Pandora: The World of Avatar Announcement, Construction, & Preview Discussion

[Miketheboss]

And they didn't build that concept art. No angle in the land will produce that visual because those formations don't exist like that in the land.

A visual similar to that is supposed to be seen coming from Africa. But you're right, the mountains form and arch, which is missing in that drawing.

More like this.

 

[belloq87]

But we know it's all screens and a single animatronic.

I'm under the impression there will be many (quite detailed) practical sets, as well.

 

[epcyclopedia]

Remove the atmosphere haze the artist used to differentiate the areas and thus creating a big mass of green where it's hard to perceive depth (there's a reason you use folloage in forced perspective - it's hard to determine depth or scale from it) and you're a lot closer to reality.

 

[epcyclopedia]

I'm under the impression there will be many (quite detailed) practical sets, as well.

The video clip preview shown was essentially frames of practical sets akin to Gran Fiesta Tour if anything.

 

[belloq87]

The video clip preview shown was essentially frames of practical sets akin to Gran Fiesta Tour if anything.

Well, I certainly don't think we've seen enough from the River Journey at this point to make any definitive statements, but even if we accept your thesis as truth, the sets in Gran Fiesta Tour still outnumber the screens, overall. And the environments of that ride (once we get beyond the volcano/temple stuff) are - by intention - less nature-based (read: more urban) than the environments of the River Journey are going to be.

 

[twebber55]

i ve never understood the merchandise angle
we have no idea what will be offered, butterbeer was hardly in the movies but a frozen butterbeer is the best theme park drink in orlando
who know s what they have
ive yet to hear a reasonable argument on why this land wont be incredibly successful

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Well I'm home now I wonder how things are... ok. Hmm.

First please read my first post again. To quote:

Because I question Disney's justification and expectations does not dampen my expectations. I am excited to see this project open, experience it myself, and develop my own critiques just as I have with Kong, Diagon, Mermaid, SDMT, and more. But we cannot ignore or escape the fact this land is deeply entwined with expectations of Potter level per guest spending boosts, attendance boosts, guests staying longer in the park, and that Disney's "sticking" it to Universal.

Let me restate and clarify four points I want to make:

1.) Avatar will be, at least, as nice as Carsland, the last major land added to a domestic park. Carsland is great.
2.) Avatar's theme park presence is directly tied to Universal and Harry Potter; Universal passed on the rights after Cameron's demands were too much, Disney saw it as an opportunity, and the rights were bought. Disney's ROI is based on the Harry Potter model.
3.) Avatar land's budget has ballooned as Cameron became more demanding, changes were made during production, and other WDI budget inflation. This makes #2 harder to accomplish.
4.) When Disney projects do not hit ROI it stunts growth in the parks. Everest and Mission:Space are two good examples posted in this thread.

I'm actually a little bullish on Avatar.

I think very few people in the fan community would say that Avatar Land doesn't look cool. Forget about costs, or IP, or anything like that. It's going to be a cool theme park land and I'm sure most of us are excited to go experience it.

Most of the fan community doesn't like Avatar because we think Disney has too much riding on it. We think that Avatar is going to be the new [HASHTAG]#ThanksShanghai[/HASHTAG] that causes development to stop at WDW. We don't believe that Avatar has enough to bring people to the parks and will do enough to let Disney keep building.

The fact is, a lot of this is a marketing problem, not a land development / capital / Disney problem. The last large development at AK was Everest, which wasn't based on an IP and created a large bump for that park. The fact is, if Disney markets this well and provides a good experience, they'll see a bump. There's a whole bunch of forces that will impact WDW's future plans and Avatar isn't that high on the list (political + economic issues, ESPN, Iger's departure, DVC sales + construction, Universal's numbers, etc, etc)

If you do not care about future investment in the Disney parks, then you can ignore the price tag. As I stated above a project that does not recoup cost stunts growth. A Beastley Kingdome expansion was presented to WDW after Everest and they passed on it because of Everest brought in new guests but did not extend their stay or increase guest spending.

I do agree that other factors such as the economy, politics, ESPN, Iger, and more does play a significant role in capital allotment, too.

yikes jump down my throat why don't ya.

Disney is building these attractions because they realize they are being outclassed down the street.

I'm sorry it seems we're jumping down your throat, that's not my intention. This is something I've been thinking and trying to put into words for a very long time. The dams sort of opened this week. As I noted above in #2 I do agree this is a response to Universal, but a 2011 Universal.

Woah I thought it was Disney fans who were meant to be bitter about Universals recent success? These last few pages read VERY defensive.

The land looks awesome. Accept it, knowing that a strong Disney will only force Universal to up their game again.

I see nothing defensive about what I'm saying. I do not see a single person here not saying this expansion doesn't appear very good, at least. But as I say in #2 you cannot uncouple the land with it's expectations and history. Many insiders have already said that a strong Avatar expansion will be used by UC to improve their projects.

When Universal built the WWOHP, wasn't there only one Harry Potter movie left to be released? Wouldn't it have been cooler if the land was built during the 4th or 5th sequel? Avatar Land seems like its going to be great regardless of the sequels but imagine if the sequels are a success. It's a gamble.

Also, someone brought up marketing. I expect to see a crazy amount of marketing/ads within the next month or so. This will end up on cereal boxes and on the Disney Channel, guaranteed. Disney can open a new hotdog cart and thousands come so I think summer at AK is going to be insanely crowded. This IP was a perfect fit for Animal Kingdom.

I'm not sure what you're getting at in the first paragraph. As I said before it can be great but point #2-4 still stands.

As for Avatar fitting into Animal Kingdom, it still doesn't fit as a whole land. And it's far from a "perfect fit".

so you are saying if there never was an avatar movie and disney designed the land exactly the same nobody would complain?

I do not think it would be built in Animal Kingdom as its whole land, for sure. If it was also Disney's own theme park creation it wouldn't be under the approval of Cameron (see point #3) and wouldn't have royalties being paid to third parties, hurting ROI (see point #2 & #4). But in the end playing a "what if" game for something that never had a chance of happening is fruitless in the end.

BTW, do people really believe Avatar Land was a "knee jerk" reaction. A billion dollar investment is going to be thoroughly examined. Sure, it was a move to compete with universal but to call it knee jerk is illogical. No company spends that much money without the input/thoughts of hundreds of professionals.

"Knee jerk" is a bad term and if I used it in the past I apologize. I think Disney didn't look at the correct things to justify this expansion, then combine it with WDI's budget bloating and Cameron's cost over runs it has really pushed the limits of what can be recouped. When this property was acquired three movies would be out by now, and we are no closer to them now as we were in 2011.

To quote Iger:



"Can't quantify" seems like they made a poor choice.

People are getting (very selectively) obsessed with choice of IP.

Popeye bores me...but it's the best Rapids ride I've ever been on. Song of the South... Never seen it, never want too. Cars? Worst Pixar film of the lot. Never seen an episode of the twighlight zone. Aerosmith? Not that fussed. Transformers? An awful film franchise.

Stop talking about an IP in a theme park as if you have to love it to love the rides/area....because you're likely being a hypocrite.

Every example you listed, excluding Cars, is one attraction. Cars has an established, large, merchandise presence and huge popularity with boys. I'll add one more to your list, Waterworld is bad but I hear the stunt show is amazing. Conversely I think The Simpsons is one of the greatest TV shows ever but I think the ride isn't that good. But Avatar is a LAND that costs over $800 million dollars that is sold on merch sales and sequels that haven't come out yet. That causes issues (points #2-#4).

It is not a hypocrite to say building a land on an IP that has totally stalled is not smart and guests will be hurt by it. Splash Mountain at Disneyland was budget engineered by having AAs from America Sings removed and installed in the attraction, that's a far cry from what Avatar is getting.

i ve never understood the merchandise angle
we have no idea what will be offered, butterbeer was hardly in the movies but a frozen butterbeer is the best theme park drink in orlando
who know s what they have
ive yet to hear a reasonable argument on why this land wont be incredibly successful

Please see points #2-4 again regarding the use of merchandise to justify this addition. Butterbeer was used in the books but at least it was used, nothing was used in the Avatar movies.

Please see all my points on how this land COULD be an issue for a successful and profitable theme parks division.

----

Being critical of this expansion in no way means that it will be bad or that it cannot be successful in Disney's eyes. I've been a follower or in this industry for two decades so I'm calling out how I see this not meeting exceeding high internal requirements. For a comparison when the original Wizarding World opened I remember questioning several issues of it while at a fraternity party in college with a girl (this is why I'm single): Universal's branding as a theme park within a theme park (confusing) and Universal's ability to produce a land worthy of the franchise. I was proven wrong with Universal's ability to bring Harry Potter to life but was proven correct, again and again, with their poor marketing.

There's a few more points I want to make but they've escaped me as I've been running around today.

 

[epcyclopedia]

i ve never understood the merchandise angle
we have no idea what will be offered, butterbeer was hardly in the movies but a frozen butterbeer is the best theme park drink in orlando
who know s what they have
ive yet to hear a reasonable argument on why this land wont be incredibly successful

Cuz the puppets said so:

 

[UniversalRBLX]

I think the main issue is that the project itself is not worth 1 Billion.

Everest costed 100 million.

We could have had several attractions but Iger decided to party with Cameron.

 

[twebber55]

I think the main issue is that the project itself is not worth 1 Billion.

Everest costed 100 million.

We could have had several attractions but Iger decided to party with Cameron.

who says the project cost 1 billion

 

[twebber55]

Well I'm home now I wonder how things are... ok. Hmm.

First please read my first post again. To quote:



Let me restate and clarify four points I want to make:

1.) Avatar will be, at least, as nice as Carsland, the last major land added to a domestic park. Carsland is great.
2.) Avatar's theme park presence is directly tied to Universal and Harry Potter; Universal passed on the rights after Cameron's demands were too much, Disney saw it as an opportunity, and the rights were bought. Disney's ROI is based on the Harry Potter model.
3.) Avatar land's budget has ballooned as Cameron became more demanding, changes were made during production, and other WDI budget inflation. This makes #2 harder to accomplish.
4.) When Disney projects do not hit ROI it stunts growth in the parks. Everest and Mission:Space are two good examples posted in this thread.



If you do not care about future investment in the Disney parks, then you can ignore the price tag. As I stated above a project that does not recoup cost stunts growth. A Beastley Kingdome expansion was presented to WDW after Everest and they passed on it because of Everest brought in new guests but did not extend their stay or increase guest spending.

I do agree that other factors such as the economy, politics, ESPN, Iger, and more does play a significant role in capital allotment, too.



I'm sorry it seems we're jumping down your throat, that's not my intention. This is something I've been thinking and trying to put into words for a very long time. The dams sort of opened this week. As I noted above in #2 I do agree this is a response to Universal, but a 2011 Universal.



I see nothing defensive about what I'm saying. I do not see a single person here not saying this expansion doesn't appear very good, at least. But as I say in #2 you cannot uncouple the land with it's expectations and history. Many insiders have already said that a strong Avatar expansion will be used by UC to improve their projects.



I'm not sure what you're getting at in the first paragraph. As I said before it can be great but point #2-4 still stands.

As for Avatar fitting into Animal Kingdom, it still doesn't fit as a whole land. And it's far from a "perfect fit".



I do not think it would be built in Animal Kingdom as its whole land, for sure. If it was also Disney's own theme park creation it wouldn't be under the approval of Cameron (see point #3) and wouldn't have royalties being paid to third parties, hurting ROI (see point #2 & #4). But in the end playing a "what if" game for something that never had a chance of happening is fruitless in the end.



"Knee jerk" is a bad term and if I used it in the past I apologize. I think Disney didn't look at the correct things to justify this expansion, then combine it with WDI's budget bloating and Cameron's cost over runs it has really pushed the limits of what can be recouped. When this property was acquired three movies would be out by now, and we are no closer to them now as we were in 2011.

To quote Iger:



"Can't quantify" seems like they made a poor choice.



Every example you listed, excluding Cars, is one attraction. Cars has an established, large, merchandise presence and huge popularity with boys. I'll add one more to your list, Waterworld is bad but I hear the stunt show is amazing. Conversely I think The Simpsons is one of the greatest TV shows ever but I think the ride isn't that good. But Avatar is a LAND that costs over $800 million dollars that is sold on merch sales and sequels that haven't come out yet. That causes issues (points #2-#4).

It is not a hypocrite to say building a land on an IP that has totally stalled is not smart and guests will be hurt by it. Splash Mountain at Disneyland was budget engineered by having AAs from America Sings removed and installed in the attraction, that's a far cry from what Avatar is getting.



Please see points #2-4 again regarding the use of merchandise to justify this addition. Butterbeer was used in the books but at least it was used, nothing was used in the Avatar movies.

Please see all my points on how this land COULD be an issue for a successful and profitable theme parks division.

----

Being critical of this expansion in no way means that it will be bad or that it cannot be successful in Disney's eyes. I've been a follower or in this industry for two decades so I'm calling out how I see this not meeting exceeding high internal requirements. For a comparison when the original Wizarding World opened I remember questioning several issues of it while at a fraternity party in college with a girl (this is why I'm single): Universal's branding as a theme park within a theme park (confusing) and Universal's ability to produce a land worthy of the franchise. I was proven wrong with Universal's ability to bring Harry Potter to life but was proven correct, again and again, with their poor marketing.

There's a few more points I want to make but they've escaped me as I've been running around today.

i disagree with most points here

 

[adjjb]

"Can't quantify" seems like they made a poor choice.

The full quote is "We really believe in the coming years, the interest in Avatar is only going to grow as those movies enter the marketplace,”.... then then "can't quantify" part.

The entire statement is based on the fact Avatar 2,3,4, and 5 is already greenlit. Which with 4 movies on horizon it is hard to quantify

 

[quinnmac000]

The full quote is "We really believe in the coming years, the interest in Avatar is only going to grow as those movies enter the marketplace,”.... then then "can't quantify" part.

The entire statement is based on the fact Avatar 2,3,4, and 5 is already greenlit. Which with 4 movies on horizon it is hard to quantify

It depends on if the films are great well recieved and popular and underwhelming. I'm not attached to any characters in Avatar. Beautiful landscape underwhelming story.

 

[Mad Dog]

Well I'm home now I wonder how things are... ok. Hmm.

First please read my first post again. To quote:



Let me restate and clarify four points I want to make:

1.) Avatar will be, at least, as nice as Carsland, the last major land added to a domestic park. Carsland is great.
2.) Avatar's theme park presence is directly tied to Universal and Harry Potter; Universal passed on the rights after Cameron's demands were too much, Disney saw it as an opportunity, and the rights were bought. Disney's ROI is based on the Harry Potter model.
3.) Avatar land's budget has ballooned as Cameron became more demanding, changes were made during production, and other WDI budget inflation. This makes #2 harder to accomplish.
4.) When Disney projects do not hit ROI it stunts growth in the parks. Everest and Mission:Space are two good examples posted in this thread.



If you do not care about future investment in the Disney parks, then you can ignore the price tag. As I stated above a project that does not recoup cost stunts growth. A Beastley Kingdome expansion was presented to WDW after Everest and they passed on it because of Everest brought in new guests but did not extend their stay or increase guest spending.

I do agree that other factors such as the economy, politics, ESPN, Iger, and more does play a significant role in capital allotment, too.



I'm sorry it seems we're jumping down your throat, that's not my intention. This is something I've been thinking and trying to put into words for a very long time. The dams sort of opened this week. As I noted above in #2 I do agree this is a response to Universal, but a 2011 Universal.



I see nothing defensive about what I'm saying. I do not see a single person here not saying this expansion doesn't appear very good, at least. But as I say in #2 you cannot uncouple the land with it's expectations and history. Many insiders have already said that a strong Avatar expansion will be used by UC to improve their projects.



I'm not sure what you're getting at in the first paragraph. As I said before it can be great but point #2-4 still stands.

As for Avatar fitting into Animal Kingdom, it still doesn't fit as a whole land. And it's far from a "perfect fit".



I do not think it would be built in Animal Kingdom as its whole land, for sure. If it was also Disney's own theme park creation it wouldn't be under the approval of Cameron (see point #3) and wouldn't have royalties being paid to third parties, hurting ROI (see point #2 & #4). But in the end playing a "what if" game for something that never had a chance of happening is fruitless in the end.



"Knee jerk" is a bad term and if I used it in the past I apologize. I think Disney didn't look at the correct things to justify this expansion, then combine it with WDI's budget bloating and Cameron's cost over runs it has really pushed the limits of what can be recouped. When this property was acquired three movies would be out by now, and we are no closer to them now as we were in 2011.

To quote Iger:



"Can't quantify" seems like they made a poor choice.



Every example you listed, excluding Cars, is one attraction. Cars has an established, large, merchandise presence and huge popularity with boys. I'll add one more to your list, Waterworld is bad but I hear the stunt show is amazing. Conversely I think The Simpsons is one of the greatest TV shows ever but I think the ride isn't that good. But Avatar is a LAND that costs over $800 million dollars that is sold on merch sales and sequels that haven't come out yet. That causes issues (points #2-#4).

It is not a hypocrite to say building a land on an IP that has totally stalled is not smart and guests will be hurt by it. Splash Mountain at Disneyland was budget engineered by having AAs from America Sings removed and installed in the attraction, that's a far cry from what Avatar is getting.



Please see points #2-4 again regarding the use of merchandise to justify this addition. Butterbeer was used in the books but at least it was used, nothing was used in the Avatar movies.

Please see all my points on how this land COULD be an issue for a successful and profitable theme parks division.

----

Being critical of this expansion in no way means that it will be bad or that it cannot be successful in Disney's eyes. I've been a follower or in this industry for two decades so I'm calling out how I see this not meeting exceeding high internal requirements. For a comparison when the original Wizarding World opened I remember questioning several issues of it while at a fraternity party in college with a girl (this is why I'm single): Universal's branding as a theme park within a theme park (confusing) and Universal's ability to produce a land worthy of the franchise. I was proven wrong with Universal's ability to bring Harry Potter to life but was proven correct, again and again, with their poor marketing.

There's a few more points I want to make but they've escaped me as I've been running around today.

Another excellent summary, adding to your first. :thumbsup:

 

[Parkscope Joe]

The full quote is "We really believe in the coming years, the interest in Avatar is only going to grow as those movies enter the marketplace,”.... then then "can't quantify" part.

The entire statement is based on the fact Avatar 2,3,4, and 5 is already greenlit. Which with 4 movies on horizon it is hard to quantify

They cannot quantify interest in the property. The point I made still stands, at this point Disney is stuck in a bad situation and a poor choice.

 

[twebber55]

They cannot quantify interest in the property. The point I made still stands, at this point Disney is stuck in a bad situation and a poor choice.

they re not stuck nor do they think they are stuck

 

[DoubleJ]

It depends on if the films are great well recieved and popular and underwhelming. I'm not attached to any characters in Avatar. Beautiful landscape underwhelming story.

Tell me, why do you like Diagon Alley? Is it the story? Is it because it's Harry Potter? Or is it because the "landscape" is fascinating and stunning?

A theme park's job is to immerse you in a landscape, a fantasy. Avatar's landscape is one of the most fascinating and remarkable landscapes of any IP. Simply put, this is why it will blow away any pessimistic financial expectations set by those who romanticize the monetary prowess of the Harry Potter expansions. They think they get it. They don't. (And I have no shame in admitting that I'll be quite happy when they're proven wrong.)

 

[DoubleJ]

They cannot quantify interest in the property. The point I made still stands, at this point Disney is stuck in a bad situation and a poor choice.

Of course they can't quantify interest in the property. Do I have to explain why? A bad situation? We'll see. A poor choice? Most definitely not.

 

[epcyclopedia]

Diagon works because the landscape is full of -meaningful- details.

Drag someone who doesn't know Potter there and they like it ok, but they typically want to do the ride and go. They may shop a little and look at things, and while it's very interesting it's not terribly meaningful for them.

Please point out what items in Diagon are selling like hot cakes to people who don't know the franchise.

 

[epcyclopedia]

Converse situation - ain't nobody loving the current ride in Imagination.

Figment plush still sells well. It's the emotional connection to the character as he was originally established.

AVATAR doesn't have that.