I don't particularly care for Avatar land. Disney DOES need to do a fantasy creature land. However, Avatar is too restrictive. A ride that features Avatar would be fine, as long as there were other rides with fantasy creatures near it to bolster the theme.
It is safe to say that AVATAR LAND isn't being recieved well. I am scratching my head on how this ties into "Animal Kingdom" where the the over all theme is animals, not alien animals. I here mythical rumors about some "Beastly Kingdom" and other wish list lands. We will have to wait and see what Disney cooks up. "Gourmet" land or "Fast Food" flop.....
Just to back up what I said about the movie being popular, worldwide, here is a list of awards and nominations it received, worldwide.....
Avatar (2009) - Awards
By a year after Avatar, no one but a handful of fans could remember the lead characters' names. By a year after that, it was clear that Avatar was a zero as a franchise: it generated no merchandise, no music, no ancillary business at all.
Avatar was a hit as a tech event, not as a story and characters that people cared about. It raked in big box office bucks from its amazing advances in mo-cap, its spectacular scenery, and big box office upcharges for 3D. By the time its sequel comes out, Avatar-quality mo-cap and scenery will be (really, already are) standard fare. Everyone will already have visited Pandora. Result: the element of "Woah, I've never seen anything that looked like that before!" that was so important to the first Avatar's buzz will be gone. Walt said it when he declared, "you can't top pigs with pigs." Avatar II will be what happens when you try to top Pandora with Pandora.
"Avatarland," if it ever gets off the ground, will be what happens when you put an Eisner-trained CFO in charge of Disney Imagineering's legacy of innovation and creativity. The story is that Tom Staggs (Eisner's longtime Chief Financial Officer, now head of Disney Parks) got so excited seeing the work-in-progress of DLR's Carsland and Star Tours II that he had himself an honest-to-gosh Creative Vision for what they should build in Orlando: Avatarland. Too bad his vision boils down to Imagineering being forced to follow a Paint-By-Numbers instruction manual from a movie that nobody cares about, and that they get put under the thumb of the most notoriously egotistical, budget-busting, my-way-or-the-highway haute auteur in Hollywood.
It's almost worth hoping it happens, so that when the whole pathetic pyramid of playing cards comes crashing down, maybe someone at Disney will be able to learn from it.
Yet another breakthrough film becomes mere "standard fare". I don't recall any characters from Jurasic Park, The Mummy, Transformers, and King Kong, yet the attractions endure at Universal Studios.
I still can't place characters in the original Pirates and Haunted Mansion attractions. I'm sure they will have names and backstories, but who but the most devoted Disney fan will know them. I am more capable of naming characters from the Pirates movie than the ride.
Whether Avatar succeeds as an attraction is really about whether Disney will make it succeed. James Cameron did his job and he will continue to flesh out his characters for the merchandising market in the sequels, which was missing in the first movie. You would think not having a merchandising business for Avatar is one reason to pick it up. Otherwise, Disney would be slammed for that.
And there are no characters and backstories in Pirates of the Caribbean and The Haunted Mansion. Don't buy into the myth of the linear narrative.
Avatar has the blue alien species and the dragons that I'm not able to name. However, the characters that you talked about is nameless as well with the exception of King Kong. The Transformers movies have so altered the robots that you can't even compare them to the original toy line.
I can accept ego driven, but this is the Hollywood stereotype that only proves that people there have enormous power to do things.Quote:
Not when Imagineering will be under the thumb of Avatar's creator and owner, who also happens to be one of the most egotistical creatives in Hollywood.
I thought the movie had more than enough story and creativity. Despite how you feel about character development, that whole movie was about the relationship between the human and alien.Quote:
Everyone in town knows that James Cameron's job is James Cameron -- one of the reasons why his characters were so poorly fleshed out in the first Avatar and will continue to be so in the sequel. Mind you, he's extremely talented at what he does. Unfortunately, story direction and character development happen to be two things he doesn't do well -- along with listening to the creative input of people other than himself.
And to all original attractions that deserve to be tested for merchandising potential.Quote:
Not having generated any ancillary business is a good reason to stay away from it. Which Tom would have done, had he stuck to his spreadsheets and not gotten swept up in playing Creative Visionary. "Avatarland" is the result of Tom coming down with a classic case of Produceritis, a common condition that afflicts executives who have oodles of power and not a shred of creativity. (To Bob Iger's credit, it's a bug that he has largely avoided catching.)
It is Disney's potential to drive that market for Avatar.
I'm not excited for Avatar Land at all. My main concern is that in a few years the Avatar franchise will have died down and then Animal Kingdom will have a slightly empty corner akin to Bear Country
Choosing a new and popular movie idea over the universal idea on Mythological creatures...If you excuse me, I'm gonna go and rant to myself on how this is a bad idea...