AVATAR Is Going To Animal Kingdom

[thedevariouseffect]

To me though...Avatar doesn't sit in ANIMAL kingdom..

I also looked at it...dunno why Disney is putting this in unless they have the sequel rights as Avatar was Fox & a few other production companies/studios, never Disney for the '09 release....

Ah well...I just say they could do 10x better than blue people in a neon rainforest..Theres an article I read last night which sums up some things about everything but I can't find it I'll look through my history tonight...

[beastfan11]

The franchise is nothing compared to the recent aquisitions (i.e. Lucasfilm, Marvel). When Disney got quiet about the project and then announced the purchase of Lucasfilm I thought for sure that the project would be shelved, but there really isn't a place for anything Lucasfilm related (or Marvel for that matter) in the Animal Kingdom park. Going ahead with Avatar makes sense, but I think it's a risk. There are two movies stated for the future of the franchise, but to be honest I don't see them being anything earth-shattering. I didn't think the first one was anything to exciting, save the visual experience. The story has been told. What else is there to say?

No doubt the expansion will nothing short of spectacular. It's just... eh, Nothing families will get excited for. Look at Universal. Harry World (that's what it's called, right?) has been the vacation destination for a lot of family and friends of mine. People love Potter. Kids love Potter. Does Avatar really have that pull?

Personally, I want to see a Star Wars expansion announced. It would be ridiculous not to. I want to hug an Ewok!

[thedevariouseffect]

If Disney wan't to expand or make anything sci-fi...I still say Tron would probably have a much larger pull than Avatar would..

But honestly AK was always a meh zone to me, I'd much rather be in Epcot or Magic...I don't see this as something bringing me into the park or something I'd be excited to go through...ah well

[bkroz]

So even once the land opens in Florida, a question remains - what then? Disney paid [no doubt handsomely] to very purposefully secure the global, worldwide rights to incorporate Avatar into its theme parks. Perhaps they could've argued for the exclusive rights in Florida (as Universal had done with Marvel) or even the U.S., but they went the full distance and secured GLOBAL rights.

We know Disneyland Paris won't add any major new attractions until at least 2020 as they try to balance the budget and recoup some money from the in-construction Ratatouille ride, so Avatar won't go there. Hong Kong Disneyland announced an elaborate expansion based on Marvel, which it seems would be the trend going forward for any resorts. If they even tried to bring this to the intensely-local, annual-passholder-driven Disneyland in California, they'd be tarred and feathered. No Avatar element has yet been revealed or hinted at for the under-construction Shanghai Disneyland.

That just leaves Tokyo.

Rumor has it that Disney is practically BEGGING the owner / operators of Tokyo Disney Resort to build something Avatar - specifically, a "Pandora" island at DisneySea park. They paid for these global rights only to have mediocre-at-best reception and practically zero press coverage, so now none of their own resorts want it, and at Tokyo, any financial pitfalls from the addition of a second Pandora (under James Cameron's infamously argumentative, aggressive, and bossy eye) falls on the Oriental Land Company and NOT the Walt Disney Company.

Rumor has it that James Cameron is just about the worst person to work with - bossy, self-centered, and ego-maniacal. Those may be assets except that more than once, he's threatened to cut losses and abandon the project altogether in what insiders call insanely childlike tantrums, one after the other. Just to show they meant business, Disney actually brought in the owners of the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit trilogies and gave them personal tours of Cars Land, supposedly just to send the message to Cameron that they, too, had other options. Their thinking now is that if they hand him over to the Oriental Land Company, he's out of their hair and they actually get to milk another property out of their deal with him.

[The Interpreter]

I am not the target market.

Besides, there's always Disneyland and California Adventure.

Thankfully.

[bkroz]

Agreed.

Also this post got me inspired to write a feature on Beastly Kingdom for the Theme Park Tourist website I write for. Check it out if you're interested in more!

[thedevariouseffect]

Here's the blog post I found in the news that I totally agree with in regards to the sequels/disney deal

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/08/05/avatar_sequels_three_no_one_cares_here_s_why.html

[RailRider]

Agreed.

Also this post got me inspired to write a feature on Beastly Kingdom for the Theme Park Tourist website I write for. Check it out if you're interested in more!

Well written and nicely done. How sad is it that what came of Beastly Kingdom has now been bulldozed at IOA for Potter?

I will say I am more excited about the night time show, the extended hours, and the 7 Dwarfs Mine train than I am about Avatar. That being said I believe it will be a nice addition to a park that has been too small since it opened.

[bkroz]

2014...

"Avatar Land" (as it's still referred to with no better information than that) was announced in 2011.

Due to open in 2017.

That's 6 years from announcement to opening. Shouldn't be surprised - I kid you not, Disney made a deal with James Cameron's Lightstorm Entertainment on a Saturday. That Tuesday, they announced Avatar Land at Disney's Animal Kingdom, seemingly with no idea of what they'd actually do. Two years later, they released concept art... Two years later. And in Japan, while the U.S. was asleep.

In 6 years (2010 - 2016), how many Wizarding Worlds of Harry Potter will Universal have opened? Four.

Plus two Springfield USAs, two Transformers: The Ride 3Ds, two Despicable Me: Minion Mayhems, King Kong 360 at Universal Studios Hollywood, Fast and Furious: Supercharged, HD Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man, a massive King Kong E-ticket at Universal's Islands of Adventure, possibly a new Jurassic Park family dark ride, and a supposed Disney-quality themed water park ready to break ground any day now.

Three years post-announcement, three years from opening. A nice middle ground to ask... do people actually want "Avatar Land" yet? More than they did three years ago? At least Disney has a finger on the pulse of pop culture!

This post is really four things:

1. A reminder that a massive, permanent land themed to James Cameron's Avatar is still coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom, and that Disney secured worldwide exclusive rights to the franchise (which has three sequels in production) so it could reasonably appear at any Disney Resort in the world... so far, though...
2. A reminder to flash back on The Beastly Kingdom land that was originally earmarked for the same spot and how it would probably STILL be better than "Avatar Land." (LINK)
3. A reminder that Universal is relentless and is not going to stop. Disney's internal culture tells it that it's undefeatable; the best; the most current; the only real contender; an obvious victor when this dust settles. Similar thought processes, as Interpreter mentioned elsewhere, have seen the downfall of K-Mart, IBM, AOL... There's a changing tide in Orlando, folks... Let's hope Disney notices.
4. An elaborate ad for a new, just-for-fun, Blue Sky type Imagineering feature I've written on seven lands that make more sense than Avatar in terms of fitting into Disney's Animal Kingdom - it's a fun read if you're in an imaginative state of mind, and a couple of them are downright fun ideas. The article also kicks off with the details of Avatar Land in case you're still not sure what the land is supposed to entail. (LINK)

[oysterman]

I have been reading a lot into Disney the past week or so as I joined a forum about WDW. I just hope all this new Star Wars talk for the parks will come to fruition quick.

Sent from my Nokia Lumia 822 Windows Phone using Tapatalk

[Voicetek]

I completely despise the idea of any type of Avatar Land anywhere in any of the Disney parks. I've always thought it was a ridiculous choice and really has nothing to do with Disney at all. Also, Avatar really isn't a family movie, yet, they're determined to put in one of their family parks. To me it's just kind of a weird combination.

Avatar (the first one) came about 5 years ago and people all of the world jumped on the Avatar bandwagon exactly the same way they jumped on the Titanic bandwagon back in 1997 and the same way people jumped on the Frozen bandwagon last year. Tell me this though, does anyone still care about Avatar in the year 2014? I think Disney is banking on the fact that there are going to be 3 more movies and people will care about those movies as much as they cared about the first one back in 2009. What if they don't though? Well, then we're stuck with a pretty useless themed land that no one cares about.

To me it makes much more sense for Disney to base a land on an original idea or to base a land on one of their own properties that have stood the test of time. It's not wise (or at least I don't think it is) to build whole, permanent land on something that was a cultural "fad" 5 years ago and with no real proof that it will continue to be a fad next year, the year after that or ten years from now. It just doesn't make sense.

I think Disney is trying to cash in on something that they knew was popular, regardless if it made sense or not. To me, it makes a whole lot more sense to base a land on Star Wars than Avatar. That franchise has been tested and has stood the test of time and would work well within a family park. Avatar just feels out of place.

I'm still keeping my fingers crossed that this deal, and the whole Avatar Land itself falls through.

[thedevariouseffect]

The story is like Pocahontas though ^^_

[bkroz]

^^ Too late for that. Ground is moving and foundations are being poured. Avatar Land is coming.

The article I linked to above brings up all your issues, though.

Avatar earned record box office (the highest grossing film of all time; much farther down when accounting for inflation, much less merchandising, home release, etc.), there's no denying it. However, it is also true that Avatar was really the first visual-spectacle film (and one of the first wide-releases period) to come out in 3D. When people were saying, "Have you seen Avatar? Oh man, you've got to see it," they weren't necessarily talking about the story or characters.

Remember that Disney secured worldwide exclusive rights to create Avatar attractions just a few months after Universal's Wizarding World opened.

If you ask [Disney Parks fans] what's wrong with Pandora, many folks primarily point to one thing: staying power. The story they tell is that, despite their cool demeanor, Disney did panic when Universal Orlando Resort opened the Wizarding World of Harry Potter in 2010. In an effort to secure the rights to something – anything – Potter-sized, Disney bet big on Avatar, which, at the time, had just broken box office records...

No doubt, Disney took that massive box office as a surefire hit property that had a chance of being a "Potter-swatter." They believed that Avatar merchandise would go flying off the shelves and that people who queue for hours to get into Avatar-themed restaurants and shops the way they do at the Wizarding World. In retrospect, that's obviously a foolish thought. My article lists 7 alternatives to Avatar Land, ALL of which would probably have more enticing shops and restaurants than Pandora will manage.

What Disney COULDN'T have foreseen is exactly what you said: that Avatar has since disappeared from public consciousness. It left no roots in pop culture. It's not remembered or loved or celebrated today. It just... disappeared. Which, as the Slate article linked to above points out, is due to the fact that the visuals were the selling point, and off the big screen, they're not as impressive. Can you remember the lead characters' names? Probably not. It's not a timeless story that'll be beloved generations from now. It's just not.

And yep, three sequels in the pipeline. Again, the Slate article says that the announcement of which was met with a collective shrug. Who cares? Not many. Without the "wow" factor of brand-new digital 3D, those movies have little chance of living up to their predecessor at the box office. Worst case scenario, they actually do POORLY, with sour critical reception. In that case:

...Disney will then have a whole land based on a Transformers-style saga of declining quality films...

This was a huge gamble for Disney. But at this point, they've had has plenty of chances to back out of the Avatar deal so they have no one to blame but themselves. For those two full years of deafening silence between announcement and concept art, many fans thought and hoped that they had left the deal.

But here we go... Three more years.

[oysterman]

I completely despise the idea of any type of Avatar Land anywhere in any of the Disney parks. I've always thought it was a ridiculous choice and really has nothing to do with Disney at all. Also, Avatar really isn't a family movie, yet, they're determined to put in one of their family parks. To me it's just kind of a weird combination.

Avatar (the first one) came about 5 years ago and people all of the world jumped on the Avatar bandwagon exactly the same way they jumped on the Titanic bandwagon back in 1997 and the same way people jumped on the Frozen bandwagon last year. Tell me this though, does anyone still care about Avatar in the year 2014? I think Disney is banking on the fact that there are going to be 3 more movies and people will care about those movies as much as they cared about the first one back in 2009. What if they don't though? Well, then we're stuck with a pretty useless themed land that no one cares about.

To me it makes much more sense for Disney to base a land on an original idea or to base a land on one of their own properties that have stood the test of time. It's not wise (or at least I don't think it is) to build whole, permanent land on something that was a cultural "fad" 5 years ago and with no real proof that it will continue to be a fad next year, the year after that or ten years from now. It just doesn't make sense.

I think Disney is trying to cash in on something that they knew was popular, regardless if it made sense or not. To me, it makes a whole lot more sense to base a land on Star Wars than Avatar. That franchise has been tested and has stood the test of time and would work well within a family park. Avatar just feels out of place.

I'm still keeping my fingers crossed that this deal, and the whole Avatar Land itself falls through.

I agree with everything you said. I feel like Avatar was really hyped when it came out, and while I enjoyed it, it's not like it became everyone's favorite movie or anything. The fact that 3 more are coming helps keep it relevant but like you said the movies have to deliver. The thing that I believe Avatar has going for it is how cool the theme and world could look visually if done right. The movie's setting in Pandora is very visually next-level and if they can recreate that in a park, it will be pretty awesome to experience. (The glowing tree and whatnot would look awesome at night)

I'd much rather see them focus on bringing an awesome Star Wars land to Hollywood Studios ASAP, especially since Disney has a bad habit of taking way too long on projects. But like Avatar, the Star Wars road map for movies will stretch pretty far for years to come, giving Disney a lot of future movies to market with. I think that they need something big soon though to combat Harry Potter at Universal. Not that they're in really any risk to lose a lot of attendance, it is Disney after all, but at least keep the idea that "Disney is innovative" true.

[Voicetek]

Animal Kingdom, as it is now, is probably my least favorite of the parks. When I do visit Disney World, I usually tend to gravitate towards The Magic Kingdom, or Epcot, so I don't really see myself being impacted too much by this. I read the article above about the 7 other lands Disney could have built, and to tell you the truth, I would have been more excited to visit any of those lands and might have made a special trip to Animal Kingdom to do so. It's just sad really.

[bkroz]

I'm the one who came up with those 7 lands, so I don't find it sad at all. Haha! Thanks.

If only Disney would hire me so I could have my dreams crushed by executives.

[medford]

pretty much what GYK said. I have trouble envisioned any Avatar sequal doing well in the box office. The visuals were incredible and at the time a new experience for most. My wife and I were like many, we saw the film, but mostly for the visuals and when we saw it, we made sure to see it at an IMAX theater. While the visuals were great, they weren't so off the charts, movie experience changing that its now the only way we watch a movie, in fact I haven't seen a 3D movie since, nor do I have any particular desire to own a 3D ready television for home. In the end, movies remain relative in pop culture, survive time if you will, based mainly on good acting, great story telling and directing that doesn't get in the way too much.

Avatar was a well hashed out plot line and mostly predictable about 30 minutes in. Did anyone walk away thinking, man they just have so much further to go with this story? I'll be surprised if they end up making all 3 sequels; I really don't know why Disney is intent on sticking to this story line.

[bkroz]

^ On that note, another frightening and odd aspect is that Disney has nothing whatsoever to do with the filmmaking or distribution. Cameron's Lightstorm Entertainment creates the films, and 20th Century Fox is contracted to distribute them. Disney's only role is their agreement with Lightstorm that they have exclusive rights to build rides, themed areas, and attractions based on the film [series], probably with a healthy group of Lightstorm individuals contracted to work for Disney Imagineering. (This, by the way, is exactly the relationship Universal has with Harry Potter, which is produced by Heyday Films and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. Universal simply secured international theme park rights and partnered with key Potter-creatives for their Universal Creative division.)

For all Disney's input, the next Avatar could be an R-rated violence extravaganza full of foul language and nudity. I don't think it will be, but the point is that Disney has little input into the brand's direction (except through de facto means, like threatening to break contract if they do x, y, or z in the films...)

For what it's worth, Cameron is supposedly a real stickler when it comes to his way or the highway. At least a few times, insiders said he was throwing temper tantrums over what Disney was asking. Consequently, Disney flew in executives representing a competing brand as a power play, to show Cameron that they could and would walk if he dared buck up against them... Point is, I'd bet that all three sequels get made. James Cameron will find a way. He may make some enemies in the process, but he'll find a way!

[Voicetek]

^Even if the next 3 Avatar movies are similar to the first, the first was no where near a family film to begin with. There was lots of language and the "sex" scene between the main character and the Na'vi princess. That's why it just seemed like an odd choice for a Disney park. And you are right, if Disney has no control over the production of these films, they could easily go in a worse direction as far as content goes. It's just a weird situation.

[thedevariouseffect]

I wouldn't call ponytail stuff sex..but whatever. I will say it def. wasn't a true kids movie, but still..

The movie is sweet in theaters or at home if you have a kickass surround and 3D Blu Ray player (woot woot)

Other than that, it's Cameron & bay having funsies with Spielberg watching.

[Voicetek]

I wouldn't call ponytail stuff sex..but whatever. I will say it def. wasn't a true kids movie, but still..

The movie is sweet in theaters or at home if you have a kickass surround and 3D Blu Ray player (woot woot)

Other than that, it's Cameron & bay having funsies with Spielberg watching.

I wasn't talking about the ponytail stuff, there was an actual scene between the two characters. Obviously it wasn't graphic, but enough was implied.

[bkroz]

To be fair, though, while people hang on to the "it's not Disney!" argument, no one has the same worries about Star Wars or Indiana Jones, which - until recently - were present in Disney Parks through very similar deals with their rights-holder.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is far darker and more violent than Avatar in many ways. Sure, it's rated PG, but it's famous in cinematic history as the inspiration for the MPAA's PG-13 rating to begin with, which debuted two months after Indy's release. The film inspired the equally dark Indiana Jones Adventure: Temple of the Forbidden Eye ride at Disneyland (not even at a Studios park.. at the original Disneyland!), which would've absolutely traumatized me as a kid. ("Do not look into the dark and corroded eyes of Mara or be sentenced to the Gates of Doom... beyond which lie lava pits, striking snakes, and a flaming eye that shoots at you as you drive along cliffs.)

In retrospect, we all go, "Disney should stick to their own stuff! They shouldn't bring in outside stories! Well, except Paramount's Indiana Jones... and Fox's Star Wars... Okay, and CBS's The Twilight Zone... and their Jules Verne stuff is pretty cool... and keep Pixar rides... and I'm glad they brought in the Muppets..." etc etc. The truth is that Disney is able to reach out of their own catalogue and produce great things that are neither about princesses nor fantasy nor happy endings.

In other words, the fact that it's "not Disney" wouldn't even be in my top 5 reasons for keeping Avatar out of Disney Parks.

[Gabe]

Disney is doing lots of things to beef up AK in advance of Avatar. The new dinner show Harambe NIghts is a huge hit, and additional shows were added almost immediately after the initial run sold out. There is also a new show along the lines of World of Color coming to the park next year in the area between the Tree of Life and Everest. A lot of people poo-poohed the MK FL expansion and look what that's become. As to Cameron being a stickler, there were multiple confimed reports that Rowling was no less particular in how the Wizarding World looked. I'd imagine Universal had more than their fair share of change orders as the ride was being built.

[bkroz]

Disney is doing lots of things to beef up AK in advance of Avatar. The new dinner show Harambe NIghts is a huge hit, and additional shows were added almost immediately after the initial run sold out. There is also a new show along the lines of World of Color coming to the park next year in the area between the Tree of Life and Everest. A lot of people poo-poohed the MK FL expansion and look what that's become. As to Cameron being a stickler, there were multiple confimed reports that Rowling was no less particular in how the Wizarding World looked. I'd imagine Universal had more than their fair share of change orders as the ride was being built.

Sure, Disney is beefing up Animal Kingdom. No one's accusing them of neglecting the park. That's not the question.

As to Cameron being a stickler, I doubt Ms. Rowling was accused of having "child-like tantrums" and issuing constant threats to back out of the project. If you're a powerful and successful person who represents and creates a brand, you're bound to be protective of it. There's a right way and a wrong way to do that.

[Gabe]

Disney does have significant leverage now over Cameron- in the form of Marvel that it didn't have in 2010. If he's going to be a hinderance, Disney could order the crews to stop working and draw up plans to utilize its vast Marvel universe to create something in its place. Or, they could use Lucasfilm as well. Who wouldn't like to see that land be turned into Endor, complete wih a speeder bike attraction. There are options.

[bkroz]

I'm not sure how you think business works, much less construction, but they're a year into construction at this point, and three years into working together. Imagine the money (both to Lightstorm and in construction costs) that it would take for Disney to "order crews to stop working and draw up plans to [build something else there]." Like it's that simple.

Leverage? Cameron couldn't care less about Marvel. Why should he care at all what else Disney owns? They have a contract with him, and his vision is being brought to life in steel and concrete as we speak. I doubt he lives in fear every day, shivering in bed and thinking "If I don't behave, they'll use Marvel against me!" Even pretending it wouldn't mean basically breaking contracts left and right and setting fire to millions of dollars of work that's already been done just to start over from scratch, what, exactly, from the Marvel Universe would fit at Disney's Animal Kingdom alongside Africa, Asia, The Oasis, etc?

I proposed Endor in my article above. It's a fun idea and it totally fits conceptually. But the ship has sailed. The only way out of Pandora now is with some heavy fines, lost relationships, and unhappy shareholders.

There were options. Today, they're much narrower. And Disney doesn't seem to be ashamed or worried about Avatar Land, so it's a moot point.

[The Interpreter]

It cannot be overemphasized. Disney is virtually incapable of introspection or self-doubt. It knows that in the end its superior knowledge, talent, acumen and industry will beat out any so-called competitor.

Arrogance.

It goeth before the fall.

[shark6495]

Well I hate to say it, but Disney has something the others you mentioned don't. They have brand recognition from birth to death.

Try to walk down a baby aisle and not see 1 Disney thing. Disney Trips have become a rite of passage for many families. Avatarland may come and go and may be a big failure. The House of Mouse will bring more generations of families in with the same concept: Mickey, Minnie, and the Princesses.

You have families who go yearly, even with complaints. You have families plan vacations that may not be able to afford it. Disney is similar to the Yankees where they can almost buy themselves out of mistakes.

Will Carsland be popular in 10-15 years? Probably no more so than Aladdin is now but....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BoddaH1994]

I thought Avatar was the most drawn out, boring movie I have ever seen. I have no intentions of seeing the others. With that being said, Disney DOES have the know-how, resources, and bank roll to make an incredible experience out of this. Will it be a blip on Potter's radar? Time will tell.

[shark6495]

Plus I think the two parks/resorts are significantly different. They both compete for the same family dollar but they are marketed differently.

Almost every kid wants to visit Disney one time. If you were to tell that Kid we are going to Harry Potter world, they would be pumped but when it's said and done, would still ask about Disney.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk