Seriously, Avatar makes total sense at Animal Kingdom

Having never really given it any thought, any particular reason why?

More video here:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-new-avatar-theme-park-is-a-giant-spoiler-1793127049

OhioStater said:
Having never really given it any thought, any particular reason why?

Why...what? Why didn't Potter end up at Disney? If that was the question, J.K. Rowling was not impressed with the plans for a Potterverse in Disney, and I can't say I blame her. The drawings that were released at one point, if accurate, were atrociously generic and dull.

I am also glad Potter ended up at Universal. Not only is it stunningly themed and immersive, but it also forced Disney to think bigger for upcoming attractions. I'd dare to say it took enough revenue away from them that they realized they HAVE to do better with future endeavors. Hence the delays in Avatar opening.

I've read that Rowling wasn't willing to give up the degree of creative control Disney was demanding.

And good for her.

bunky666 said:

Why...what? Why didn't Potter end up at Disney?

I am also glad Potter ended up at Universal. Not only is it stunningly themed and immersive, but it also forced Disney to think bigger for upcoming attractions. I'd dare to say it took enough revenue away from them that they realized they HAVE to do better with future endeavors. Hence the delays in Avatar opening.

In the post previous RCMAC suggested he was happy Disney did not end up with Harry Potter; I was curious as to why. It just so happened my post ended up on the top of page 2, so i may have appeared out of place.

Oh! Sorry. ...ahem....

Simply because I can't imagine anything better or more complete than the way it turned out at Universal. They had (shared) the vision that it should be everything we experience from the stories and the movies. The signature rides are action packed and the overall environment is, as Bunky put it, so immersive. Adding Horwarts Express to the mix was pure genius. I've never taken a transport ride that was so clever or made the journey from one park to another that enjoyable.

As for Disney's attempt at the property, I'm not familiar with the details. So I won't say Potterland would've been a fail, it's just that I can't imagine it anywhere else. And if Disney's version was generic and if Ms. Rowling wasn't having it, then there ya go.

This video's a giant word salad. Avatar land is being built to (supposedly) draw larger crowds. Although at this point the movie is all but forgotten culturally and I've heard nothing about the sequels to it that are supposed to happen.

Maybe they should cancel the project...

I agree with Mac; Uni did an outstanding job with the Potter properties.

Ms Rowling required that the guy who oversaw production design on the films have the same role in the parks, one reason why the areas so convincingly evoke the movies. It's my understanding that was something Disney wouldn't agree to and one of the reasons Rowling and Disney couldn't come to terms.

Avatar land drawing large crowds and Avatar's cultural relevance are, I think, two different things. I enjoy Potter in the parks but know little about the books or movies (read one of the book, saw parts of several movies); I think Avatar land will likely succeed based on the quality of its attractions, not the movie.

I don't particularly love Disney Parks... But Animal Kingdom is one of my favorites alongside DCA. I am also very excited for our visit this fall and checking out Avatar.

The sequel was supposed to come out sometime next year, but it has been delayed again. I just re-realized from the article that Avatar came out in 2009. I think Disney and Cameron are missing out on their window of opportunity here. No one cares about Avatar now, so why are they going to care whenever it finally comes out?

The movie was awesome on the big screen. I saw it several times. I saw it on TV afterwards, and it is terrible.

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/james-cameron-says-avatar-2...18-w471670

I thought Avatar was a good movie. Not "All time highest grossing" great, but good.

What I think drove much of Avatar's success, though, was that it was the first mainstream, live-action, blockbuster 3-D movie... *for grownups.* There had been a lot of CGI kids movies before it, but for those without kids, this was a new experience. The novelty and, lets face it, high quality of the 3-D was gimmick enough to attract large audiences and generate word-of-mouth. Even I, who had seen plenty of 3-D movies already with my kid, ended up seeing Avatar twice in the theater, because others I was with wanted to see it.

That being said, I kind of thought that Avatar's time and place in pop culture has passed. 3-D is passe, and the story that was told in Avatar doesn't really need a sequel, does it? Sure, the world they created was fascinating, and I can see where it could support a theme park land, but I just don't see how there can be that much interest at this time. I wonder if the only reason a sequel is being made is to generate interest in the park attraction.

I don't think the AK land and any potential sequels* have that much in common. Avatar land at AK will succeed or fail based on the merits of the attractions, not the IP involved.

* I remain unconvinced that any of the proposed four sequels will be made.

Did Dances with Wolves have a sequel? If not, Avatar doesn't need one either. If so, maybe it does.