Avatarland Canceled?

[flynnibus]

I think more than HP.. it showed Disney's desire to latch onto other people's successful work. Lucas, Cameron, etc... they want to jump on established properties (pixar, marvel, etc) rather than take risks with new ideas.

[TylerDurden]

Disney already has a land to compete with Harry Potter. Only it's on the west coast. IMO Carsland is Disney's answer to Harry Potter. Don't think for a second that Universal is adding Harry Potter to Hollywood just for the heck of it.

I think it's safe to say they are, actually. Universal Hollywood has no chance competing against Disneyland in its current state, Carsland or not. Harry Potter gives them a chance to rival Disneyland though. Also consider that WWOHP went into development before Carsland--the addition of HP to USH is because it's so profitable in Florida, any company would be stupid not to try to duplicate that success--it has nothing to do with competing with Carsland if you ask me (Transformers, maybe...)

Disney is clearly worrying, and if Avatar really is cancelled they better think of something else and fast, because for too long they've been sitting back and relying on their name alone to bring people in. Now that people are seeing the great new things at non-Disney parks, they're going to realize that branding isn't a good substitute for plussing guest experience and creating innovative attractions. That's why the replacement for Avatar had better be fantastic, because Disney's been falling behind

[MarkTwain]

I've got my fingers crossed. This matches whispered rumors I've heard around the internet, many of which derived from a recent WDW press release that listed all of its upcoming resort plans, but didn't mention Avatar. I'm personally glad the idea might be dead - not that the scale of the idea isn't exactly what was needed for WDW and for AK, but because had it been completed, the Avatar land would have shown just how far creativity at WDW has decayed. Not that that was necessarily the reason the idea had been dropped.

That said, this isn't exactly 100% good news for Animal Kingdom. Considering that the Avatar project wasn't planned to be opened until 2016 at earliest, this likely sets back Animal Kingdom's next expansion (and, by extension, WDW's next expansion) until at least a few years after that. As in... if Avatar falls through it could be 2018 or 2019 until the next major WDW expansion opens. Creatively, that may be for the best, but that's a long time for Harry Potter to reign supreme in Orlando.

Another possibility is that Disney wasn't willing to spend as much on it as James Cameron wanted them to?

I wouldn't be surprised.

...

Who knows maybe WDI has been pulled off this, and an outside firm is designing it.

Also wouldn't be surprised.

"Avatarland" is the sort of project Disney would have wished on its competition -- back in the days before Disney started thinking like its competition.

That was part of my problem with the project - it just reeks of the kind of franchise cash-in that Universal would have done. I want to see a project of the kind of daring originality of concept that Animal Kingdom deserves, and that WDW used to be built on.

But Beastly Kingdom isn't going to get Moms and Dads off their sofas booking rooms down to Florida.

People want to experience something special, unique.. and familiar.

And that's the converse of the problem. We live in an age where parents book their trips after watching Harry Potter-filled Universal commercials, where theme park ads consist of Daniel Radcliffe flying across the screen on a broomstick and into Islands of Adventure. Beating this kind of "you've seen the movie, now see the theme park!" thinking is going to be a real challenge for Disney in the years - but certainly a challenge worth exploring if WDW is to survive in a long-term sense.

[jordan__edge]

Currently wishing upon a star that this is true. Let's see something new and original from within Disney itself.

[Virtual Toad]

I think more than HP.. it showed Disney's desire to latch onto other people's successful work. Lucas, Cameron, etc... they want to jump on established properties (pixar, marvel, etc) rather than take risks with new ideas.

This. At least Carsland is based on a Disney property (Pixar is Disney now). Avatar seemed so... alien to the Disney spirit... for lack of a better phrase.

I still contend more third-party acquisitions are NOT the way for Disney to succeed moving forward. With every project based on Avatar, Marvel, etc., with every third-party shop and restaurant, they just further dilute their own (amazingly sucessful, widely recognizable, and almost universally-loved) brand.

People love Disney because it's... Disney. Iger and his corporate leadership should have the courage to have confidence in the company's own creative resources and legacy.

[Witches of Morva]

ORDDU: My sisters and I never thought AVATAR was a good idea for an attraction at any of the Disney parks. For one thing it's not even a Disney movie and it certainly doesn't fit in at Animal Kingdom. Let it go and hopefully the Imagineers will come up with something more appropriate--like an attraction for John Carter!!!

[goofy donald]

That wouldn't make any sense from Cameron's camp. They wouldn't relinquish their control of the license and allow it to be resold (no one does this). That is because it's more to Cameron's advantage to have Disney punt.. and then have the license be free again.. and Cameron to sell it at full face value again. And the idea not not giving up creative control over output.

Im just throwing a what if out there, I'm not very well versed in the legality / contract specifics of the issue so I'll have to go with you on this.

---------- Post added 03-07-2012 at 08:04 PM ----------

But Beastly Kingdom isn't going to get Moms and Dads off their sofas booking rooms down to Florida.


People want to experience something special, unique.. and familiar.

Heres hoping that FINALLY we see the long awaited long rumored Ayres rock of Aussieland on the horizon. If it were to be made in the image of Africa and Asia its sister lands, that would be THE most exciting development in recent WDW history and would definitely spell a turn for the better in WDI and TDO management.

[KingEric]

The problem with an Australia concept like what you want or a Beastly Kingdom concept is that in this day and age of quick edit WDW marketing how do you sell a family on Australia or Beastly Kingdom as a hook to come to WDW.

Especially when it isn't a "sure thing" there is no built in fan base or built in demographic.

[goofy donald]

The problem with an Australia concept like what you want or a Beastly Kingdom concept is that in this day and age of quick edit WDW marketing how do you sell a family on Australia or Beastly Kingdom as a hook to come to WDW.

Especially when it isn't a "sure thing" there is no built in fan base or built in demographic.

...How do you sell any new land then? lol

I would do the same thing they did when they did the delayed opening of Asia. You have a big awesome e-ticket that you make your centerpiece, that's where your main marketing push is. then you have extensive themeing, a great animal trail, an additional smaller attraction possibly, food options ect. that makes up the rest of the advertising buzz and keeps people coming back. not that hard in my opinion.

[Bronco21]

^^The problem is logic like that, which I agree with, is why we rarely get nonfranchise rides anymore. If we want non franchise rides it has gotten to the point where nonfranchise rides and attractions can't compete with the likes of Harry Potter. With how much money has to be invested in an attraction, it is too risky to not tie it to a franchise nowadays. Short of rebuilding half of EPCOT with the craziest ride systems yet devised and more theming than ever seen before I don't think a nonfranchise area will be able to draw in more people than potter.

[mikelieman]

Latch on all you want, just execute well and deliver 110%.

It's not like Snow White or Cinderella weren't public domain, and they did pretty good there. I say, work the Marvel Superheroes like they were walking the streets for you...

Avengers' Land.... And I'd pay to see Jack Sparrow and Tony Stark in the same parade.

[KingEric]

Latch on all you want, just execute well and deliver 110%.

It's not like Snow White or Cinderella weren't public domain, and they did pretty good there. I say, work the Marvel Superheroes like they were walking the streets for you...

Avengers' Land.... And I'd pay to see Jack Sparrow and Tony Stark in the same parade.

You can't do that east of the Mississippi per Universal's contract.

[goofy donald]

^^The problem is logic like that, which I agree with, is why we rarely get nonfranchise rides anymore. If we want non franchise rides it has gotten to the point where nonfranchise rides and attractions can't compete with the likes of Harry Potter. With how much money has to be invested in an attraction, it is too risky to not tie it to a franchise nowadays. Short of rebuilding half of EPCOT with the craziest ride systems yet devised and more theming than ever seen before I don't think a nonfranchise area will be able to draw in more people than potter.

There's two ways to compete with universal. the way you and many others describe, a type of punch for punch system where universal releases potter and Disney counters ect, is the totally wrong way to go about it in my opinion. Disney parks will never really hurt and they will never be surpassed by Universal Parks economically for a variety of rather obvious reasons, however if they wish to compete on a resort quality level they should make a large amount of smaller additions instead of just one big land. Filling in the quality gaps that turn some people off, making a few new e-ticket additions, and with a smaller land such as Australia, that would do wonders to counter potter.

[Coheteboy]

What if they did Beastly Kingdom and had an Avatar attraction? That would most likely satisfy everyone in some way.

[toonaspie]

I think people are being too pessimistic about the idea that an original concept won't draw tourists. What do you think people keep coming back to DAK for? The Lion King or Nemo shows? Nope, it's for a roller coaster based on an original story. I think people are just getting their boots shaken up to the point where they can't even consider strong investment in an original idea without giving it a chance. I don't get all this talk about original new ideas not being able to compete with franchises when nobody's yet to put this to the test (or at least not since 2006).

Instead of worrying about competing with Harry Potter, Disney needs to find a new way to enhance the theme park experiences they can provide. Experiment with new technology, new theming, new forms of storytelling instead relying on characters and franchises that can fade in and out of popularity unpredictably. That's not to say that Disney should use the 3 Ps or that altogether but that they need to stop relying on those 3 so much as their only means of staying afloat. That means letting the Imagineers and storytellers really get creative without bean counters or consumer spending graphs getting in the way. Also: improving the marketing of such ideas. These days Disney is either too sarcastic or too downplayed with its advertising.

As it stands WDW does get plenty of guests. Original ideas do have an equal chance of becoming popular with guests if the right amount of investment is put into them.