AVATAR Land for Animal Kingdom WDW
- Thread starter Ollie
- Start date
Pink Cadillac
Giga Poster
Watch it get delayedpeep said:
Pink Cadillac
Giga Poster
Aerials from wdwmagic
The bridge into Pandora
Source: Disney Parks Blog
We have a sneek peek into Pandora.
Part of me says "visually it should be astonishing!" I don't think the simulator will be good. I'm also not sure about how they integrating the (outdoor) alien plants with the normal ones. I just don't get it what they're going for...
The bridge into Pandora
Source: Disney Parks Blog
We have a sneek peek into Pandora.
Part of me says "visually it should be astonishing!" I don't think the simulator will be good. I'm also not sure about how they integrating the (outdoor) alien plants with the normal ones. I just don't get it what they're going for...
Last edited:
Agree with this. I can't tell whether the team behind this is two steps ahead of everybody else, or two steps behind.
Avatar was the greatest movie to ever be forgotten so quickly. It's remembered for its unique visuals, which is to say it nailed the 3D gimmick before anybody else, and became a "must-see" because of its viewing experience rather than its content. Sure, Pandora is still one heck of an example when it comes to CGI (or GCI? I always mix the two up in here) environments, but Avatar itself is... uhh, it didn't left much of an imprint on popular culture. It revitalized the 3D gimmick, sure, but otherwise it's not a very memorable movie, and its potential for building a franchise seems... well, rather limited.
Then again, the sequels could blow us out of the water. Or Disney has some creative trick up their sleeve that makes visitors go "wow". For all of Avatar's mediocrity, a lot of people did see it after all, so it has broad recognition among the general public. It's not like Star Wars, which is near the front of everybody's consciousness at any given moment, but when reminded, people will generally remember what the general idea of Avatar was. If the Disney attraction, or the next movies, are really, really good, they will probably become big hits because of the familiarity. "Remember Avatar?" "Avatar...? Oh, yeah, that space forest movie with the blue dudes". "Yeah, you must have a look at what the sequel is all about/Yeah, they've built this ride at Disney and you have to see it...". No need to explain the concept, people will sort-of remember it from the first movie, and from there they can play on all the strings of recognition and advanced technology.
Or, they could be years too late, pouring billions into an attraction that would have been a hit seven years ago, but is generally forgotten nowadays and whose sequels will bomb at the box office or be stuck in development hell. With all the money involved, this is a very high-stakes game, and it looks to me like Disney has played a dumb move - or at least an unconventional one. Time will tell whether they'll hit the jackpot or waste their savings. Walt Disney World is one mother of a money-making machine, so it won't kill the bottom line, but even for Disney, the money, time and prestige involved seems too excessive to gamble away.
nadroJ
CF Legend
I would've preferred to see them do an alien landscape of their own design. The IP is pointless because nobody gives a **** about Avatar, but 'Disney-does-fantasy-alien-landscape' hell yh! And the team would be more than capable of creating something a million times better than ****ing Pandora.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Robbie
Hyper Poster
It's one of those ideas that may have seemed good at the time, but since the first film Disney have bought Star Wars and James Cameron has failed to release any more films. It all just seems a bit too late, and to only have two rides after all this time just adds to the underwhelming feeling.
Crazycoaster
Giga Poster
Animal Kingdom = dedicated to conservation of the environment, to animals, past present and fantasy.
Avatar = a story about the importance of the conservation of the environment filled with fantasy animals.
It's literally the perfect IP for the park. And with another 4(?) movies coming out until 2023, it'll be in the public eye for AGES.
As for the "should have been an original IP" argument, in a state where you have Harry Potter, Nintendo, Transformers, Jurassic Park to contend with, telling a new story just won't sell.
You can't hold out for Beastly Kingdom, it was built already in IoA. And look how successful that was. Most of it was demolished for a IP, the main attraction is rumoured to be on the chopping block and most people are "meh" about that.
People complain about how Avatar wasn't the most original or clever story created, but I don't think that will matter in the slightest. It's not the Avatar 'story' that's being presented in AK. It's the world of Pandora. The visuals of Pandora are the reason people flocked to the cinema to watch Avatar over and over again.
When people remember Avatar, it's not the story you remember, it's Pandora. Both the new attractions in AK are based on the visuals of Pandora, not on the story, and that's why I think it'll work.
I can't think of any other park in the world that has floating mountain theming, and glow in the dark plants, that will make the entire area look incredible at night.
From seeing the construction in person, and the size of it, I think it will be one of the most unique themed areas in Disneyworld. And it will work because it doesn't have to try to sell the movie's less that unique script, it sells the visuals.
Avatar = a story about the importance of the conservation of the environment filled with fantasy animals.
It's literally the perfect IP for the park. And with another 4(?) movies coming out until 2023, it'll be in the public eye for AGES.
As for the "should have been an original IP" argument, in a state where you have Harry Potter, Nintendo, Transformers, Jurassic Park to contend with, telling a new story just won't sell.
You can't hold out for Beastly Kingdom, it was built already in IoA. And look how successful that was. Most of it was demolished for a IP, the main attraction is rumoured to be on the chopping block and most people are "meh" about that.
People complain about how Avatar wasn't the most original or clever story created, but I don't think that will matter in the slightest. It's not the Avatar 'story' that's being presented in AK. It's the world of Pandora. The visuals of Pandora are the reason people flocked to the cinema to watch Avatar over and over again.
When people remember Avatar, it's not the story you remember, it's Pandora. Both the new attractions in AK are based on the visuals of Pandora, not on the story, and that's why I think it'll work.
I can't think of any other park in the world that has floating mountain theming, and glow in the dark plants, that will make the entire area look incredible at night.
From seeing the construction in person, and the size of it, I think it will be one of the most unique themed areas in Disneyworld. And it will work because it doesn't have to try to sell the movie's less that unique script, it sells the visuals.
Last edited:
nadroJ
CF Legend
In theory it's the perfect fit, but in reality it's a stupid waste of money on an IP nobody cares about. You say 'when people remember Avatar' - a moot point because nobody remembers Avatar apart from it being that film that was massive then everybody forgot about it.
I'm not against IPs (anymore) at all. I think you'd be stupid to suggest they're crap, because look at the success of Potter and even Springfield to a point. But the difference between them and Pandora is the fans were crying out for these worlds to explore, to go to the restaurants and shops, eat the food and buy the toys and products that their favourite characters love. This is where Pandora fails, but where something like Star Wars land will be incredible.
I'm not saying it'll be crap, because it won't. It will look insane. Of course it will. But when other lands being built transcend just looking pretty and become the reason people travel from all over the world to get the experience of entering the worlds of beloved characters and franchises I think it's completely fair enough to label Pandora as ill thought out, because in comparison it just is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Crazycoaster
Giga Poster
Simply saying "nobody remembers Avatar" doesn't make it true. You're letting your own feelings on the IP dictate. People don't talk about it maybe, but why would you be talking about a movie that came out 7 years ago? Just because it's not a relevant topic for everyday conversation (but what movie is?) doesn't mean people have wiped it from their memory.
You could call a 7 year old movie irrelevant and I suppose that would probably matter more if it wasn't the fact that 4 more movies are coming out over the next 7 years. 5 movies worth of films creates a huge possibility for toys, products, and merchandise, just sayin'. 5 films worth is a huge franchise, and Disney have been clever enough to see it coming. Everyone thought it was a weird move for them to buy Marvel, but now look.
I had someone share a viral version of the behind the scenes video on facebook saying "Gotta update the bucketlist now." This person wasn't an enthusiast, just a general member of the gp (and the video wasn't the official disney one, it was copied by some ladbible ripoff). Looking at the video comments there was a whole lot more of that same reaction. These are people outside of the enthusiast bubble, and they're acting positive about it.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it'll be unpopular, or an ill thought out choice. Once you have facts that back up Pandora as being a waste, I'll happily listen.
tomahawk
Strata Poster
Expecting James Cameron to get sequels out on "time" is a joke. You realize this was supposed to open with the second right? They haven't even got a script together, they just keep adding additional films. It was supposed to be DONE now, like all three movies, complete. It's a joke.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
nadroJ
CF Legend
I feel like you've completely not read what I wrote, where I've explained myself quite clearly.
I never said it'd be unpopular, I just said that it's a crap IP in comparison with the likes of Potter and Star Wars where the well established fanbase are gagging to visit these worlds. Nobody is doing that for Pandora or Avatar. They're not, you only need to have even a vague understanding of pop culture to realise that. And that's why it's a crap choice.
Yes it'll look amazing and be very fun to visit, but if you're trying for one minute to suggest that it'll be as popular as Potter/Springfield/Star Wars will be then you're just deluded.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I feel like in day to day conversation people absolutely do reference things like Star Wars and Harry Potter regularly. I genuinely barely have a day at work go by where someone doesn't reference a big, hit movie at some point - something that has made its way in to the popular conscience. Even standalone films can be remembered well and there's others from that time (Inception springs to mind) that are much more widely remembered and known now. To say big movies aren't relevant in 'everyday conversation' is terribly inaccurate.
But you know what I've never, ever heard anyone reference? Avatar. And that's the point that's being made here. There are IPs with legions of fans who want to see what is done with the property they enjoy (Potter, Star Wars etc all fall in to this pot) - which are the ones that should be focused on. Avatar on the other hand is going to be a lot of money thrown at something that no-one really cares about. People will enjoy the land, it'll do 'well' - but it's a risk, making a gamble on a franchise that isn't proven and they have no idea how the remaining films will be received. Ten years is a long time between films for a franchise that didn't enter the popular conscience.
Lest we forget this is the park that wanted an area themed to Reign of Fire originally...
But you know what I've never, ever heard anyone reference? Avatar. And that's the point that's being made here. There are IPs with legions of fans who want to see what is done with the property they enjoy (Potter, Star Wars etc all fall in to this pot) - which are the ones that should be focused on. Avatar on the other hand is going to be a lot of money thrown at something that no-one really cares about. People will enjoy the land, it'll do 'well' - but it's a risk, making a gamble on a franchise that isn't proven and they have no idea how the remaining films will be received. Ten years is a long time between films for a franchise that didn't enter the popular conscience.
Lest we forget this is the park that wanted an area themed to Reign of Fire originally...
Crazycoaster
Giga Poster
It is a risk. But then it was a risk for Disney to shell out so much money for Marvel and Lucasarts. Nobody knew that Star Wars 7 would work, or the MCU would work. But from your points of view, they shouldn't have bothered because it's a risk.
Yes, Star Wars and Harry Potter are much more popular franchises. But they have many more movies, books and merchandise already. You can't judge the popularity of the avatar franchise when it hasn't even happened yet, that's all I'm trying to say.
Saying it's a bad fit for the park, or a bad investment when you have no idea about how it or the entire franchise will do yet is silly.
Yes, Star Wars and Harry Potter are much more popular franchises. But they have many more movies, books and merchandise already. You can't judge the popularity of the avatar franchise when it hasn't even happened yet, that's all I'm trying to say.
Saying it's a bad fit for the park, or a bad investment when you have no idea about how it or the entire franchise will do yet is silly.