Originally Posted By leemac <<That's an interesting example, because IMO it doesn't really even need the Twilight Zone connection to work. I'm of a 'certain generation' that never really watched the TZ at any point. >> Me neither - I don't think you need to know the series intimately but I think a broad understanding of TZ gives you an immediate "in" to the conceit. It helps to establish the overall concept without needing to force the story in the library. Rod Serling's voice and image is so iconic that it needs little else. That is the genius of ToT - if you know the conceit then you can appreciate the story within that universe and if you don't know it then there is sufficient backstory to enjoy the attraction. I think ToT is a better attraction for the TZ conceit.
Originally Posted By dagobert I'm sorry for asking, if I missed the info in this huge tread. Is Avatarland still coming to DAK? And is WDI planning to bring it to other Disney resorts as well?
Originally Posted By leobloom >> Math, too? Try "a little over ONE year." Fifteen months, to be precise. So it makes sense that they would start dropping crumbs about this time. Cars Land and FLE are open, and it's time to start tub thumping for the Next Big Thing. << I was under the impression they'd been very slow releasing any kind of conceptual art and publicity about Avatarland. You're saying 15 months after the announcement and we have this one photo of a vague model. Is that par for the course with Disney? Maybe I'm just surprised after 15 months they haven't started construction -- when's this thing supposed to open 2015?
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<Hey, I've had this discussion before! It was all about how Uni was putting all their eggs in one basket with a WHOLE LAND based on a single literary/film franchise, which had been experienced by only a single generation. Pretty risky, eh?>> Based on a single multimedia franchise that was the defining one and the Star Wars of its generation? Yup. Totally risky.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<Maybe I'm just surprised after 15 months they haven't started construction -- when's this thing supposed to open 2015?>> That's what Iger said earlier in the year. But it was after he was asked about it during a shareholders meeting where it wasn't discussed at all, and he clearly had no desire to speak of it. If this thing opens before 2017, I'll be shocked.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Based on a single multimedia franchise that was the defining one and the Star Wars of its generation?>> There is implicit risk in the decision to invest so heavily into Potter as you never know what franchise will last - particularly after the last movie. The books aren't best sellers any more and the merchandise has largely been sold through. The next generation could shun Potter as uncool - we have no idea. We can have a hunch that it will transcend generations but nothing more than that. Personally I think the stories are so derivative that another franchise will come along that will usurp Potter. Literary houses around the world are looking for the next Potter and when you fling that much mud at the walls some of it is bound to stick. That doesn't detract from the perceived quality of the IoA installation and I'm sure guests will continue to enjoy that quality. My concern is that Uni will convert huge swaths of their Orlando parks into Potter land which is a big gamble.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<Personally I think the stories are so derivative that another franchise will come along that will usurp Potter.>> But by the same token, so are the Star Wars stories. There's nothing overly original about them. They take standard archetypal characters and place them in a different setting.
Originally Posted By leemac <<But by the same token, so are the Star Wars stories. There's nothing overly original about them. They take standard archetypal characters and place them in a different setting.>> And I agree - to a degree. However the SW universe isn't built around one singularly unifying character like Potter. People tend to fixate on Harry in my experience whereas the SW character universe is much wider and you also have more popular non-human characters too. I get your point Hokie - I just wouldn't dismiss the Uni decision as risk-free.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<And I agree - to a degree. However the SW universe isn't built around one singularly unifying character like Potter.>> Well, the 7 existing novels are about Harry, true. But the six existing Star Wars movies are also about Anakin. Both have a vast amount of popular side characters and other main characters. Potter is probably more focused on its central character, of course. But future stories can (and will, IMHO) change that.
Originally Posted By leemac <<But the six existing Star Wars movies are also about Anakin. Both have a vast amount of popular side characters and other main characters.>> Who the films are about is almost irrelevant - it is how the public embrace. Potter is all about Harry - even girls would rather dress up as Harry than Hermione. The supporting cast just aren't as popular as those in the SW canon - Fortune had a great photo of all these girls dressed as Leia next to Jabba from the recent issue: <a href="http://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/companies/2012/11/30/star-wars-disney-lucasfilm.fortune/index.html" target="_blank">http://money.cnn.com/gallery/n...dex.html</a> This might all come across as nit-picky and it probably is - but I'm not convinced that Potter will have the lasting influence that SW has managed to have under Lucas' watch. As always time will tell.
Originally Posted By leemac <<But future stories can (and will, IMHO) change that.>> Even if Rowling does go back to that world - and the success of the awful A Casual Vacancy has most likely staved off the need to return - I suspect it might be many years in the future and there further away from the last movie that the 8th book appears the less likely it will succeed. This probably all comes off as negative which isn't my intention - I just think there needs to be moderation of future expectations.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper << I suspect it might be many years in the future and there further away from the last movie that the 8th book appears the less likely it will succeed.>> I dunno about that. The Star Wars prequels came out 16 years after the originals ended and did pretty well for themselves. And in the reboot happy world of Hollywood, I don't think we're more than 10 years away from a Potter movie reboot.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Is it: >>I find it interesting that Disney need to keep insisting that Avatar is moving along. They have the rights to build, Disney has never been in a hurry to rush things through. Why keep telling people it is going to happen?<< Or is it: >>I was under the impression they'd been very slow releasing any kind of conceptual art and publicity about Avatarland. You're saying 15 months after the announcement and we have this one photo of a vague model. Is that par for the course with Disney? Maybe I'm just surprised after 15 months they haven't started construction -- when's this thing supposed to open 2015?<< Or is it: >>Is Avatarland still coming to DAK? And is WDI planning to bring it to other Disney resorts as well?<< Based on this thread alone, either they are pushing this thing, dragging their heels, or not being forthright at all...!
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Based on a single multimedia franchise that was the defining one and the Star Wars of its generation? Yup. Totally risky.<< Calm down. You're preaching to the choir. My point was not to say that Potter is risky. It was to point out that we've been down this road before. My consistent opinion on Potter is that it will be as perennial as the Oz stories. Certainly as much as Narnia (which has never gone out of print). Avatar? The jury is out. But automatic dismissal is silly. Silly, you hear!
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Maybe I'm just surprised after 15 months they haven't started construction -- when's this thing supposed to open 2015?<< Welcome to WDI: 2000(+)! Alice Davis said it best a few years ago, pointing out that when Disneyland was built in less than a year there were 30 people who worked all the time. Today there are 300 people, and they are always in a meeting. (The Avatar "timeline" calls for construction starting in 2013, with completion in 2016-18. Or so.) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_Land" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_Land</a>
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I did not buy Disco Mickey, but did own LPs of The New Mickey Mouse Club (hello Allison Fonte!)..." Polar bears on ice skates, chocolate shoes and leather milkshakes.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Although I'm more likely to pluck out my own eyes than ride Mermaid again." I like LM at DCA. I think we rode it 3 times when I was there last.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper I found Mermaid to be a monumental bore. Fails at being both a madcap traditional dark ride as well as telling a coherent story. It does nothing overly well, IMO. Now, on the other hand, I could ride Alice in Wonderland all day! /end thread drift
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Avatar? The jury is out. But automatic dismissal is silly.<< I just don't get the sense that Avatar is beloved like Star Wars and Harry Potter. Phrases from both of those franchises quickly worked their way into everyday language almost immediately. I'm not hearing any Avatar references these days. I'm sure they have the talent to make a very cool Avatar land. But it would make a whole lot more sense to me to create a Star Wars land since it is a solid classic as popular today as when it first appeared -- not to mention they now own it. But what do I know? I'm just a Muggle.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt ^^ A lot of people have said the same. I dunno, I think the attraction appealed to me because I really enjoyed the film and the music.
