yeah i agree
Avatar will do well internationally regardless how it does here.
it will be interesting to see how disney handles that
Pandora: The World of Avatar Announcement, Construction, & Preview Discussion
- Thread starter Brian G.
- Start date
-
Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
- Status
yeah i agree
Avatar will do well internationally regardless how it does here.
it will be interesting to see how disney handles that
- Feb 7, 2014
- 1,615
- 1,735
Handles what? They do not own the film rights to Avatar, just the themepark rights.
Given Disney's high rate of international travelers, I have to imagine that Avatar Land will be just fine no matter what portion of the US box office it ends up taking in.
That being said, I bet they wish they had a Star Wars Land opening sooner to cash in on that front.
Come on now...very few blockbuster movies actually stick to their release dates planned this far out. I don't think you're the only person in the universe who sees this as a potential problem, the people that are paid in Fox's and Disney's marketing departments are aware of the climate of their big movies' release dates. One of them will move, I'm almost sure. You can have a big Thanksgiving season and still have a blockbuster scheduled for Christmas, which I'm assuming one of the two will end up banking on. Either way, you and I both know this date is just a placeholder.
Also, I didnt realize Disney was affected by Avatar's box office. I thought they had just bought theme park rights. Do they have distribution as well or how is that supposed to work?
I meant it hurt's the land's hype. Avatar, as is, is nearly forgotten pop culture wise. While I think hitching Animal Kingdom's boat to it to begin with was a bad idea, now the land will be opening without the 2016 lead in the sequel was going to give it.
Oh I see...that does present a problem for synergy-minded Disney I guess. But at the same time, a new ride at Disney World should bring in plenty of attendance no matter what it's based on/how much pop culture relevance.
A flip side to look at here is that when the movie starts its marketing machine up and when people go see it in theaters, the land will already be open and operational(we assume) and people will be able to go visit. Disney will even be able to piggyback park advertising on the movie and dvd advertising if they want. I actually think this works out better. A new land at WDW doesn't need a whole lot of help hyping it up. The Disney faithful alone will carry the opening few months. This way after that hype dies down, they will have the movie hype kicking in to bring Avatar fans in. The land opening ahead of the movie also helps promote the movie, which helps increase box office when it does open, which increases hype and should push more people to the park. Honestly, I think this is better than having the movie open 6 months or a year ahead of the land and having all the movie hype be wore off by the time the land opens.
There's pretty much 3 years for the date to be changed dude. I wouldn't be worried and I highly doubt they actually will end up going against each other.
I believe this is the third time the sequels have been delayed and we are still 3 years out. The budget for these three films must be mind boggling. I would lmao if 2 flops HARD.
It really does have the possibility of being a gigantic flop, hype machine or not who cares at this point?
That's what they said about the first one too, though. James Cameron does some weird voodoo that makes all of his movies successful no matter what.
I concur. He does it almost every time.
Whatever it is he does, he does it really well regardless of how egotistic and bombastic he is. He sounds like a meanie that is really talented at crafting a film at everyone's expense, and really masterful at selling it. I wouldn't dare bank on these followups being failures.
Jimmy does have a solid track record. Most of his films were successful and one or two of them were actually good.
I, personally, think this is where his train goes off the rails, though. Here is a little gem from a NYT interview:
"I've divided my time over the last 16 years over deep ocean exploration and filmmaking. I've made two movies in 16 years, and I've done eight expeditions. Last year I basically completely disbanded my production company's development arm. So I'm not interested in developing anything. I'm in the 'Avatar' business. Period. That's it. I'm making 'Avatar 2,' 'Avatar 3,' maybe 'Avatar 4,' and I'm not going to produce other people's movies for them. I'm not interested in taking scripts," Cameron said about his future plans. "And that all sounds I suppose a little bit restricted, but the point is I think within the 'Avatar' landscape I can say everything I need to say that I think needs to be said, in terms of the state of the world and what I think we need to be doing about it. And doing it in an entertaining way. And anything I can't say in that area, I want to say through documentaries, which I'm continuing."
The super deep message in Avatar was, "Hey! Check out this really cool 3D tech!!!!" I'm predicting the super deep message we will get from Avatar 2 will be, "Hey!!!!!! We have 3D AT THE BOTTOM OF THE OCEAN!!!!"
Last edited:
Almost as if he planned it that way...
I think everyone loved the beauty of the film...it was very nice to look at (and I don't just mean the plants ahahaa......ahem...) regardless I think people will flock to see 2 as 1 was a well put together, but forgotten shortly after you see it
- Feb 7, 2014
- 1,615
- 1,735
I really do believe the sequels will do well overseas and cannot see them as being international flops. Might they flop domestically? Yes, but who cares if your movie takes in over 1 billion worldwide?
Also, as Sheikra pointed out, people may think the movie is crap, but they still agree that it looked pretty. As far as building a whole new themed land goes, that is one of the biggest selling points. Very few guests want to walk into a gross looking land (unless they are visiting HHN) so having a nice looking area in the park will do well. In all reality, the 'story' of the rides matters about as much as the 'story' of the movies. It is all just pretty to look at and will be attractive to guests.
I really do not think how much money the movie rakes in (or does not rake in) is going to matter at all to how popular the land ends up being.
Edit: Given that The Magic Kingdom is the real draw to the Disney parks with the other three serving as just support (or add ons to your ticket) I really doubt that AvatarLand can fail.
Also, as Sheikra pointed out, people may think the movie is crap, but they still agree that it looked pretty. As far as building a whole new themed land goes, that is one of the biggest selling points. Very few guests want to walk into a gross looking land (unless they are visiting HHN) so having a nice looking area in the park will do well. In all reality, the 'story' of the rides matters about as much as the 'story' of the movies. It is all just pretty to look at and will be attractive to guests.
I really do not think how much money the movie rakes in (or does not rake in) is going to matter at all to how popular the land ends up being.
Edit: Given that The Magic Kingdom is the real draw to the Disney parks with the other three serving as just support (or add ons to your ticket) I really doubt that AvatarLand can fail.
Again, "fail" is never in the conversation. It's a new attraction in the theme park capital of the world. It'll do fine.
The question becomes can the land be popular enough to justify whatever ransom Disney paid Cameron and Fox for the rights to Avatar? If the land ends up giving the park a similar bump to what we saw with Everest (a million or so), the money shelled out to get the property looks like it's wasted as they probably could have gotten that bump from building an "Up" land, let's say. If it ends up boosting DAK by Potter-like numbers, it's obviously worth it.
I don't think the land will "fail" by any stretch of the imagination. The question becomes whether the expense for the property is justified.
- - - Updated - - -
Eh, DAK's attendance is only 10 million -ish if you believe the TEA numbers, which is an incredibly small fraction of how many people they want to see that movie.
- Feb 7, 2014
- 1,615
- 1,735
That's a fair assessment of the situation.
I guess the question becomes, what sort of food and merchandise will they be rolling out with the land? I could see some really interesting food options, but as far as specialized or inventive merchandise goes I am not sure what they could produce. Do we know how many restaurants they have planned yet?
While I agree with the Everest analogy, it sort of falters on the food/merchandise front.
i still think a point that is missed on these boards is this.... this is a overhaul of this park...the idea is to keep people here until 9/10 o clock..that alone will help DAK
Jungle skip has been fair and consistent on his point about avatar however there have been several people on the theme park message board community said it would fail
i happen to think it will at least be on the scale and success of cars land
- Feb 7, 2014
- 1,615
- 1,735
On that score, I wonder when they plan on opening the Rivers of Light nighttime show? While I agree that Avatar will get more people into the park, that does not mean they will be able to keep people until later. World of Color was instrumental in keeping people in DCA and going hand in hand with Carsland it was a homerun.
- Status
