Avatarland at Animal Kingdom...Why?

See? It doesn't hurt to write a long, drawn out, on topic, thoughtful post about theme parks, does it?

Some good points but...

Nobody today would know who Dumbo was without the ride...same for Peter Pan and others

Stop when you're ahead. I didn't even know there was a Peter Pan ride, and I certainly believe that Dumbo the movie is a bit more appealing than Dumbo the ride. Peter Pan has spawned many movies beyond the original Disney cartoon (Hook, etc.)

Regardless of what I think about the movie, I would bet that Disney could certainly create something spectacular around the Avatar "experience"...will there be an alien sex ride? Or will that only be in Disneyland Paris? If you have not slept through Avatar, you may not get that reference, but here is a start.

I had no idea those rides existed. The characters are timeless, and Peter Pan was around long before Disney.

Is Twighlight Zone a cultural phenomenon endorsed by the masses, a niche late night show, or a really cool theme park attraction? Was the Pirates song well known BEFORE the movie?

I am not knocking those who believe there MUST be a cultually relevant movie behind the expansion. I am suggesting that DISNEY has the ability to make the ride/land the superior phenomenon. If you believe Dumbo and Peter Pan would be as big as they are without the ride...fair enough. But I suggest that somewhere along the Disney Collection...(Jungle Cruise, Pirates, Space, Splash, Small World, ToT, etc) there is an attraction or land that is relevant culturally...because Disney made a darn cool attraction. Can the same be said for any other company?

I am the first to admit Avatar does not excite me as a movie. I would prefer that they would have built the old Beastly Kingdom. That said...I am still excited for ANY Disney expansion. I fail to see why this is automatically assumed a bad idea... when Disney's reputation suggests they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Eisner is out of the picture. I assume this is a net plus for budget and imagineer issues. If they go Camp Mickey or Dinoland...both Eisner ideas...then it will fail. If they go big...why would anybody think it would not succeed?

Look, I could give two craps about the Twighlight Zone or Potter movies/shows. I will go as far as say I despise the Twighlight television show. But I spend thousands yearly to ride the attractions. I know I am not representative of everybody...but I am not an insignificant segment of their market. If you build it in Orlando...they will come.

Aamilj said:
I am the first to admit Avatar does not excite me as a movie. I would prefer that they would have built the old Beastly Kingdom. That said...I am still excited for ANY Disney expansion. I fail to see why this is automatically assumed a bad idea... when Disney's reputation suggests they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Eisner is out of the picture. I assume this is a net plus for budget and imagineer issues. If they go Camp Mickey or Dinoland...both Eisner ideas...then it will fail. If they go big...why would anybody think it would not succeed?

I don't think anyone has said it won't be successful, fun and/or amazing.

What seems to be the consensus is the same thing you say - "Avatar does not excite me as a movie."

That seems to be the issue here. Why Avatar?

In our little circle of influence here, the interest in Avatar seems to be unusually low for such a major licensing/partnership/expansion. It seems like an odd choice. Maybe even a bad choice.

Whatever Disney does will be ridiculously well executed. No one doubts that. What everyone seems to be wondering is why the Avatar overlay? Especially if (as you mention) Disney makes the IP relevant, not the other way around.

Avatar probably has it's fans. Two more Avatar movies are being made right now.

And I get you point, Aamilj, however I don't think it's all so black and white. I've been a big Twilight Zone fan, Muppet fan, Marvel and Spiderman fan, Peter Pan fan, Star Wars fan, Dr. Suese fan, Jurassic Park fan, ect. ever since I was a child or young adult. This was WAY before a them park attraction was built with such a theme.

And I have been a fan of Disney animated movies ever since I can remember. I gave Pinocchio a kiss when I was three, the highlight of my visit to Magic Kingdom at the time. I remember it was the only thing I wanted to do when we got there. My point is that I loved the character before I visited the park.

I say you are right and wrong, depending on who you are talking about.

In regards to what comes first, attraction success or movie success and comparing Waterworld movie with the Waterworld attraction...

This is living proof that just because the movie was a bomb doesn't mean a theme park attraction won't be successful. The same can be said for the opposite. Look at the Haunted Mansion: Movie bombed, but the attraction still stands on it's own.

This being said, I always wondered why Disney never put in an Atlantis themed adventure ride or even Treasure Planet for that matter. Just because these movies bombed at the box office doesn't mean that they wouldn't be kick a$$ rides.

Interestingly enough, it appears there is a very similar discussion over at JimHillMedia right now regarding Harry Potter vs. Avatar.

Then I'm sure it's all about how stupid Potter and Universal are.

Avatar could have worked as a revamp of the E.T. ride at Universal.

I say you are right and wrong, depending on who you are talking about

.

I agree. I'm not trying to say that a kick butt movie would not be a benefit. I'm just suggesting we are over-analyzing the situation. The ride/land itself COULD prove to be the best part of the Avatar collection. If done correctly, there is no reason to believe this could not be a huge commercial and financial success for Disney and AK.

What everyone seems to be wondering is why the Avatar overlay? Especially if (as you mention) Disney makes the IP relevant, not the other way around.

I like this line of thought/discussion.

I'm going to guess that if I had a couple sequels coming out for my blockbuster movie...I would love to approach Disney and cut a great deal to have them cross promote my movie with an excellent attraction/ride. That is a no-brainer.

From a Disney perspective...I'm going to suggest that they possibly got a good financial deal, complete creative control, and a beautiful scenery/canvass to do their thing. While no Harry Potter, or claims that it should be...Avatar is a known entity with sequel publicity in the pipeline. If you are Disney you could start from scratch on an expansion (i.e. Beastly Kingdom, etc) or start from a "known entity." I could see some benefit from starting with a known entity if the terms are agreeable.

I am not aware of the finances of the agreement. But I am going to guess that Disney probably got the better terms...or at least suggest that the terms could be a reason Disney did this.

Besides...it is not as if there are a lot of Harry Potters out there. Star Wars and Lucas apparently maintain creative control. I'm guessing Hangoverland is not their market...though I would love to see what they could do with it.

Does somebody have a better option that fits into AK? Keep in mind that AK was initially supposed to be all about "mythical" creatures (dragons, unicorns, etc) too. I think there is still a Unicorn parking lot and a Dragon Statue back in Camp Micky...where this was supposed to go. Their logo had a dragon on it for years.

When Eisner nixed Beastly Kingdom and made them spend the money on Dinoland (remember the movie Dinosaur was coming out at that time), because he wanted to cross promote a bad movie...most the imagineers left and went to IOA. Beastly Kingdom was supposedly the PRIMARY reason the park (AK) was built. They had survey data that told them the public was gaga over the dragons and unicorn themes. The Imagineers wanted this land over everything else.

In a bit of irony, a lot of their (imagineer) ideas for Beastly Kingdom became Lost Continent and are now part of Potter. Universal sort of had/has Disney locked into a bad spot on the "mythical" front. People obviously enjoy this stuff. But what can Disney do at this point that Universal has not already done? Lord of the Rings...? Too much like Potter... Beastly Kingdom...? As said before...Lost Continent WAS the imagineers ideas...

Putting all this in perspective in the BIG picture...put yourself in Disney's shoes. You want to expand AK. You would like to put some more E ticket attractions in the park. You need to stick to an "animal" or "creature" theme...either real or mythical. Dragons and Unicorns are off the table.

Along comes the highest grossing film of all time with sequels in the pipeline asking you to cross promote their "mythical" creation to the WORLD. Do you think Disney sits down and explores the possibilities?

Look...many of us don't like Avatar. But somebody did. You don't sell that many tickets without somebody liking what you are selling. Everybody agrees that a well done theme park attraction/land sells itself. Seems to me that there are TONS of reasons and TONS of dollars that might make this deal understandable for EVERYBODY involved.

I guess what I am saying is that it is way too early, and there is not enough known about the financial arrangement/plans to write this off as "bad" planning by Disney. My hunch is they know what they are getting in to.

I tremendously enjoyed Avatar, and am excited about the prospect of an area themed to its universe at AK. So count me in the minority.

Mr. Smith...I think you are the majority. Sorry if I implied otherwise. I think a lot of people will be excited by this.

Jeff said:
Then I'm sure it's all about how stupid Potter and Universal are.

It's actually the opposite... The article is all about how Universal trumped Disney this time. Of course, there is still biased whining involved.

Aamilj, I think you're missing the point. We're not comparing Avatar to Twilight Zone, we're comparing it to Potterland. Potterland is an amazing, one-of-a-kind success for Universal Orlando, and you would be a sucker to think that Disney not only wants to have a similar success but to also draw attention away from Potter. Potterland is succesful mot just due to the attendance increase, but the increase in average length of stay, per-cap-spending, word of mouth, etc. This amazing success is in large part because of, not in spite of, the Intellectual Property they built the world around and the extremely large fan base of that IP. Yes, they built a great environment and great rides, but if they had done equally amazing environments and rides based on, say, "His Dark Materials" we can all agree the outcome would have been much different for them.

Someone fill me in on beastly kingdom.

Aamilj said:
Mr. Smith...I think you are the majority. Sorry if I implied otherwise. I think a lot of people will be excited by this.

Sorry, that wasn't directed at you at all. I was just throwing my comment on the heap. :)

ApolloAndy said:
Someone fill me in on beastly kingdom.

Beastly Kingdom

I have seen the Avatar movie, and I think what Disney is attempting to do is to grab at something popular, and cash it on it. But, I think they are going to be in for a rude awakening. I personally don't think it will be possible to acurately depict the Avatar world, and not Disney-fi it with a bunch of their own lame charactors. I think fans of avatar will be greatly dissapointed.

I would bet that it will be based around home tree, probably have lots of colorful props and lanscaping, while they come up with 5 minute star wars-like simulator rides to imitate the rest. Maybe have a nemo like attraction where you get to talk to and control an Avatar, where he or she says stuff like...let's check out this it's totally cool dudes! While the only people who are impressed are kids under 10.

I saw some of the Harry Potter stuff online, and it's basically a well done Disney-ish themed area, that is very lucky to have been able to take advantage of an existing thrill ride to make it seem like it would be worth a visit. But, then, Harry Potter is a million times more of a draw then Avatar ever would be. Outside of the roller coaster, it's pretty much a Disney like place for kids. Unless Disney surprises us with a kick ass roller coaster in it's Avatar land...I think most will pass.

I do agree that there will be people who will want to see the Avatar world when they visit Disney. But, I don't think they will flock to it in Mass as people did when the Harry Potter or Jurrasick park rides opened at Universal. I saw the Jurrassic Park ride on Youtube, and went really? What's all the fuss?

I also wanted to comment on the Dumbo and Peter Pan attractions at Disneyworld. One word. BORING!! Unless you are a five year old, you might find these rides appealing. After spending 45 minutes in line for Peter Pan I felt jipped. It's basically a carnival ride through with Peter pan charactors inside. And, Dumbo is just a large carnival ride that happens to have a Dumbo theme. In fact, a majority of the Magic Kingdom is glorified indoor carnival attractions, like Snow White's scary adventure which was 10 times better than Peter Pan.

But, the Crowning achievement of the Magic Kindom is the Haunted Mansion ride. You won't find an attraction like that anywhere else. I also thought the Pirates of the Carribean was well done. And Space Mountain. But, those earlier attractions were really the only good ones at the Magic Kingdom for decades. A majority of the new attractions like Big Thunder Mountain and Splash Mountain, came from Disney's desire to compete with the growing parks around them.

I think those rides were not designed with any particular film in mind, but they did try later with the Haunted Mansion which totally flopped. Pirates of the Carribean was also re-invented long after the ride was built, and now the ride has been changed to fit the movies. So, the rides do not always come first. It's mostly the other way around.

I also forgot to mention the other revamped Disney attractions like 20,000 leagues under the sea, which was inspired by the movie, which now has more of a Nemo theme, and of course the Jungle Cruise. I didn't get to see the Swiss Family Robinson treehouse, because it was under construction.

Oh and another Disney ride turned Disney movie flop. The Country Bears, which is way better than the movie!!