Avatar...What's the big deal?

[BeachClub2011]

Let me start off by saying that I'm a Disney Park purist at heart. I love the parks the way they are because that's the way, for the most part, I remember them when I was a kid, and that's the way I want my children to experience them. But I find myself on the fence with the announcement of an Avatar based land at AK. I imagine this is what the purists might have felt in the 80's with the announcement of Star Tours and the Lucas partnership. And just like Star Tours turned out great, I'm sure Disney's imagineers with make magic again with this new partnership.

Even though I consider myself a purist, I don't buy in to the opinion that Avatar isn't "Disney" enough, or as family friendly as the other films that attractions are based on. After all, let's think about how "Disney" Indiana Jones really is. In the opening scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark Alfred Molina is decapitated and then later on in the film the German's face melts off. In the Temple of Doom the leader of an occult puts his hand through someone's chest and rips out their still beating heart!! Avatar seems tame don't you think?? This is where we must rely on the magic of the imagineers to WOW us again and they rarely ever let us down.

[supernova]

Perhaps so, but Indiana Jones is also in DHS, a park about movie magic. Steven Tyler has a face that would scare most children, but they let HIM into DHS.

[BeachClub2011]

Exactly, so why are people in an uproar about this. Maybe DHS would better suite Avatar, but I can see the tie in to the environmentally friendly AK.

[supernova]

I would be all for including it as an attraction (not a land) at DHS. But as I've stated elsewhere on the forums, this seems like a far better fit for Universal Studios than a 100% random addition to a Disney theme park.

[BeachClub2011]

I'm sure the same thing was said about Star Tours!

[Mo Noyz]

supernova, I understand it's strictly your opinion. I guess what I'm interested in is what you're using to substantiate it in your mind.

For me, when considering one of the major themes of the movie, as well as the overall environment of Pandora, the only park that would make any sense at all would be AK.

They could do another simulator, or indoor dark ride/coaster, at DHS. But why waste such a beautiful outdoor environment on an indoor ride?

[zippitydoodah]

I don't have any argument of it not being Disney enough or not being in the right place... I question that 5 years from now when it's built anyone will care enough. I just don't think it's a popular enough movie. But I mean, animal kingdom is supposed to have some mythical animals and I think the land makes enough sense there (the whole movie's topic of conservation, etc fits with ak). I know I'm not the only one who doesn't think the idea is great though, since when it was announced on the Disney blog they got more comments than any other post and the majority of comments were negative. When the Harry Potter stuff was announced for Universal there was mostly just a ton of excitement, with lots of it from people who wouldn't have otherwise gone to Universal. Everyone I knew was talking about it, and no one seems to have heard of this avatar thing outside of Disney fans.

I guess my point is that are a few reasons why this announcement isn't so popular. If it's done well enough I'll probably enjoy it, and I have no problem with the topic or where it is, I just hope it's not a big waste of money and that it attracts the people to the park they're hoping for.

[supernova]

I'm sure the same thing was said about Star Tours!

And Star Tours is in DHS.

For me, when considering one of the major themes of the movie, as well as the overall environment of Pandora, the only park that would make any sense at all would be AK. They could do another simulator, or indoor dark ride/coaster, at DHS. But why waste such a beautiful outdoor environment on an indoor ride?

I'm sure Disney could just as easily build an immersive ride in DHS, similar to what they tried to do with Star Tours' facade, only expanded. I'm still not sold on an entire land in AK. It seems Universal would be better-suited.

I don't have any argument of it not being Disney enough or not being in the right place... I question that 5 years from now when it's built anyone will care enough. I just don't think it's a popular enough movie. But I mean, animal kingdom is supposed to have some mythical animals and I think the land makes enough sense there (the whole movie's topic of conservation, etc fits with ak). I know I'm not the only one who doesn't think the idea is great though, since when it was announced on the Disney blog they got more comments than any other post and the majority of comments were negative. When the Harry Potter stuff was announced for Universal there was mostly just a ton of excitement, with lots of it from people who wouldn't have otherwise gone to Universal. Everyone I knew was talking about it, and no one seems to have heard of this avatar thing outside of Disney fans.

I guess my point is that are a few reasons why this announcement isn't so popular. If it's done well enough I'll probably enjoy it, and I have no problem with the topic or where it is, I just hope it's not a big waste of money and that it attracts the people to the park they're hoping for.

Harry Potter has had over ten years to prove itself. Kids are still carrying Harry Potter backpacks to school. I don't see a single Avatar shirt or action figure anywhere to be found. Will Avatar still hold water in five years? I couldn't imagine so, even with another movie or two.

And and as far as Animal Kingdom having mythical creatures, it WAS to have mythical creatures. But that idea got scrapped. Which is why I'm all for keeping that park in the here-and-now real world, not the land of unicorns and dragons. We were one dragon-removal on sign out front from the public even having a clue that there was ever to be a Beastly Kingdom.

[MartianCrab]

I think Disney is beginning to pass me by. I have no interest in Avatar. I didn't see the movie and I am shocked this non-Disney entity may have a presence in one of their parks.

This news saddens me.

[Mo Noyz]

I'm now having a hard time wrapping my head around a movie that grossed nearly $3bil at the box office wasn't popular.

I will agree that I don't know that it holds up well down the road, mostly because I thought it was mediocre unless you turned the sound off.

Conversely, what does it matter? If the land is done as well as Disney is capable of, 20 years from now you'll have a whole new generation that won't even know it came from a movie, nor will they care.

[BeachClub2011]

The timing of the predicted opening in 2016 makes a lot of sense considering the next two movies are slated for release in December 2014 and December 2015. So a spring 2016 opening is prime after the conclusion of the trilogy. I totally agree that in twenty years no one will question whether it belongs or not and it will feel 100% Disney.

I'm sure that in 1987, people were freaking out about Star Tours being in Tomorrowland in Disneyland. They were probably wondering why it wasn't in Universal in Hollywood!

[JNota0005DakMC]

The timing of the predicted opening in 2016 makes a lot of sense considering the next two movies are slated for release in December 2014 and December 2015. So a spring 2016 opening is prime after the conclusion of the trilogy. I totally agree that in twenty years no one will question whether it belongs or not and it will feel 100% Disney.

I'm sure that in 1987, people were freaking out about Star Tours being in Tomorrowland in Disneyland. They were probably wondering why it wasn't in Universal in Hollywood!

the only problem is that they will have already begun construction when the second film is released... if it flops...? what do they do...? continue? stop? i dont know what the right answer is...

[supernova]

I'm now having a hard time wrapping my head around a movie that grossed nearly $3bil at the box office wasn't popular.

I don't think anyone's questioning its popularity. It did very well at the box office. Granted, most of it as in 3D ticket sales, which in some areas of the country can literally double the price of a ticket. Titanic did well, too, but I wouldn't build a land around it. Plus, the audience for Titanic that brought that movie over the top (women and couples) is vastly different from the fanboys who dressed up like Avatars for Halloween.

[MartianCrab]

Maybe I should just be glad Disney didn't pursue a "Twilightland". That was popular, too.

[Figgy2005]

I can understand where are the skepticism is coming from. No, the movie did not have the best story line, and yes the worldwide gross was probably inflated due to the higher cost of 3D tickets. But, why would either of those matter for a land in a park designed completely around environmental detail and preservation? The environment of Pandora is probably the most intriguing of anything real or fantasy. Just the simple thought of being able to experience those surroundings makes my jaw drop in awe.

I trust that the Imagineers and James Cameron will pull out all the stops to ensure that the world from the film is presented to the guests in the best way possible. And as long as that is the case, Pandora will be popular when it opens, and for many years down the road.