View Poll Results: Original idea vs. Avatar

Voters
137. You may not vote on this poll
  • Avatar

    36 26.28%
  • Original

    91 66.42%
  • Don't know

    10 7.30%
Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 293
  1. #151

    • Senior Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    9,163

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by TylerDurden View Post
    Acquiring outside properties for rides has existed since Disneyland started--did Walt Disney invent the story of Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Davy Crockett, etc.
    Numerous posts have explained the difference between Disney turning folk tales and public domain literature into their own, unique films and theme park attractions, and licensing James Cameron's Avatar. The "Walt did it" argument has been thoroughly discredited, yet continues to be cited in support of Avatar at DAK. Really, it's not convincing anyone -- any more than the attempts to equate the rich, memorable characters of the Star Wars and Indiana Jones universes with the vacuous flash-and-dazzle FX of Avatar.
    Last edited by Mr Wiggins; 09-28-2011 at 01:36 PM.
    "With the acquisition of Marvel and now of Lucasfilm,
    Disney may have finally found the grail. You don't need
    imagination or art. All you need is a brand."

    - Neil Gabler


  2. #152

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    toronto
    Posts
    2,185

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by disneyfann121 View Post
    For $500 million +?

    No. I don't think so.

    Imagineering has shown time and again that they have the great ideas, concepts and ability to execute. What they don't always have is the proper budget to pull it off. So if the reports of a Cars Land sized budget are true, then we are in for a treat, not a trick.

    ---------- Post added 09-28-2011 at 02:39 PM ----------


    Indy, Star Tours et. al. received little or no criticism because they are high quality, well executed attractions. Very few people cared that they were not based on original ideas. As I and others pointed out in the first (late lamented) thread about Avatar, the same will be true for Avatar Land and Cars Land -- quality and execution will be the bottom line. If they are done right, most will applaud; the minority will be sitting at home writing critical posts, while the rest of us pack our bags...

    By the way, according to Al's latest column, the price tag for Cars Land is already over $600 million. So Avatar Land won't be a bigger project. Let's just hope they go all out for Avatar the way they did for Cars. It's time for "if you build it, they will come", rather than "let's see what we can get away with." The latter philosophy failed miserably.
    there's actually never been any budget information released at all for the project. the wording used by the execs was that at this time they are looking for the scale to be similar to cars land. Scale is a very open ended term and can mainly relates to size not dollar value, but its very hard to predict. however you cant say that its budget is over 500 million when not only a) they don't even know what exactly they are building yet, and b) when you base an exact dollar value on a vague statement that might not even relate to money at all.

    to clarify your statement, Indy and Star Tours never received that level of criticism because they are high quality attractions, and were based on timeless, classic films that had huge loyal fan bases. the later is what Avatar lacks as I will bet you anything that if the former attractions were being green lit today, you would see far more optimism and less then half of the opposition. Obviously I will still be packing my bags and heading to Disney after this opens but it will certainly not be the thing that drew me there. Now granted if the execution is phenomenal I will be much more at ease and will gladly walk through it like any other land and enjoy, but from a strictly business, thematic, and overall park's perspective (as I have been directing my comments through both threads), this is a mistake on Disney's part.

    I totally agree with your final statement, who wouldn't, and look at what happened when they did this for example in lands like Africa and Asia. If they built another continent of that quality and marketed in properly it would have had the same draw as Avatar, I wholeheartedly believe that.

  3. #153

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,611

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Doombuggygal View Post
    I voted that Disney needs an original idea. Avatar does not belong in a Disney Park, much less Animal Kingdom. The creatures in Avatar are made up, so unless you create a mythical creatures land like Beastly Kingdom it doesn't make sense. What next, Disney will acquire the Smurfs, Carebears, and Monchichis and add them to their parks or Animal Kingdom. No, no, no. Disney go back to creating rides first, I know you can do it. And no more Country Bears, Haunted Mansion movie fiascos. Grumble, grumble...
    If Beatlie Kingdomme is a land about made-up animals, and the Avatar-land is also a land about made-up animals, then why would Avatar make less "sense" than BK? Personally, I would have loved to see BK, but IMO Avatar's message of environmental stewardship makes it a very good fit for AK (perhaps even more so than BK).

    ---------- Post added 09-28-2011 at 03:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by goofy donald View Post
    Indy and Star Tours never received that level of criticism because they are high quality attractions, and were based on timeless, classic films that had huge loyal fan bases
    Star Tours and Indy were also built before the internet became common social media. If the internet was around back then, I'm sure there would have been no shortage of people voicing the opinion that Lucas and Mickey didn't belong together. A virtual tempest would have been guaranteed!
    Last edited by tasman; 09-28-2011 at 12:42 PM.
    Down with the Hat


  4. #154

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Menomonie, Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    811

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    I look at the Avatar plan the same way I look at any franchise project, what if the world of Pandora had been an original idea? What if instead of being a very successful film, WDI had imagined a world where plants, animals, and anthropomorphic beings lived together in not only a figurative circle-of-life, but an actual physical one. For those who haven't seen Avatar, on the moon of Pandora, all living things are connected in a bio-electric network that allows beings to sense each others thoughts, synchronize their minds, and even retain memories of those who have passed. To me, even if this wasn't an amazing film, it would still be an amazing premise. It's different and novel. Pocahontas also explored the interconnections between living things, but it was still in the realm of complete fantasy. Avatar is fantasy, but makes an effort to bring reality into the equation.

    To me, this is far more interesting and applicable to the message of Disney's Animal Kingdom than the Beastly Kingdom ever could have been. The Beastly Kingdom was an interesting idea, but Disney lost it. I think its an extremely hypocritical argument to make that Disney should be a leader, but then advocate building an environment that, to the casual observer, would really be a Potter-less Potter imitation. If I was a non-Disney-freak guest, I would look at Beastly Kingdom and think to myself, why? Why would I spend my money to see dragons and unicorns when I could see pretty much the same thing across town as part of one of my favorite franchises?

    Granted, using the Avatar franchise can still rightfully be seen as a reaction to Potter, but at least for the guest, it provides something different, something unique. As my .02 to the whole what would Walt do train-of-thought, I think its a non-issue. As far as I'm concerned, had Walt still been around, Avatar would have been made by Disney. A film that pushes both film-making and film-screening technologies, Walt would have been all over that.
    In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate.

    DoppelV

  5. #155

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    toronto
    Posts
    2,185

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by tasman View Post
    If Beatlie Kingdomme is a land about made-up animals, and the Avatar-land is also a land about made-up animals, then why would Avatar make less "sense" than BK? Personally, I would have loved to see BK, but IMO Avatar's message of environmental stewardship makes it a very good fit for AK (perhaps even more so than BK).

    ---------- Post added 09-28-2011 at 03:39 PM ----------



    Star Tours and Indy were also built before the internet became common social media. If the internet was around back then, I'm sure there would have been no shortage of people voicing the opinion that Lucas and Mickey didn't belong together. A virtual tempest would have been guaranteed!
    simply the fact that beastly kingdom would have represented things from this world and avatar is on a different planet. Animal Kngdom's central focus is on the earth and therefore right there Avatar doesn't fit along with a multitude of other points already explained in detail. Then again I was never a fan of BK either anyways so I'm glad they nixed it. As I have said previously, Australia or a Dinoland and Planet watch redo/expansion would have been better then Avatar.

    I don't even need to respond to the second half as I will merely add the full quote that you decided to pick from which already answers your point:

    "to clarify your statement, Indy and Star Tours never received that level of criticism because they are high quality attractions, and were based on timeless, classic films that had huge loyal fan bases. the later is what Avatar lacks as I will bet you anything that if the former attractions were being green lit today, you would see far more optimism and less then half of the opposition. Obviously I will still be packing my bags and heading to Disney after this opens but it will certainly not be the thing that drew me there. Now granted if the execution is phenomenal I will be much more at ease and will gladly walk through it like any other land and enjoy, but from a strictly business, thematic, and overall park's perspective (as I have been directing my comments through both threads), this is a mistake on Disney's part."

  6. #156

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Menomonie, Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    811

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by goofy donald View Post
    simply the fact that beastly kingdom would have represented things from this world and avatar is on a different planet. Animal Kngdom's central focus is on the earth
    Is the central focus the Earth? It seems to me the name of the park is Disney's Animal Kingdom, not Disney's Earth. If we discovered animal life on other planets, wouldn't they still belong to the animal kingdom?
    In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate.

    DoppelV

  7. #157

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    toronto
    Posts
    2,185

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by DoppelV View Post
    I look at the Avatar plan the same way I look at any franchise project, what if the world of Pandora had been an original idea? What if instead of being a very successful film, WDI had imagined a world where plants, animals, and anthropomorphic beings lived together in not only a figurative circle-of-life, but an actual physical one. For those who haven't seen Avatar, on the moon of Pandora, all living things are connected in a bio-electric network that allows beings to sense each others thoughts, synchronize their minds, and even retain memories of those who have passed. To me, even if this wasn't an amazing film, it would still be an amazing premise. It's different and novel. Pocahontas also explored the interconnections between living things, but it was still in the realm of complete fantasy. Avatar is fantasy, but makes an effort to bring reality into the equation.

    To me, this is far more interesting and applicable to the message of Disney's Animal Kingdom than the Beastly Kingdom ever could have been. The Beastly Kingdom was an interesting idea, but Disney lost it. I think its an extremely hypocritical argument to make that Disney should be a leader, but then advocate building an environment that, to the casual observer, would really be a Potter-less Potter imitation. If I was a non-Disney-freak guest, I would look at Beastly Kingdom and think to myself, why? Why would I spend my money to see dragons and unicorns when I could see pretty much the same thing across town as part of one of my favorite franchises?

    Granted, using the Avatar franchise can still rightfully be seen as a reaction to Potter, but at least for the guest, it provides something different, something unique. As my .02 to the whole what would Walt do train-of-thought, I think its a non-issue. As far as I'm concerned, had Walt still been around, Avatar would have been made by Disney. A film that pushes both film-making and film-screening technologies, Walt would have been all over that.
    DoppelIV, I applaud your perspective on the issue as it is very open minded, something others have been unable to achieve in certain intense situations through the history of the forum. If the franchise falls through that will be the perspective many new guests will be looking at it from so it would be best to look at the project from all angles. I agree with you in the sense that BK would not have worked for those reasons listed (and more), however I don't believe Avatar fits as seamlessly as you suggest. The key theme of Animal Kingdom at its core is not just conservation or animals but the planet earth. Avatar runs counter to this theme simply because they are not members of the earth but members of a distant, made up, planet. If we look at it from your 'what if' perspective and Disney made up the navi and animals in say a distant area of tropical rain forest in Brazil no one had ever seen before, like a lost city of sorts, then it would totally be great but that individual point alone just to start ensures that Avatar wont fit properly into AK. Its like arguing Monsters Inc should be a part of tomorrowland, sure it kind of fits but when you get down to the bare bones of it your really just taking a hammer to the wrong size piece in the jigsaw puzzle.

    ---------- Post added 09-28-2011 at 05:38 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by DoppelV View Post
    Is the central focus the Earth? It seems to me the name of the park is Disney's Animal Kingdom, not Disney's Earth. If we discovered animal life on other planets, wouldn't they still belong to the animal kingdom?
    I don't believe so. I think DAK is an examination of the natural Earth, its flora and fauna, and how we interconnect with it. This meets the message of conservation well, but it isn't our planet and our animals. I feel that the park is a way for us to explore our world and immerse ourselves in a way that wasn't possible before. It gets back to Disney's roots of inspiring people in areas such as the dinosaur ride, Africa, and Asia. adding pandora to the mix muddles that message as it injects a lot more fantasy then needed into the park and throws off that balance with the real that really engages people so much and makes Animal kingdom so popular. Aliens do not belong in AK.

  8. #158

    • In a Disney World Daze...
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Naples, Florida
    Posts
    237

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Wiggins View Post
    Numerous posts have explained the difference between Disney turning folk tales and public domain literature into their own, unique films and theme park attractions, and licensing James Cameron's Avatar. The "Walt did it" argument has been thoroughly discredited, yet continues to be cited in support of Avatar at DAK. Really, it's not convincing anyone -- any more than the attempts to equate the rich, memorable characters of the Star Wars and Indiana Jones universes with the vacuous flash-and-dazzle FX of Avatar.
    So scrap the idea of Avatar and have a Star Wars and Indy Character meet in greet because they are more memorable?

    The flash and Dazzle FX of Avatar *is* the character. The planet Pandora is the character that people DO remember, even those that didnt like the movie but were impressed by the planet.


    The "Walt Excuse" aside, those who are opposed to Avatar also have their own bag of recycled goods that isnt doing very well in the convincing department. BK seems pretty dead in the water, Avatar or no, and the poll itself is vague and offeres no creative ideas to go against it from Dinsey's arsonal of characters, stories, or movies.



    If a Universal Commercial for WWOHP came on directly after a DAK commercial for their new land "Austrailia" or EVEN BK if that was to survive.....What fantasy will more people who are not MAJOR Disney fans wish to go to ? With Avatar now instead of BK or Austrailia at least they have a Hard Core fanbase that would chomp at the bits to see it. It still may not win as many people over Harry Potter, but it has more of a fighting chance to win over peoples precious vacation dollars....

    I certainly dont think that The Little mermaid and a "family" coaster has much of a shot with middle america VS Potter, neither will adding another land with real life animal exhibits of the same creatures you can see at any major zoo.....just with a prettier cage.
    Contestant in the The Future of Imagineering Season 2 contest here on Mice Chat in the Celebrate the Parks section/Disneyland.
    Latest Prjoect in the Contest:
    http://disneyworlddaze.blogspot.com/2011/10/future-of-imagineering-season-2-project.html


    "Sometimes, I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion!"


    "Bon Voyage!"
    -S.I.R.


    "My friends are exciting, just like fireworks igniting, they're inc-reeeeeed-ible."


  9. #159

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,504

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    The flash and Dazzle FX of Avatar *is* the character. The planet Pandora is the character that people DO remember, even those that didnt like the movie but were impressed by the planet.
    The only reason it made an impression was because of the gimmick of a 3-D movie that finally looked 3-D. Without the novelty, the art direction really wasn't that impressive.

    If a Universal Commercial for WWOHP came on directly after a DAK commercial for their new land "Austrailia" or EVEN BK if that was to survive.....What fantasy will more people who are not MAJOR Disney fans wish to go to ?
    And which one will people who aren;t major Avatar fans want to go to?

    For my money, comparing WWOHP and WDW is apples and oranges.

  10. #160

    • Senior Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    9,163

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by DWD Imagineer View Post
    The flash and Dazzle FX of Avatar *is* the character.
    Flash and dazzle do not make character, nor do they make a memorable franchise. Gosh-wow eyecandy and trendy FX become yesterday's "been there, seen that" novelty in short time -- as Disney is likely to discover with Avatar.
    "With the acquisition of Marvel and now of Lucasfilm,
    Disney may have finally found the grail. You don't need
    imagination or art. All you need is a brand."

    - Neil Gabler


  11. #161

    • Closed Account
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    211

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by goofy donald View Post
    lol I'm sorry but this is one of my biggest pet peves. provide some qualification or reasoning to your statement or you loose absolutely all your credibility.
    You can end every one of your Animal Kingdom presuppositions with "... on Earth" and they would all become even more accurate than you labored to make them. Yet, you chose not to do this. And the reason you chose not to do this is because then it completely neutralizes your "Here's why Pandora makes sense in Animal Kingdom" argument.

    ---------- Post added 09-28-2011 at 05:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by TylerDurden View Post
    You're ignroing people's previous arguments. Unless you said the same thing when Disney brought in Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Twilight Zone, etc. then you can't truly say this is a new thing Disney is doing and you don't approve of it. Acquiring outside properties for rides has existed since Disneyland started--did Walt Disney invent the story of Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Davy Crockett, etc. Even Jungle Cruise was based on 'The African Queen' and I don't think that that was a Disney property. If you don't like Avatar, that's one thing, but you can't say that Disney acquiring a new property is something new so you need a new argument for them not to do it.
    It's definitely a new thing for this particular park. If Disney announced this addition was going in DHS, I still think the general reaction would be "meh" but it wouldn't be a visceral backlash. It's just not the proper place in WDW for the Avatar property.

  12. #162

    • In a Disney World Daze...
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Naples, Florida
    Posts
    237

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Wiggins View Post
    Flash and dazzle do not make character, nor do they make a memorable franchise. Gosh-wow eyecandy and trendy FX become yesterday's "been there, seen that" novelty in short time -- as Disney is likely to discover with Avatar.
    Everything about Disney Parks is flash and dazzle and trendy FX from main street usa all the way over to ToT. I also agree 100% that once the Avatar movies are finished, as well as making the assumption that they do almost as well as the first film, it will give Disney a boost in attendance during that time. If the land is done well and wows enough people the movies will no longer matter.

    And which one will people who aren;t major Avatar fans want to go to?
    ttintagel....the hypothetical question I was asking that you quoted didnt have Avatar on the table. It was comparing BK/Australia and WWOP....so Im not sure how to answer that question....

    If we changed it to avatar vs potter which one would non Avatar fans would go to depends on how much they like potter...and probably will still choose potter.
    Contestant in the The Future of Imagineering Season 2 contest here on Mice Chat in the Celebrate the Parks section/Disneyland.
    Latest Prjoect in the Contest:
    http://disneyworlddaze.blogspot.com/2011/10/future-of-imagineering-season-2-project.html


    "Sometimes, I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion!"


    "Bon Voyage!"
    -S.I.R.


    "My friends are exciting, just like fireworks igniting, they're inc-reeeeeed-ible."


  13. #163

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    324

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    I think you'd get a lot out of doing some more reading about European bestiaries. The Wiki entry is only a starting point, of course, but it should disabuse you of the notion that they don't exist.

    Bestiary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    And if your average parkgoer hasn't heard of an Esquillax of a Manticore - wouldn't it be cool if there was an attraction that featured these awesome, cool-looking beasts you hadn't heard of before? You'd be seeing something so new and exciting that you wouldn't even realize you were learning something in the process! To me, that seems far more interesting than retreading familiar things I'd already seen at the cineplex at the mall.


    You are absolutely right that there are more beasts out there. I do not argue that point. The only issue is that, if you read – say, the Aberdeen Bestiary again – you'll find that the major majority of these creatures are either not native to Europe according to mythological sources, or Greek. I would be absolutely pleased as punch of a 'Beastly Kingdomme' was instead a Greece of sorts. That would be wonderful, and it would solve a lot of my issues. But that's not what is being discussed.








    "There's no denying" is kind of a sweeping generalization, isn't it? You and your friends may have found it transporting, but I didn't, and neither did a lot of people I've talked to. It's an INCREDIBLY subjective thing, and it's not very useful or constructive in a discussion to go around telling other people what they can and can't deny about their own impressions of a particular movie.

    Walking into a solid, physically realized themed land that doesn't look like the world you live your everyday life in is going to be transportive whether it's modeled on 1940's adventure movies, Africa, or the latest box-office fad.


    There's a fine line here. First, nobody (and this is a purposeful generalization here, before it's pointed out) would argue that the world that was created did not contain extremely visually recognizable elements, and multi-layer worldbuilding. If you look at an image of Pandora in the movie, you will recognize it as such. I guarantee it. Secondly, we appear to be operating on different meanings of transportive. I'm simply saying that the world of Pandora offers much more opportunity to induce an immersive 'wow' factor than the natural world of 'Vaguely Western Europe'. It's a bigger canvas to paint.






    What about people who haven't seen the movie, or aren't fans of it? What's in it for them?


    Doesn't matter if you've seen it or not. If it is immersive enough, than the guests will accept and recognize the point that the Imagineers want to put across – I assume that of 'other-worldly'-ness. My point isn't that you have to see the movie to get it. In fact, that's a whole other argument, and one that's gone back and forth on this thread already.




    Since you haven't seen the concept art for how they plan to build the Avatar land, how can you compare the two? Also, nobody's saying that a new Beastly Kingdom construction would have to be a faithful execution of the original concept art as it existed when it was first proposed. Since they're going to have to draft a new design for the Avatar concept, it would be just as easy for them to draft a new design around any other concept.


    If you read my original post, you will see that I am addressing specifically the commonly seen habit of people on this and other boards to pine after the 'Beastly Kingdom(me)' idea as was originally proposed. I agree with you completely that it has potential (I said that as well) if it was altered. The fact is though that many people seem to think that the Beastly Kingdom(me) idea was the greatest idea ever proposed in the form that was shown. And it's not.


    I'd just like to add that it doesn't matter if you or I LIKE the idea. What matters is whether or not it fits thematically. I am arguing that Beastly Kingdom(me) as originally proposed does not fit in thematically at Animal Kingdom. For that and other reasons, I believe that the Avatar Land project is a much more satisfactory rounding out of the park, and I also believe that Beastly Kingdom(me) should be taken down from its pedestal in terms of the undying love it seems to receive. Avatar Land (Pandora) has much more potential for a much more thematically correct addition. That is all I'm saying.

    And also, to Krack, that's not me that you're addressing. The person who said the pet peeve thing was someone else. But I'll address the 'on Earth' thing anyway.

    Whoever said it was about Earth? It's Animal Kingdom, be they real, extinct, or imagined. Yes, putting on Earth would ruin a lot of arguments. But there's no need to do that because it's never been inherent in the concept of Animal Kingdom. For my money, Beastly Kingdom(me) would be no more 'on Earth' than Pandora would. Except that BK would be less fun to look at at night.
    "And after a long time or a short time, Ivan and the Wolf came at last to the home of the Firebird..."

  14. #164

    • Closed Account
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    211

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by DoppelV View Post
    Is the central focus the Earth? It seems to me the name of the park is Disney's Animal Kingdom, not Disney's Earth. If we discovered animal life on other planets, wouldn't they still belong to the animal kingdom?
    So you feel film properties like Alien, Predator, Flash Gordon, Star Wars, War of the Worlds, and the Abyss all fit Animal Kingdom too?

  15. #165

    • Senior Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    9,163

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by 0ranos View Post
    Doesn't matter if you've seen it or not. If it is immersive enough, than the guests will accept and recognize the point that the Imagineers want to put across – I assume that of 'other-worldly'-ness. My point isn't that you have to see the movie to get it.
    If you don't have to have seen the movie, liked the movie or even heard of the movie, why should Disney spend hundreds of millions to license it -- and burden themselves with a notoriously budget-busting director/creator/franchise owner?

    If Disney's "legendary Imagineers" (to quote Cameron) are so creatively competent, and an "other-worldly" experience is desired for DAK, why burn all those bucks for the name and art direction of one movie (sequels? we'll see, if and when they happen) that had no memorable characters, no memorable story and zero merchandise potential?

    Unless, of course, they're in panic-catchup-with-Universal-and-grab-any-big-name mode.
    Last edited by Mr Wiggins; 09-28-2011 at 02:40 PM.
    "With the acquisition of Marvel and now of Lucasfilm,
    Disney may have finally found the grail. You don't need
    imagination or art. All you need is a brand."

    - Neil Gabler


Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 891011121314 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. James Cameron's 'Avatar' - Poll Added
    By ALIASd in forum MiceChat News Archive
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 03-09-2010, 01:30 PM
  2. [Chat] Casey Jr. Circus Train Discussion: Original Idea
    By ChessurInWonderland in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 10-13-2009, 06:34 PM
  3. Avatar Theme of the week POLL for: July 11 - July 15
    By AnotherPixie in forum MiceChat Main Lounge
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-11-2005, 05:04 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •