Originally Posted By TP2000 Hans, according to Al Lutz the next version of DCA's street party is called "Mad Tea Party" and heavily influenced by the recent Tim Burton film. It's supposed to arrive in Hollywood next summer, as part of the DCA Re-Launch of 2012. But I wouldn't expect anything by Burton to show up in WDW. They're a different type of crowd out there.
Originally Posted By tashajilek "Hans, according to Al Lutz the next version of DCA's street party is called "Mad Tea Party" and heavily influenced by the recent Tim Burton film. It's supposed to arrive in Hollywood next summer, as part of the DCA Re-Launch of 2012" Cool! i will be there. What a shame that Avatar gets a entire land when something better like SW could have been used. I think Carsland even appeals more to me.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Made it through the first two HP books, but lost interest as they got longer. I just didn't feel they were worth the time they took to read them. Didn't like the later movies either... in fact I have not seen the last three. To me Potter was enjoyable when it was light and fun. When it got all dark and heavy I figured I would far rather watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Originally Posted By Manfried If Burbank or Glendale suits show up on Cameron's sets they can expect to get thrown off. He will not tolerate disingenuous corporate game players.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>>^^^It's [Burton's Alice] not a franchise. That's why. It's a one and done movie.<<< Why not make it a franchise? There are dozens of Alice stories out there that didn't make it into the film. Carroll wrote 2 books, and each included a variety of nonsensical scenes, which could be divided up into any number of additional films. If Disney wanted to make a franchise out of this (knowing how Iger operates, you know they did), they could have made it work.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "It's not a franchise." Neither was Pirates until Disney built a franchise for it. Isn't there a second Alice book?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "But I wouldn't expect anything by Burton to show up in WDW. They're a different type of crowd out there." LOL.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "If Disney wanted to make a franchise out of this (knowing how Iger operates, you know they did), they could have made it work." Exactly. Look what they've done recently with Tinkerbell, and she's only one character with a minor role in Peter Pan.
Originally Posted By PotNoodle <A quick check of Target.com just revealed only 12 items for sale related to Avatar, mostly DVD or blu-ray sets.> Last Christmas, my husband wanted to buy some video games for our son, who is nine. He bought an Avatar game for him from Amazon, thinking it was Avatar: The Last Airbender, since my son really likes that show. Well, I went to wrap it and saw it was the blue alien on the cover, but it was too late. We gave it to him and I could tell he was disappointed, even though he thanked us. Today, that game is sitting the bottom of a pile of PS3 games, still in its shrink wrap. Now, I guess there is time with the 2 sequels to pick up more fans, but it still seems like a gamble to me.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I thought that we didn't like it when Disney built things at the parks based on huge merchandising franchises. Sounds to me like a lot of you wish that Avatar was a broader success beyond the box office than it was. I'm surprised at the response here considering the huge potential for this has to be a terrific addition to WDW despite whatever it may have lacked in merchandising muscle at Target and Walmart.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb Avatar was an excellent movie... If you're easily distracted by shiny objects. Still, Disney has had several wonderful attractions based on properties with less cache', so I am hopeful.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> Still, Disney has had several wonderful attractions based on properties with less cache' << Such as?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>I thought that we didn't like it when Disney built things at the parks based on huge merchandising franchises. Sounds to me like a lot of you wish that Avatar was a broader success beyond the box office than it was.<< I think the point is that we want original content for the parks, not something based on an existing franchise. However, given what we know about the parks and how frequently they replace attraction, if they are going with a franchise, it sure as heck better be one that will still be popular 20 years from now. I really can't say if Avatar will be popular 5 years from now, so I am concerned that they're taking a huge risk here. To me, the problem with basing everything on a franchise is that it is instantly linked to it. If the franchise becomes unpopular, the attraction becomes unpopular. Just look at how the crowds at MuppetVision and HIST dwindled through the years. If they create something entirely original, it only has to be entertaining. If they base it on something else, it has to be entertaining and have a franchise that remains popular. In this day and age of Iger declaring that everything must be 'relevant' to guests, I find it shocking that they are willing to invest so much in a property that may not be relevant by the time it opens, let alone in a quarter century when it's still there. I don't want to see every park experience turned into something that's based on an experience I can have outside the parks. That said, if it must be that way, they need to make sure that those franchises will stay popular as long as the park wants to keep the attraction. That just doesn't seem like the case here.
Originally Posted By Manfried Who knows whether or not this will be any good? Mister Toad was a great ride, a not so great film. Well it was a great ride down here. Maybe the same can ring true for any rides in Avatar Land. They don't really have a concept beyond being based on the movie at this point.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>> Maybe the same can ring true for any rides in Avatar Land. They don't really have a concept beyond being based on the movie at this point<<<< Partially why I doubt this could really happen.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb ">> Still, Disney has had several wonderful attractions based on properties with less cache' << Such as?" Mr. Toad's Wild Ride: Wind in the Willows Splash Mountain: Song of the South WDW's Sub ride: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea Matterhorn: the movie I never saw with a name I don't remember (Man on the Mountain?) Nothing in the last 20 years comes to mind though :-/.
Originally Posted By leobloom I thought you said wonderful attractions? That would disqualify Mr. Toad, for me. 20K was a pretty impressive movie, less impressive as a ride. Matterhorn has virtually no assocation with the movie, Third Man on the Mountain, other than the setting. But I'll give you Song of the South. Amazing they decided to build a ride using that movie as the starting point. Something Iger and Company would NEVER do.
Originally Posted By SeventyOne We're not talking a single attraction, either, which can cherry-pick elements of a movie and mold them onto a ride structure. We are getting a land, with rides and shops and restaurants...I think the inevitable ride while end up being the strongest aspect to this.
