Originally Posted By leemac <<Yes, but Star Wars is a FRANCHISE with fans spanning 2-3 generations.>> But Avatar is a 2009 movie - the first Star Wars is '77. You can't compare the two as Avatar hasn't had the ability to influence multiple generations. Again - I never got the appeal of Avatar but to dismiss its cultural significance is inappropriate IMHO.
Originally Posted By leemac <<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.>> The Fox Kids show that Haim Saban put together? Hardly anyone had Fox Kids in the nineties and I think the show ran '94 to '98 or something. It wasn't on network TV was it? Again - I'm not saying that it was unknown but you can't compare Spidey to Batman that had had 4 movies by the time IoA opened (granted one was exceptional, one was good and the other two were excrement - but they were still in the public consciousness).
Originally Posted By leemac <<Give me a Beastly Kingdom with Joe Rodhe totally in control of design. THAT I would see!!>> And that is the disappointing thing. BK wasn't perfect but it fitted the theme so much better. I just don't know why Burbank feel the need to deviate from the original mantra of the park.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<But Avatar is a 2009 movie - the first Star Wars is '77. You can't compare the two as Avatar hasn't had the ability to influence multiple generations.>> Which is exactly my point. At this point the long-term drawing power of Avatar is totally unknown. Why bother?
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<It wasn't on network TV was it?>> I know I saw it on regular Fox on Saturday mornings when I was a kid.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Heck, Cameron is coming out with a Cirque Du Soleil movie.>> He has barely been involved from the folks I know at CdS. This is Andrew Adamson's baby (Shrek and Narnia). Cameron is spending more time peddling his camera tech (Cameron Pace). I've never understood Cameron - he doesn't seem to have a proper roadmap for creating his legacy. He is no Lucas.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I know I saw it on regular Fox on Saturday mornings when I was a kid.>> Didn't know that - I thought the Fox Kids animation block was exclusive to them. That makes more sense though.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Which is exactly my point. At this point the long-term drawing power of Avatar is totally unknown. Why bother?>> Because in Iger's world - unknown existing IP is better than a blank slate. Sad I know but he has absolutely no interest in creating IP. He also has little interest in the parks - but that is a separate discussion.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "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." Exactly. The only evidence that an Avatarland would flop is Disney's recent track record of producing less than stellar work. If the thing is as well done and entertaining as Carsland is (or WWoHP, for that matter) then I don't see what the problem is.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Midway Mania is "so good'!?" Apparently the Japanese think so.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The problem with an Avatar land is that Pandora had no architecture to speak of. The Harry Potter world at IOA works because it has buildings people want to walk through. What does Avatar have? Huge trees and floating mountains. How do you build those in a theme park? I can see a ride based on Avatar working pretty well. But more that? I dunno. Why not a Beastly Kingdom type area featuring strange creatures from Sci-fi? An Avatar ride fcould work there, but it would also allow other franchises or ideas to fit in as well.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Huge trees and floating mountains. How do you build those in a theme park?" Both AK and the MK each have a huge fake tree, so building more shouldn't be an issue. Floating mountains, well couldn't those be recreated using special effects in a ride?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh "Both AK and the MK each have a huge fake tree, so building more shouldn't be an issue." Sure, but how many big trees does a park need, let alone a land? And once they are built, what do you do with them? Like Harry Potter, Carsland works well as land because there are lots of cool buildings to hold the rides, shops, and restaurants. Avatar has nothing like that. "Floating mountains, well couldn't those be recreated using special effects in a ride?" Sure, but not in a real-life environment. I think an Avatar simulator ride could be cool - maybe something a little more thrilling than Soaring but a little less than Star Tours would be great. But I just don't see the point of a land. Here's another idea - replace Star Tours with an Avatar simulator in the Studios, then build a Star Wars creature land at DAK to replace Camp Minnie-Mickey.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Sure, but how many big trees does a park need, let alone a land? And once they are built, what do you do with them?" Turn them into restrooms? I don't know, do they have to be anything besides scenery? I suppose some sort of aerial ride could be built in them. Who knows.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Because in Iger's world - unknown existing IP is better than a blank slate. Sad I know but he has absolutely no interest in creating IP. He also has little interest in the parks - but that is a separate discussion.<< And this really makes me question whether he's fit to be running one of the world's leading entertainment conglomerates. Sure, it's fine if he doesn't have a particular affinity for one division of the company (Parks and Resorts), but to be the head of an entertainment company who isn't particularly interested in creating new entertainment just seems a little absurd to me. We've seen hints of his position since the day he took over, but the widespread impact of it hasn't really been seen until the last couple years. Hopefully 2015 will come quickly, before he can do too much long-term damage to the creative side. Sadly, I'm kind of expecting the worst from the next couple years, as he tries to build his legacy on the success of others' products. >>Huge trees and floating mountains. How do you build those in a theme park?<< Two words: green styrofoam.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 Iger was a safe choice for Disney after Eisner. I think that by the time Eisner was basically pushed to leave Disney, the Board had enough of his personality and the way he ran the company. Unfortunately to Eisner he had stayed too long at Disney.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Here's another idea - replace Star Tours with an Avatar simulator in the Studios,>> I have been saying that for years now!
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<I suppose some sort of aerial ride could be built in them.>> That would be a great idea to add to any of the WDW parks.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<I suppose some sort of aerial ride could be built in them.>> Didn't one just open in New Fantasyland?
