Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 59
  1. #1

    • Under that tree again!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,485

    Avatar 2 and what it may mean for Avatarland.

    I can't find the article I read earlier.

    Anyway Cameron was talking about the next movie and mention it would be out in 2016. Also he noted that the sequels will include what's underseas on Pandora, and that it will expand around the current characters and add new characters. Kind of like Star Wars, where did this Darth Vader guy come from, let's just go and see. It also mentioned they are making new software for this sequel, so it won't look the same or 5 years old.


    It's making me think the new land is going to pull in crowds and with a movie coming out it will pull in more and keep the momentum going. Also I wonder if we will have some of the undersea elements in and an attraction or that there is going to be expansion material right away.
    Be Cool Stay in School!
    Next year I'm trying for a summer internship at Stark Industries.

  2. #2

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    449

    Re: Avatar 2 and what it may mean for Avatarland.

    Avatar director James Cameron to shoot three sequels in New Zealand - News - Films - The Independent

    Here`s one article talking about him in New Zealand to shoot 3 sequels where he mentions underwater scenes.

  3. #3

    • Under that tree again!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,485

    Re: Avatar 2 and what it may mean for Avatarland.

    Thank you Jerry. The article I read had much the same information and was about the same press conference.
    Be Cool Stay in School!
    Next year I'm trying for a summer internship at Stark Industries.

  4. #4

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,497

    Re: Avatar 2 and what it may mean for Avatarland.

    Some complaints about Avatar coming to Animal Kingdom center around a few weaknesses of the Avatar Franchise. They are the lack of merchandising of the story and characters, the lack of memorial storyline, and it isn't as successful as Star Wars.

    1. The Avatar sequels will add more merchandising opportunities with Disney's help, of course. Without Disney's involvement, Avatar may not sought such merchandising opportunity. Thus, the critics are helping to change Avatar artistically and commercially.

    2. The stories will get better. The Pocohontas storyline is done and can't be repeated. Although I thought the story was solid, others did not. James Cameron writes a good story, which is not easily taken apart. Nonetheless, there is room for improvement.

    3. Avatar is more successful internationally than in the U.S. when compared with Star Wars. It also benefits from more expensive ticket prices from 3-D and IMAX presentation. Thus, the international audience fits the economic model of WDW as catering to tourists who are willing to pay top dollar to see Avatar in person.

  5. #5

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    258

    Re: Avatar 2 and what it may mean for Avatarland.

    More money doesn't mean more successful. You need to consider inflation. When adjusted the original Star Wars film is #2 of all time. That is only one film alone, not including it's sequels. Avatar is #14.

    As for the worry of new storylines developing and new technology, I would imagine that James Cameron would be working and informing Disney about these things, so that their park (that isn't even completed yet) doesn't look dated.

  6. #6

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    toronto
    Posts
    1,743

    Re: Avatar 2 and what it may mean for Avatarland.

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenW View Post
    Some complaints about Avatar coming to Animal Kingdom center around a few weaknesses of the Avatar Franchise. They are the lack of merchandising of the story and characters, the lack of memorial storyline, and it isn't as successful as Star Wars.

    1. The Avatar sequels will add more merchandising opportunities with Disney's help, of course. Without Disney's involvement, Avatar may not sought such merchandising opportunity. Thus, the critics are helping to change Avatar artistically and commercially.

    2. The stories will get better. The Pocohontas storyline is done and can't be repeated. Although I thought the story was solid, others did not. James Cameron writes a good story, which is not easily taken apart. Nonetheless, there is room for improvement.

    3. Avatar is more successful internationally than in the U.S. when compared with Star Wars. It also benefits from more expensive ticket prices from 3-D and IMAX presentation. Thus, the international audience fits the economic model of WDW as catering to tourists who are willing to pay top dollar to see Avatar in person.
    even if all of this were to become/is true which im skeptical upon, it still does not change the fact that the primary argument against its existence is not and cannot be addressed. Avatar does not fit in the animal kingdom park and undermines the park's overall theme, something that was its greatest strength.

  7. #7

    • Heavy Breather
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    A Galaxy Far Far Away
    Posts
    817

    Re: Avatar 2 and what it may mean for Avatarland.

    I'm sure there will be ways that the land will tie in with the sequels. Possible cross-promotion.


    What is thy bidding, my Mouseter?

    Check out my tumblr: http://dvader2015.tumblr.com/









  8. #8

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    toronto
    Posts
    1,743

    Re: Avatar 2 and what it may mean for Avatarland.

    Quote Originally Posted by danlb_2000 View Post
    I have always felt Avatar is a perfect fit for AK. Just look at AK's dedication quote:

    "Welcome to a kingdom of animals... real, ancient and imagined: a kingdom ruled by lions, dinosaurs and dragons; a kingdom of balance, harmony and survival; a kingdom we enter to share in the wonder, gaze at the beauty, thrill at the drama, and learn."

    Avatar fits this a so many ways. Remember they will probably downplay the war themes of the movie and instead focus on the planet of Pandora itself as well as the strong conservation message.
    as soon as we leave our planet and venture into another it clearly extends beyond the theme and basic meaning behind the Animal Kingdom park. this has been used as an argument in the past and simply does not hold up. as explained later in the quote, the real is representative of our modern creatures, the ancient is representative of those extinct in our past, and the imagined come from those in our mythology. where exactly do aliens and spacecraft fit into that definition? the park at its core is an ode to our planet and the conservation of it and its flora and fauna and this addition betrays that overlying message that is key to making the park special. fitting such abstract and loosely related concepts into a park just because its easy, might possibly make you money, or would be better then an original concept that actually fit (the latter being two whole different arguments) are what dilutes a great message and a greatly themed and executed landscape into much less of the beautifully cohesive unit that it is currently, and more a simple collection of things.

  9. #9

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    983

    Re: Avatar 2 and what it may mean for Avatarland.

    Quote Originally Posted by goofy donald View Post
    as soon as we leave our planet and venture into another it clearly extends beyond the theme and basic meaning behind the Animal Kingdom park. this has been used as an argument in the past and simply does not hold up. as explained later in the quote, the real is representative of our modern creatures, the ancient is representative of those extinct in our past, and the imagined come from those in our mythology. where exactly do aliens and spacecraft fit into that definition? the park at its core is an ode to our planet and the conservation of it and its flora and fauna and this addition betrays that overlying message that is key to making the park special. fitting such abstract and loosely related concepts into a park just because its easy, might possibly make you money, or would be better then an original concept that actually fit (the latter being two whole different arguments) are what dilutes a great message and a greatly themed and executed landscape into much less of the beautifully cohesive unit that it is currently, and more a simple collection of things.
    IMO, Camp Minnie-Mickey had far less to do with the park's "Core Theme" than Avatar (Disney character's aren't of age-old cultural myth; they're mostly anthropomorphized). There is no "later" in the succinct dedication quote that says, "only on Earth, never to include animal life elsewhere in the universe." It even explicitly states "imagined." But I'll even grant you that the park's focus was to be on Earth's biota, I don't have a problem if it is amended to include animal life on other planets (since we are actually, currently in the midst of the Sixth Extinction here on Earth, which the "Avatar" film references, we might as well consider extra-terrestrial biodiversity).

    My guess is that if in an alternate reality where the Avatar movie did not exist, and WDI announced that instead of Beastly Kingdomme, an original-IP land based on the invented biota "discovered" on a moon of Jupiter - a tomorrowland for the park - would be built, then most would be on-board. "Avatar", on the other hand, is a very polarizing movie (as popcorn films go), politically and religiously, because it centers on Gaia-theory, the Noble Savage myth, and Environmentalism.

    I'm not overwhelmingly in favor of Avatar (would prefer almost anything non-toon and original in theme), but if a big Franchise had to get inserted into the park per Iger/Staggs, Avatar is more fitting than Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Indiana Jones or most other bigger, better franchises, where nature conservation and animals were present, but not a central focus.

  10. #10

    • MC Blogger
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,045
    Blog Entries
    52

    Re: Avatar 2 and what it may mean for Avatarland.

    "Avatar", on the other hand, is a very polarizing movie (as popcorn films go), politically and religiously, because it centers on Gaia-theory, the Noble Savage myth, and Environmentalism." I agree, Randy, and then, so much of Animal Kingdom park does this as well.

    I explored the idea as part of the in-depth series on the evolution of the park. You can read it here. I think, but am not certain that part 3 really digs into what you've said.
    Mark

    Disney parks and art, movies, music, more... Over 1, 000 Posts!
    www.InsightsandSounds.blogspot.com

  11. #11

    •   
    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area, California, United States
    Posts
    2,652

    Re: Avatar 2 and what it may mean for Avatarland.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandySavage View Post
    IMO, Camp Minnie-Mickey had far less to do with the park's "Core Theme" than Avatar (Disney character's aren't of age-old cultural myth; they're mostly anthropomorphized). There is no "later" in the succinct dedication quote that says, "only on Earth, never to include animal life elsewhere in the universe." It even explicitly states "imagined." But I'll even grant you that the park's focus was to be on Earth's biota, I don't have a problem if it is amended to include animal life on other planets (since we are actually, currently in the midst of the Sixth Extinction here on Earth, which the "Avatar" film references, we might as well consider extra-terrestrial biodiversity).

    My guess is that if in an alternate reality where the Avatar movie did not exist, and WDI announced that instead of Beastly Kingdomme, an original-IP land based on the invented biota "discovered" on a moon of Jupiter - a tomorrowland for the park - would be built, then most would be on-board. "Avatar", on the other hand, is a very polarizing movie (as popcorn films go), politically and religiously, because it centers on Gaia-theory, the Noble Savage myth, and Environmentalism.

    I'm not overwhelmingly in favor of Avatar (would prefer almost anything non-toon and original in theme), but if a big Franchise had to get inserted into the park per Iger/Staggs, Avatar is more fitting than Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Indiana Jones or most other bigger, better franchises, where nature conservation and animals were present, but not a central focus.

    Excellent post!!!

  12. #12

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    toronto
    Posts
    1,743

    Re: Avatar 2 and what it may mean for Avatarland.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandySavage View Post
    IMO, Camp Minnie-Mickey had far less to do with the park's "Core Theme" than Avatar (Disney character's aren't of age-old cultural myth; they're mostly anthropomorphized). There is no "later" in the succinct dedication quote that says, "only on Earth, never to include animal life elsewhere in the universe." It even explicitly states "imagined." But I'll even grant you that the park's focus was to be on Earth's biota, I don't have a problem if it is amended to include animal life on other planets (since we are actually, currently in the midst of the Sixth Extinction here on Earth, which the "Avatar" film references, we might as well consider extra-terrestrial biodiversity).

    My guess is that if in an alternate reality where the Avatar movie did not exist, and WDI announced that instead of Beastly Kingdomme, an original-IP land based on the invented biota "discovered" on a moon of Jupiter - a tomorrowland for the park - would be built, then most would be on-board. "Avatar", on the other hand, is a very polarizing movie (as popcorn films go), politically and religiously, because it centers on Gaia-theory, the Noble Savage myth, and Environmentalism.

    I'm not overwhelmingly in favor of Avatar (would prefer almost anything non-toon and original in theme), but if a big Franchise had to get inserted into the park per Iger/Staggs, Avatar is more fitting than Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Indiana Jones or most other bigger, better franchises, where nature conservation and animals were present, but not a central focus.
    agreed about camp minnie mickey. I think prior to the closing of the Pocahontas show it at least had an overwhelming trend towards north american thematics and at least somewhat informed us about creatures of our continent. over recent years however it had became a rather jumbled mess and quite frankly wasted space. regardless replacing a poorly executed land with a poor base concept is not the answer, almost regardless of that concepts execution. We've had this discussion in the past so you know all the various qualms I have with the Avatar "franchise", however this even goes beyond the franchise itself and I simply believe that expanding beyond our world and entering into this loosely connected concept damages the integrity of the park. regardless I think we can both agree that the far better route for AK would have nothing to do with Avatar and would instead be based upon an original idea such as Beastly Kingdom or Australia as examples. there is so much incredible material that hasn't even been touched yet regarding our own planet, why are we venturing off into the make believe universe for no apparent reason?

  13. #13

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    983

    Re: Avatar 2 and what it may mean for Avatarland.

    Yes, we've had this discussion before (it's coming back) and, yes, I agree with the last part above.

    If a theme-breaker is really well-executed in isolation, and fairly well-integrated into its surroundings (odds are Pandora will be both of these), then it can work within the park's context. It's not what I'd have done, but, for me, Pandora doesn't look like it will wreck Animal Kingdom's theme. Splash Mountain in MK's Frontierland comes to mind as an example of this.

  14. #14

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,497

    Re: Avatar 2 and what it may mean for Avatarland.

    Quote Originally Posted by goofy donald View Post
    there is so much incredible material that hasn't even been touched yet regarding our own planet, why are we venturing off into the make believe universe for no apparent reason?
    Is there? And no reason? Please.

  15. #15

    • MiceChat Round-Up Crew
    • Prince Ali
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Agrabah
    Posts
    11,089

    Re: Avatar 2 and what it may mean for Avatarland.

    Quote Originally Posted by goofy donald View Post
    agreed about camp minnie mickey. I think prior to the closing of the Pocahontas show it at least had an overwhelming trend towards north american thematics and at least somewhat informed us about creatures of our continent. over recent years however it had became a rather jumbled mess and quite frankly wasted space. regardless replacing a poorly executed land with a poor base concept is not the answer, almost regardless of that concepts execution. We've had this discussion in the past so you know all the various qualms I have with the Avatar "franchise", however this even goes beyond the franchise itself and I simply believe that expanding beyond our world and entering into this loosely connected concept damages the integrity of the park. regardless I think we can both agree that the far better route for AK would have nothing to do with Avatar and would instead be based upon an original idea such as Beastly Kingdom or Australia as examples. there is so much incredible material that hasn't even been touched yet regarding our own planet, why are we venturing off into the make believe universe for no apparent reason?
    It is incredibly sad that Avatar does ruin and change Animal Kingdom, into Alien Kingdom. This park wasn't designed for, nor established for creatures Not of earth. That kind of outerspace movie creature belongs at the Studios NOT ANIMAL Kingdom.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [Chat] HK Disneyland to get Marvel first-What does this mean for Disneyland?
    By Disneymike in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-27-2013, 09:12 PM
  2. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-06-2012, 12:46 PM
  3. [News] Bob Iger to be replaced as CEO in 2015 - what does this mean for the parks?
    By Disney Analyst in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 10-08-2011, 10:34 PM
  4. What CMs Say And What They REALLY Mean!!
    By Dan - Tasmic! in forum Break Room
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-16-2008, 02:24 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
  •