ultimately we won't know the answer until Avatar 2 appears in theaters - if it ever does. I just don't buy the assertion that the average consumer hates Avatar. It doesn't explain why millions of movie-goers saw it more than once in theaters. I've no scientific evidence to refute your claim but I don't think some foaming fanbois on WDW Magic are an appropriate sample size.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<It has to be about story and accessible characters. New technology is great but only if it is the only way to tell a compelling story.>> Which is a problem with Avatar. The characters and story were very lackluster. <<I'm not disputing that that hypothesis is correct but I don't know how it is measured - I want imperial evidence to prove it isn't still popular.>> Just going by Google trends, Avatar 2 trends below 3 subjects related to Avatar: The Last Airbender, a Nick cartoon that hasn't been on for years.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Just going by Google trends, Avatar 2 trends below 3 subjects related to Avatar: The Last Airbender, a Nick cartoon that hasn't been on for years.>> Come on Skipper - that is weak. Why would anyone be Googling Avatar 2 today? I'm sure stories like "Kate's nurse" and "Crist Democrat" are trending at the moment but that doesn't mean that they will be top of the pile even tomorrow.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<New technology is great but only if it is the only way to tell a compelling story.>> I'm going to have to disagree. What makes Toy Story Midway Mania so good isn't necessarily the characters. It is the technology behind the ride.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Which is a problem with Avatar. The characters and story were very lackluster.>> But it has the visuals - that world is highly immersive. I think all of the Star Wars films have cardboard cut-out characters and weak stories but that doesn't mean they aren't loved in my quarters. Ideally you want all three - story, characters and visuals - but if not one out of three will suffice if you can spin it into a compelling experience. Both Atlantis and Treasure Planet are perceived to be poor movies - but they are visually spectacular IMHO. That would be sufficient to take guests to those worlds even if you don't care about Milo Thatch or B.E.N.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<Why does the IP need to be loved? It doesn't. There are plenty of examples from within the Disney universe of IP being used that wasn't successful or accessible - like Song of the South for Splash Mountain.>> Right, but Splash Mountain wasn't called "Song of the South Log Flume", and is one ride, not an entire land. When you base an entire land off a property such as Avatar, you're banking on people going "I need to go see that. NOW." <<I'm sure a lot of kids back then had only a fleeting knowledge of the character. Spider-Man is an incredible attraction due to the tech.>> I'd disagree there. Spider-man became the most popular comics character outside of Batman in the 90s, and had a very successful Saturday morning cartoon during that time. <<I just don't buy the assertion that the average consumer hates Avatar.>> Oh, I don't think most hate it. I just don't think most particularly like it all that much either. And even then, going to see Avatar 2 is much different than dropping a grand to go to WDW to ride a ride.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<Come on Skipper - that is weak. Why would anyone be Googling Avatar 2 today? >> I dunno. But more people are googling a defunct cartoon than it.
Originally Posted By leemac <<What makes Toy Story Midway Mania so good isn't necessarily the characters. It is the technology behind the ride.>> Really? I don't think that the addictiveness of the gameplay is driven by the tech - it is driven by the fact that the characters fit each game. I don't think the tech is any real leap above either existing theme park experiences or games that can be played at home. All my humble opinion of course. My preference is always for tech to be the enabler - once it has enabled it needs to disappear seamlessly into the background - like IJA's jeeps or the Soarin' theater.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<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).>> Yes, but Star Wars is a FRANCHISE with fans spanning 2-3 generations. Avatar is a single movie with a fairly monolithic fan base. I know several of the Star Wars movies were not very good but I loved them anyway... heck... it was STAR WARS. I just don't see that type of feeling associated with Avatar. With a Star Wars Land I would go see it just because it was there. Avartar Land would have to get FANTASTIC reviews before I would bother. Sure, I'd still go to Animal Kingdom because I think it is wonderful park. But that doesn't mean I visit all the lands when I'm there. I rarely go to either Camp Mickey-Minnie or Dino-Rama. Why bother spending big bucks on a new land if it isn't going to bring in additional customers. Give me a Beastly Kingdom with Joe Rodhe totally in control of design. THAT I would see!!
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<What makes Toy Story Midway Mania so good isn't necessarily the characters. It is the technology behind the ride.>> Midway Mania is "so good'!? Sorry, couldn't resist.
Originally Posted By leemac <<When you base an entire land off a property such as Avatar, you're banking on people going "I need to go see that. NOW.">> I think it is a fine line between an E-Ticket experience like Splash and an entire land. Avatar Land isn't going to be a land with 5+ attractions - it is more likely to be like Cars Land. i'm with you - I hate seeing a single property define a land - mini or otherwise (which is why I'm not a Cars Land fan) - I love the open narratives of the original DL lands - Fantasy, Adventure, Frontier, Tomorrow. Splash's theme can be seen throughout DL's Critter Country and even its plot at MK. It doesn't scream Brer Country but it is there.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<And ultimately we won't know the answer until Avatar 2 appears in theaters - if it ever does.>> Which is another problem. Cameron is taking his dear sweet time in creating promised sequels. Why should Disney bank on something that Cameron doesn't seem to committed to repeat. Heck, Cameron is coming out with a Cirque Du Soleil movie. Where in the heck is the next Avatar sequel? I would feel more confident about a proposed Avatarland if Cameron demonstrated some intrest in his own sequel project.
