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 4 of 20 FirstFirst 123456714 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 293
  1. #46

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    east coast
    Posts
    145

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Avatar is a huge mistake on many levels. The reason outside franchises have worked in Disney is because it matches a fun sense of adventure. Indy and Star Wars have their dark moments, but they*remain*light hearted. Avatar doesn't share that tone. Its mood is not that of Disney.

    Its also a huge mistake to think Avatar is a top tier franchise. As others have pointed out, its ticket sales were not that impressive. Box office? Yes, but as they said, 3D ticket prices are responsible for that. Even if it really did have the best attendance of all time, though, that doesn't mean everybody enjoyed it. There are a lot of people who despise the movie, and even those that do like it, don't really love it.*

    There is a positive in all this, but in my opinion it has little to do with Avatar. No doubt, the imagineers will come up with some kind of spectacle of an attraction that will amaze guests and be some what good for attendance. But its only the Avatar name and stakes to compete with Potter that will give them the*confidence*and*pressure*to do so. I guess what I am saying is, if they put this much on the*shoulders*of an original concept, given it the same budget, and completely executed it the way they promise to execute this, we would have something more rewarding, and*likely*more*successful.*

  2. #47

    • Metro-Retro Historian
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Brava Centauri
    Posts
    1,022

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    After I wrote my post speculating if Disney only ever made lands based on single films, I began to think about the same thing the other way around. I thought, what if the announcement a few days ago was not that Disney had secured the theme park rights to Avatar. What if it instead was Disney announcing that they had set a date for the groundbreaking of the long awaited Beastly Kingdom section of the Animal Kingdom?

    My personal opinion is that the reception would have been much more positive than the lukewarm one Avatar has received. This is especially true here on the internets where psychotic fanboy purists like myself are very vocal about such things. We nerds who have been hoping for the Beastly kingdom for as long as we've known about it would have exploded with delight. We would have gone on and on about Disney finally trusting the creativity of their own employees and investing in something that is sure to have lasting appeal. The more normal people, the average family of 4 from Whereversville doesn't generally chime in on things like this other than to find out when it (whatever it is) opens so they can plan their vacations accordingly.

    Sure, there would be some folks that would call it a poorly masked attempt to mimic the Harry Potter land without Potter, or that pretend animals don't fit in Animal Kingdom, but those people are still making much the same arguments about Avatar. There's just the added baggage of building a whole land based on a single out of house franchise that really tips the balance.

    Avatar the movie made a lot of money. It sold a lot of movie tickets. It moved a lot of dvds and blu-rays, but Disney isn't selling movie tickets it's ultimately selling merchandise and Avatar merch hasn't done anything spectacular. Disney is really hoping that the Avatar name alone will bring in crowds and those crowds will then want to buy all those avatar t-shirts and action figures that they didn't buy at Target because they have to walk past it on their way out of the ride? I really don't understand it. They could have done that with anything.

    ---

    I'm going to try to put this Splash Mountain thing to bed. Song of the South is a little known Disney film that is not available in the US. The thing this film is most famous for is an Academy Award winning song from that film that the company has gotten almost as much mileage out of as When You Wish Upon a Star. Splash Mountain is a great attraction loosely based on a portion of this film, featuring a handful of characters and songs from it, including the very famous Academy Award winning song used in the finale.

    This attraction can be used to illustrate the point that you don't need a great movie to make a great attraction, as can any great attraction that's not based on any movie at all, such as Big Thunder Mountain right next door. Splash Mountain may make more people curious about seeing Song of the South which isn't a marketable point because Disney refuses to release it.

    Really, the only argument you can make for Song of the South as it relates to Avatar, is if years down the line, Avatar isn't a well known film, this land may make some people interested in seeing it. How does that benefit Disney? They don't own the film, they don't own the distribution, and unless some part of their deal with Cameron gives them part of those things, what do they gain from building a land to keep this franchise relevant other than keep the film relevant so they don't have to retheme the land dedicated to a franchise that is no longer relevant. I'm sure they get a cut of the merch, but the merch stinks.

    Splash Mountain and Song of the South is different. Disney didn't have to buy the rights to the movie. If they did they would be seen as universally stupid for buying the theme park rights to a movie that nobody can see just so they can make a flume ride about some of the cartoon parts in it. It would still be a great ride, but why would it have to be Song of the South? It could be themed to anything (like he old west) and you would have to wonder if it was worth Disney paying whatever fictitious sum was initially paid in this scenario just to get the rights to play Zip-a-dee-do-dah in the finale.
    It bothers me when people selectively edit quotes to support whatever point they are trying to prove.

  3. #48

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    toronto
    Posts
    1,550

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by biggsworth View Post
    Ok i googled it Avatar is showing at number 14 on the site below. The point is mute though really I think the world of pandora will fit in nicely at DAK and I am sure they will create it's own story within the park much like the other lands do...minus DinoLand USA of course.

    All Time Box Office Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation
    I wouldn't say the point is mute really when we are talking about the longevity of the land, I would hazard to say its the basis of the discussion, but I digress. I would argue that it wouldn't fit well because it undermines the overall theme of Animal Kingdom, our natural world. I loved the recent theme of picking a specific region of a continent and then focusing on it to create a land with fantastic attractions and top of the line zoological exhibits and it resulted in some of the most incredible lands they have ever created (besides world showcase) in my opinion. It would have cost them half the price (because they wouldn't have to purchase Avatar's rights) and it would have been just as good if not better then Avatar land. Its a real head-scratcher of a decision.

  4. #49

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    568

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Anybody else recognize that Iger and Stagg's Avatar announcement was met with such overwhelming dumbfoundedness that they had to beat it out of town and head to Hawaii. Good thing they built that new beach shack to maybe take some time and rethink this Avatar thing. What if they did make an Avatar announcement at D23 Expo?
    Writing about all things Disney, a couple of paragraphs at a time

    http://disneylandtraveler.blogspot.com/

    75,000+ page views and counting.

  5. #50

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Palatine, Illinois
    Posts
    403

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by goofy donald View Post
    I wouldn't say the point is mute really when we are talking about the longevity of the land, I would hazard to say its the basis of the discussion, but I digress. I would argue that it wouldn't fit well because it undermines the overall theme of Animal Kingdom, our natural world. I loved the recent theme of picking a specific region of a continent and then focusing on it to create a land with fantastic attractions and top of the line zoological exhibits and it resulted in some of the most incredible lands they have ever created (besides world showcase) in my opinion. It would have cost them half the price (because they wouldn't have to purchase Avatar's rights) and it would have been just as good if not better then Avatar land. Its a real head-scratcher of a decision.
    To you both, the word is "moot", not "mute." OY!!!


    Anyway, this thread and poll was posted to try and make this more of a black and white decision. Would you rather have Disney go outside of the company and acquire rights or come up with something on their own? Just, basically, a yes or no type of thing.

    Frankly, I find it ironic that their biggest movie franchise ever was inspired by an original attraction at Disneyland. Well, maybe they can make an Avatar movie after Avatar Land opens up, hmmmm?

    And what it comes down to me for me is that this move by Disney in buying the rights to Avatar for a land in Walt Disney World is a VERY Universal Studios move. And I always thought Disney was better than that.
    "In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends." - Anton Ego

  6. #51

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    369

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Would you rather have Disney go outside of the company and acquire rights or come up with something on their own?
    You mean like all those public-domain stories they used for writing their other scripts?

    Disney's never been pure-of-intellectual property, so I have no issues with them going outside for content.

    That said. Avatar and Pandora and The Navi rely on an incredible level of detail, and I have doubts given what we're well aware of -- of Disney's ABILITY to come up with the new techniques and technology to enable that detail... And whatever they come up with, can they sustain the required maintenence?

    I mean, this is all worthless without RDA Combat Amp Suits and Mountain Banshees and Well... Getting Sigourney to do the voice overs should be easy enough...

    I fear what we're going to end up with in 10 years is "Ride Jake's Wheelchair"

  7. #52

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    toronto
    Posts
    1,550

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Aladdin6592 View Post
    The novelty is wearing off? No it's not. Avatar changed the 3D move scene forever. You guys must differentiate the difference between a movie that is shot in 3D and one that is converted to 3D in post production. Avatar shot in 3D which is why the 3D was absolutely breathtaking. If film makers take the time and had the patience to shoot the film in 3D, then there wouldn't be such bad feelings toward it. However, a lot of film makers and studios choose to post-convert to stretch out their margin of profit.

    And your argument for tickets sold doesn't really hold water. Less and less people are seeing movies due to the rise in ticket prices. If Titanic, ET, or Jurassic Park were released today, it's doubtful they would have seen that amount. Albeit it's likely they would've made more than Avatar. But I'm not arguing about whether or not Avatar was relatively more successful than Titanic, Jurassic Park, ET or even the first Harry Potter. My argument was that Avatar made more money than any Harry potter movie ever. You can't make arguments for inflation in favor of either Deathly Hallows film considering Avatar came out before either. And if you argue that it was due to IMAX and 3D ticketing, that doesn't hold either since the most recent Potter offered both.
    lol you just proved your first statement incorrect. 3D movies are all painted with the same brush and few of the theatergoers are differentiating between movies shot in 3D and those that aren't. So however you want to spin it, the novelty of 3D movies are wearing off and people are not willing to part with that extra money. This shows in all the statistical information from every 3D movie after Avatar, there has been a steady decline.

    You actually have the movie ticket situation backwards as well. Less people were going to the movies so the studios got the cost of tickets upped to make up for the increasing gamble they were taking making the actual movies. this in turn made less people come to the theaters and therefore the tickets cost more and its been a constant back and forth ever since. I would also argue that those movies would indeed make the same kind of gains they did in their time because quite frankly in today's age we just don't see new movies of that quality that move people and connect to people like those films did, not even close. The argument of inflation on new movies was never present, the inflation on new movies I was talking about was of the 3D and Imax kind that inflated Avatar's numbers greatly. Sure the films OFFERED those formats but the key in the differential is the 80% domestic and 70% worldwide that Avatar has with the extra dollars which is a huge amount larger then potters percentage. People cared more about Potters story then the effects, hence his popularity and longevity.

    ---------- Post added 09-24-2011 at 04:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by TodAZ1 View Post
    To you both, the word is "moot", not "mute." OY!!!


    Anyway, this thread and poll was posted to try and make this more of a black and white decision. Would you rather have Disney go outside of the company and acquire rights or come up with something on their own? Just, basically, a yes or no type of thing.

    Frankly, I find it ironic that their biggest movie franchise ever was inspired by an original attraction at Disneyland. Well, maybe they can make an Avatar movie after Avatar Land opens up, hmmmm?

    And what it comes down to me for me is that this move by Disney in buying the rights to Avatar for a land in Walt Disney World is a VERY Universal Studios move. And I always thought Disney was better than that.
    lol i just copied the same language as the previous poster, i should have added quotations for sarcasm .

    I totally agree with you on all counts but Ill go further to say that Pirates should have ended the franchise at 3, MAYBE 4. 5-6 are what I call beating a dead horse and killing a franchise.

  8. #53

    • Marching along
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Clearwater, FL
    Posts
    203

    Smile Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by TodAZ1 View Post
    And what it comes down to me for me is that this move by Disney in buying the rights to Avatar for a land in Walt Disney World is a VERY Universal Studios move. And I always thought Disney was better than that.
    Bingo!

    (Sorry Wiggins, I just couldn't resist!)

  9. #54

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Autobot Base
    Posts
    2,112

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Relocated Beastly Kingdom and an expansion of Camp Minnie Mickey so one would actually go there to do stuff besides Lion King and Meet and Greets, like a dark ride based around the Fearsome Critters of lumberjack lore and a new aesthetic in general borrowing from the Humphrey Bear cartoons' Brownstone Park.
    M-I-C-K-E-Y P-R-I-M-E

    Flickr
    Lend a hand at Disney Wiki

  10. #55

    • Senior Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    8,890

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Virtual Toad View Post
    How about spending some of the money to maintain the stateside parks to Tokyo standards before building *anything* new?
    And THAT is the Bingo of the week!
    "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. #56

    • Nutty about Disney parks
    • Online

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    2,619

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Virtual Toad View Post
    How about spending some of the money to maintain the stateside parks to Tokyo standards before building *anything* new?
    I second this. As badly as DAK does need an expansion I think there is a much greater need to upkeep WDW as a world-class destination instead of a standard family vacation destination.
    Toonaspie: I have Asperger's. I like cartoons. Toonaspie!

  12. #57

    • Pilot EdForceOne
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,649

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by mikelieman View Post
    You mean like all those public-domain stories they used for writing their other scripts?
    I think there is a world of difference between adapting a novel to a screenplay... vs building an attraction about a movie, that simply retells the movie.

    While most of Disney's animated films were adaptations of previous stories or novels.. they were that.. adaptations or derrivatives.. rarely a direct retelling and certainly not a clone. Pinnochio is a great example of this.
    Check out my blog - Coreplex: Rambling from inside the Grid


    Am I evil? yes, I am
    Am I evil? I am man, yes, I am

    Quote Originally Posted by sleepyjeff View Post
    Disneyland was meant to be sipped not chug-a-lugged

  13. #58

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Palatine, Illinois
    Posts
    403

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    You very much beat me to it, Flynn.

    I can see people living with the Avatar idea. It's a matter of opinion. And it is a HUGE infusion of cash into a WDW property. I get that that is a good thing too. What I don't understand is the 9 people (as of this writing) that prefer Avatar to an original Disney idea. I don't know much about this Beastly Kingdom that has been mentioned here and elsewhere but I gotta tell ya, done right and with the right budget, I'd be VERY willing to get behind that and get excited rather than Disney spending what has to be an even larger amount of money for a Jim Cameron property.

    I mean (and, please, do not quote me on these amounts) let's say, again, for example, Disney paid Jim Cameron $100 million for Avatar rights. I'd rather they take the budget they're going to have for this ($500 mil in some reports) and take HALF of what they paid Cameron and put it further into Beastly Kingdom or some other idea that they come up with. But no. Disney has to waste an incredible amount of money on just rights to use something, rather than paying their Imagineers to come up with something on their own.

    It just doesn't make sense, even business sense, anyway you slice it.
    "In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends." - Anton Ego

  14. #59

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,634

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Gonna have to go with avatar. Disney proved with Expedition Everest that they are incapable of making big scope original attractions anymore. Everest looks cool externally but there is literally no theming on the ride just darkness compare that with the matterhorn where there is at least stuff to look at. on top of that it was built poorly and the yeti is now permanently broken (not unlike the problems disneyland is seeing with its new monorails).

    Disney really needs an outsider (Lucas, Jobs, Cameron) to kick there *** in gear

  15. #60

    • Senior Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    8,890

    Re: Original idea vs. Avatar poll

    Quote Originally Posted by TodAZ1 View Post
    I mean (and, please, do not quote me on these amounts) let's say, again, for example, Disney paid Jim Cameron $100 million for Avatar rights. I'd rather they take the budget they're going to have for this ($500 mil in some reports) and take HALF of what they paid Cameron and put it further into Beastly Kingdom or some other idea that they come up with. But no. Disney has to waste an incredible amount of money on just rights to use something, rather than paying their Imagineers to come up with something on their own.

    It just doesn't make sense, even business sense, anyway you slice it.
    It makes sense in terms of how Disney's TV-network-trained executives Eisner and Iger, and Eisner's longtime CFO Tom Staggs, view the parks -- as marketing platforms for media franchises. Theirs or someone else's doesn't matter -- Pixar, Muppets, Marvel, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Avatar: acquire it, license it or partner it, just use it to get bodies into the marketing malls that are your theme parks and get eyeballs immersed in the giant infomercials that are your attractions and entertainment. Get an exclusive on what you think is a MegaStar draw (i.e. Cameron), and use it to counterprogram your competition. On the rare occasion that you create something yourself, it is always to self-promote your family of owned and acquired brands (DCA's World of Color is typical).

    Classic TV network programming and brand marketeering.

    From the Disney Channel-infused shakeup at the Studio, to naming Staggs head of Parks & Resorts and Crofton Parks Pres., to giving Gary "Disney Channel" Marsh your media business, it's all pages from the Eisner/Iger ("Eisger") TV network playbook.
    Last edited by Mr Wiggins; 09-24-2011 at 06:19 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 4 of 20 FirstFirst 123456714 ... 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
  •