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 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 1017181920
Results 286 to 293 of 293
  1. #286

    • The Darkness to Light
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,557

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    They actually do have that option with Pandora, as the only big fictional elements of the fauna are the trees that glow and the various giant plant life. Everything else is generic enough to count as some kind of tropical rain forest plant. Even the Discover Pandora feature that they did during pre-production calls most of their vegetation rain forest like pants. The only thing that would require actual construction in a controlled environment would be the glowing spirit tree at the least.

    And I believe I also read an article saying that a large part of Pandora's location was inspired by a place in China.
    WARNING: Any opinions expressed by this user are wrong.

  2. #287

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    toronto
    Posts
    1,930

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Truecoat View Post
    I don't know if you are getting your info off wikipedia or what but it's not correct. Through the eighties almost all movies started at the higher (rental) price tag. It was only after they had been at this price for 6 months to a year that they would reduce to a sell through price. This didn't change much until Batman was released on video in the late 80's. Even afterward many movies had the higher sell through into the 90's unless they were animated or blockbusters.

    Here are some quotes from a forum. I'll provide the address if you want.

    I paid $103.00 for Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) on VHS back in the day when it was first released and I also paid $63 for Alien when that was released on VHS as well. And to add insult to injury, neither of the titles were released in their OAR. That's right, $166 worth of FS/PS goodness.

    I remember when Scream (1996) First came out on video I paid $70 for it....

    I remember The Hunt For Red October (1990) going for $100
    I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this because I know for a fact and have valid and credible sources that there were many movies released at a sell through price well prior to the late 80s and backing up every one of the facts I have said not just on this thread but through my posts on this forum. As a side note I think its interesting how you talk about Wikipedia's credibility when the main source you present are quotes from an unnamed forum lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truecoat View Post
    I agree it wouldn't probably cost as much but that's apples and oranges. We were talking about a land not an addition.
    Regardless, that was the point you tried to make before, that adding on to star tours to make a star wars land would cost more then this expansive and expensive Avatar land. Guess that means you agree with me on that front

    Quote Originally Posted by Truecoat View Post
    It's funny that you keep calling them aliens. Why is a Unicorn (horse with horn and possibly magical) any different than a Direhorse (horse with 6 legs in Avatar)?
    as described by Merriam-Webster's dictionary, alien: a creature originating, existing, or occurring outside the earth or its atmosphere. that is why I call the creatures of Avatar ALIENS. a unicorn is different from a Dire-horse because a unicorn is a mythological creature while a Dire-horse is an alien from outer space, pretty cut and dry here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truecoat View Post
    I guess sometimes people can't see the forest through the trees. It was one thing Avatar tried to convey. I don't really assume ideas I already know.
    Right, so because I don't agree with your opinions I cant "see the forest from the trees"? yes, this is a totally reasonable and justified point.................

  3. #288

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Paper St
    Posts
    1,359

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by goofy donald View Post
    Well first off before I get in to this, could you please express your opinions outside the quotation box as it may not have been what you intended but it makes it seem like I said those bold and italicized comments and in turn contradicted myself. which I did not.
    I would say again, it doesn't apply at all. because of the huge gap between the ride and the movie it is almost as if SM is an original idea. This in turn would mean that the people are just connecting with the characters threw the ride, something that many people have said that is one of the problems that Avatar had as a film. Again we have to talk about this project as a land not a ride and your speculating a large amount on that point, we have no idea what the ride(s) are going to be let alone what they will be about but it will be safe to assume they will have a lot to do with the actual movie franchise. I never said that the next two movies would hurt the future relevance of the land, what I said was that the lands success will rely on the next two movies, obviously if they are flops its not going to help the land in the long run but if they are successful then it should bode well for the future of the land. Again this is what makes splash mountain unconnected to this project because the Avatar land is coming right in the middle of the Avatar movies, how could the land and the movies not be connected? Indy is also irrelevant because A) its not an irrelevant franchise and is still viable and memorable to many today, nor was it outdated in 1995 in any way as Avatar is currently and B) it had both good movies AND a good attraction, something we don't know Avatar has yet. I seem to be constantly repeating myself here and I'm not sure what doesn't make sense to yourself in particular.

    Nobody is arguing that people didn't see this movie but again, I've done the calculations, they are available in various posts, its been proven that Avatar was not as successful as it appeared to be. Again I have also said I enjoyed the movie, I never said I didn't like it, I just though it was OK specifically because of mediocre acting and a cheesy story line. I found it as a very effects reliant almost novelty product and statistics are showing that others may have as well, we will only be able to see who's right after the release of the second film. People don't realize i think that a film's release in IMAX and 3D has nothing to do with its box office inflation but the percentage of people who saw it in those formats does. Harry Potter wasn't at the same level as avatar because not even a quarter of the percentage of people went to see HP in higher formats then they did at Avatar who got an insane 74% average world wide and domestic total.

    That is true, however if nobody is buying anything to do with the movie outside the parks, what makes you think they will miraculously start selling things like hotcakes in the land? just because the land is there doesn't mean it will just start selling things, they need to have a generated interest that is proven not to be there by non existent previous real world sales. You cant instantly say well Universal stores i.e. Harry Potter are instantly successful so therefore this would be too, HP had actual generated interest an billions in sales prior to the lands construction and the interest continued through the land's opening. Also referring to your point towards Australia, by that logic the Asia and Africa lands would have nothing to sell either yet in case you didn't notice they seem to pack those shelves rather easily. Australian tourism makes almost $100,000,000,000 annually, do they have nothing to sell either. I'm sorry but this is an uncharacteristically poor argument on your part.



    So yeah I liked Avatar, it has nothing to do with my opinions on why it was a bad move for Disney and why it doesn't fit in AK. I just don't see how YOUR points make sense here. Of course I also respect your opinions also, but Avatar was a poor choice by Disney.
    Okay, I'll address your points by paragraph.

    1.) I'm sorry, I honestly don't know how to take multiple sections of a quote and put it in the same post. That was just the easiest way to do it but I tried to distinguish me from you. I'm pretty sure no one actually thinks that's you talking to yourself lol.

    2.) I understand that the movies and land will be more connected than Splash Mountain and Song of the South. I'm definitely not disagreeing with you there. But I do think that there can be a distinguished difference between a good ride and what may (or may not be) possibly be bad movies. The ride, the land, the shops, the restaurants, all of that will most likely not be character-based but be enviornment-based, because that's what Animal Kingdom is all about. DINOSAUR's main focus are the dinos, not the time traveling scientist. Everest is about the Yeti and the mountain. The Safari does feature poachers and such but the focus is seeing animals. So yes, Avatar as a franchise may not hold up in the next few years (again, this is an assumption--the Spiderman franchise didn't really catch people's attention until number 2 came out and then number 3 became the highest-grossing film of all time), but I just don't see how that will affect the quality of the theme park attraction. Indiana Jones may not have been outdated in 1995, but you are the only person who seems to think Avatar is. That's your opinion, but I still think people learning of an Avatar 'experience' will flock to see it because they know it'll be something out of this world and know what they want to see come to life...unlike the very real and very well-known Australia. And speaking of Indy, it's a ride that relies on enviornments and effects, not the character drama between Indy, Sallah, and Marion or Short Round.

    3.) It's a succesful movie. There's no denying it. Heck, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland was a succesful movie. It may not have sold more tickets than other movies that year, but does that cancel out its overall success with audiences? If you still think Avatar wasn't 'that' succesful, then you can still look at examples such as 'Space Mountain'--no movie, no box office, still a fun ride.

    4.) Obviously Harry Potter will always sell more merchandise than Avatar--it'll sell more merchandise than any property. But your argument against having the rights to Avatar seems to be that there is no merchandising that can succesfully stem from the movie. I'm sure lots of excited people coming off the ride or out of the land will definitely be interested in buying some memorabilia or cool toys. The Terminator show at Universal opens into a gift shop and children who I'm sure have never been able to sit through a Terminator movie go ga-ga over the toy guns and action figures and even some of the T-shirts in there. You're right about there not being a whole lot of options with Avatar, but it's not like the stores will sit stocked for days on end because some cool stuff could come from such a neat property.

    4.) Hopefully, you see where I'm coming from now and my points make more sense to you. If not, that's cool, but I still think it's a little premature and maybe narrow-sighted to say flat out that "Avatar was a poor choice for Disney". I mean, I think the people up there know a lot about what they're talking about and what they're doing.

  4. #289

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    toronto
    Posts
    1,930

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by TylerDurden View Post
    1.) I'm sorry, I honestly don't know how to take multiple sections of a quote and put it in the same post. That was just the easiest way to do it but I tried to distinguish me from you. I'm pretty sure no one actually thinks that's you talking to yourself lol.
    no apology necessary, I was just pointing it out for future reference.

    Quote Originally Posted by TylerDurden View Post
    2.) I understand that the movies and land will be more connected than Splash Mountain and Song of the South. I'm definitely not disagreeing with you there. But I do think that there can be a distinguished difference between a good ride and what may (or may not be) possibly be bad movies. The ride, the land, the shops, the restaurants, all of that will most likely not be character-based but be enviornment-based, because that's what Animal Kingdom is all about. DINOSAUR's main focus are the dinos, not the time traveling scientist. Everest is about the Yeti and the mountain. The Safari does feature poachers and such but the focus is seeing animals. So yes, Avatar as a franchise may not hold up in the next few years (again, this is an assumption--the Spiderman franchise didn't really catch people's attention until number 2 came out and then number 3 became the highest-grossing film of all time), but I just don't see how that will affect the quality of the theme park attraction. Indiana Jones may not have been outdated in 1995, but you are the only person who seems to think Avatar is. That's your opinion, but I still think people learning of an Avatar 'experience' will flock to see it because they know it'll be something out of this world and know what they want to see come to life...unlike the very real and very well-known Australia. And speaking of Indy, it's a ride that relies on environments and effects, not the character drama between Indy, Sallah, and Marion or Short Round.
    Oh I totally agree with the bold section above, my point is and always have been that the land will not have a huge initial draw and a sustained draw of people that some are suggesting unless the remainder of the franchise does very well and connects better with its audience then the original did. the movies will never affect the quality of the new land, no question, but they will affect the amount of people that are drawn to WDW to see it, and that is the key issue being discussed here. I'm most definitely not the only person who thinks Avatar is near extinct from our current pop culture circles (for proof on this read the other 20 pages of this thread and the 36 some-odd pages of the previous one). fact is, people talk about, remember, and enjoy I.J. to this day, he is engraved in our pop culture lexicon as one of the most famous heroes of the modern day, everybody knows who he is. A lot less - few people however can name the characters of Avatar or even what the aliens were called. Its undeniably faded from peoples minds. That's why i don't believe people will 'flock' to this new experience, because quite frankly they don't care about Avatar enough to form a vacation around visiting that location. Obviously the new land will still be visited, I mean heck its Disney and something new will always be worth a visit, your already there why avoid a new section of the park? but will it make people say "we have too go to Animal Kingdom to see this" my educated opinion is no, and most certainly not in the numbers suggested from your previous statements. On that note, switching over to your comments about Australia, so people don't really care that much about Africa and Asia then at AK by that logic because they can go there whenever and they already know about it? old news i guess huh? those two area's are arguably the two most popular in the park and arguably the entire resort (for theme specifically). The key to why lands like those ARE so successful are because it gives people the opportunity to get a brief piece of what a part of that continent is really like both naturally and culturally. these are examples of edu-tainment at its finest and it gives people a chance to experience, learn, and see things they never would have thought of without those areas. We cant say for certain what people want but if we've learned anything from Africa and Asia lands, we know that people like THAT. its more cohesive with AK, would most likely have the same if not greater long term draw then Avatar would, and give people another experience to enjoy. Now that you brought Indy up btw, that's actually incorrect, the ride relies heavily on the story of the previous three movies, and in particular Indy himself. No one said character drama was important, but plot, characters, and drama all are lol. the character Indiana Jones and the story of the movies that captivated audiences drove them in to the attraction, Avatar doesn't have that to anywhere near the same degree.

    Quote Originally Posted by TylerDurden View Post
    3.) It's a succesful movie. There's no denying it. Heck, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland was a succesful movie. It may not have sold more tickets than other movies that year, but does that cancel out its overall success with audiences? If you still think Avatar wasn't 'that' succesful, then you can still look at examples such as 'Space Mountain'--no movie, no box office, still a fun ride.
    I never said it wasn't successful, what I was saying is that Avatar is not AS successful as others seem to believe. Space Mountain doesn't apply here because its an original Imagineering concept vs a purchased movie franchise, two completely different fields.

    Quote Originally Posted by TylerDurden View Post
    4.) Obviously Harry Potter will always sell more merchandise than Avatar--it'll sell more merchandise than any property. But your argument against having the rights to Avatar seems to be that there is no merchandising that can succesfully stem from the movie. I'm sure lots of excited people coming off the ride or out of the land will definitely be interested in buying some memorabilia or cool toys. The Terminator show at Universal opens into a gift shop and children who I'm sure have never been able to sit through a Terminator movie go ga-ga over the toy guns and action figures and even some of the T-shirts in there. You're right about there not being a whole lot of options with Avatar, but it's not like the stores will sit stocked for days on end because some cool stuff could come from such a neat property.
    Yes, I will agree with the fact that as long as you force kids with parents and their wallets through a store and have objects on the shelves, you will make sales. the issue here is two pronged. first there are no stores to begin with in Avatar so the fact that there would be one in the first place in plain site is already ruining the theme and would have to be done very carefully. second if your only getting impulse buys, then you better have a darn good attraction because its not going to get you any major profits whatsoever. what you need is products people just cant get anywhere else, things that are special and get people to go back into the land just to get them. not only does avatar really have little merchandising options to choose from because of the nature of the film itself, Disney hasn't exactly put a lot of effort lately into the merchandising game (example being homogenization of all their stores to sell relatively the same items).

    Quote Originally Posted by TylerDurden View Post
    5.) Hopefully, you see where I'm coming from now and my points make more sense to you. If not, that's cool, but I still think it's a little premature and maybe narrow-sighted to say flat out that "Avatar was a poor choice for Disney". I mean, I think the people up there know a lot about what they're talking about and what they're doing.
    I can respect your argument, and yes that did make a little more sense to me anyways, but i don't believe its premature to say its a bad decision on Disney's part. I am gladly and eagerly waiting for them to prove me wrong but i just see things going in a terrible direction right now. not only have they really damaged the cohesiveness of AK with this addition, but I dont see the light at the end of the tunnel here. Again Disney please prove me wrong.

  5. #290

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Autobot Base
    Posts
    2,149

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by ZeekSlider View Post
    As I stated before, and I'm the only one of this opinion, it would be very difficult to pull off.

    The Star Wars biology features several different environments over the course of their films, each one vastly different than the last. The area would be a mix-up of snowy areas (Hoth), desert (Tatoonie), Redwood Forests (Endor), and swampland (Naboo). The transitions between those areas would have to be handled with great care so that it doesn't look like the outside of Star Tours in DHS and actually looks like there's some kind of biological flow between areas. Even the tacky Dinoland USA has some ability to distinguish the perma-carnival and the science center while still allowing the trees to blend the two areas together. You can't really do that when you're going from a frozen tundra to a desert setting.
    Could always build the Galactic Zoo that was mentioned in the old Star Tours queue.
    M-I-C-K-E-Y P-R-I-M-E

    Flickr
    Lend a hand at Disney Wiki

  6. #291

    • The Darkness to Light
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,557

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by FigmentJedi View Post
    Could always build the Galactic Zoo that was mentioned in the old Star Tours queue.
    Yeah, but that would clash with the overall concept of DAK, which is seeing animals in their natural environment. Disney went through a lot of trouble to make sure that even the tiger enclosure in the Asia area was big enough to where guests had to look for them. Even the dinosaur ride attempts to keep this theme going through science fiction methods, and ITTBAB does this simply by using scale adjustment.

    The idea of a Galactic Zoo is rather... depressing given that kind of effort.
    WARNING: Any opinions expressed by this user are wrong.

  7. #292

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nor Cal
    Posts
    1,187

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    From the Hollywood Reporter - The most pirated film of all time - Avatar. So maybe this means there will be a run of people trying to get in the parks without paying somehow!

    'Avatar' Is The Most Pirated Movie Of All Time - Yahoo! Movies
    The Mur
    ______________________________________________
    Two different worlds.....we live in two different worlds

  8. #293

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Paper St
    Posts
    1,359

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by themur View Post
    From the Hollywood Reporter - The most pirated film of all time - Avatar. So maybe this means there will be a run of people trying to get in the parks without paying somehow!

    'Avatar' Is The Most Pirated Movie Of All Time - Yahoo! Movies
    So a lot of people DID see it that didn't factor into the movie's gross :P

Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 1017181920

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
  •