Am I the only one puzzled by Pandora?

[HopperFan]

Yet it's still the 2nd highest selling bluray of all time.

It may not have that wow factor as it did on IMAX or in theaters, but visually even on 2D bluray it's still one of the best looking films out there and has barely been rivaled at CG in the last 8 years.

I hear you, we have it on bluray.

BUT Disney is looking for a boost from this, and for that it doesn't matter about the movie, it matters about fans and fan base and transcending time. It does not have that. Honestly they might have been better off building a Pirates land since those movies are all in the top tier, and they own them.

 

[Pacolovestacos]

It matters in a way because Disney isn't depending on this land to just help with crowds or create a bigger draw for AK or make a little bit of money, they are banking on this thing filling the banks with money they are not touching just like HP did for Universal. HP slammed them and this is their response. Folks all over the world were booking trips to Universal specifically for HP, no one is going to book specifically for Pandora. They may pick up some folks in a couple years that will come because of Pandora and SW Land .... and to lesser degree TSLand but there will be no way to gauge that based on timing.

If they don't come it's because it doesn't matter about grossing, it matters that it has no fan base, you have to have fan base to bring in the cash you weren't already getting. The new movies have opportunity to create a fan base, but the first one didn't It all depends on what Cameron does and that is not in Disney's control.



DS came home from theater and said "Visuals were great, movie was a remake of Fern Gully. Meh. It won't look anything on small screen as it did in theater." You hear it over and over, looked beautiful in theater but nothing else. I think we all hope success, enjoyable rides, immersive land but sadly it doesn't have a fan base for folks to go there specifically for that.

Disagree. There is no way Disney considers Pandora to be its answer to HP land. Just no.

And I consider Pandora to be more of an appetizer. A nice add but TSland and SWland are the much bigger draws.

 

[PrincessArlena'sDad]

Further, if people still visit Tom Sawyer Island, I have a hard time believing they won't visit Pandora.

Swiss family tree house even more so. Most people at least know ton sawyer add a book

 

[HopperFan]

Disagree. There is no way Disney considers Pandora to be its answer to HP land. Just no.

And I consider Pandora to be more of an appetizer. A nice add but TSland and SWland are the much bigger draws.

Pandora was their response, they are depending on it to boost attendance and they have sunk a fortune in to it for a reason ... and it's not to just expand AK, that could have been done for much less.

 

[freewill]

Don't care about the Avatar movie by James Cameron but hoping Pandora is cool.

Now when Sea World opens Titanic Land, that'll be something.

 

[cigar95]

I think we all hope success, enjoyable rides, immersive land but sadly it doesn't have a fan base for folks to go there specifically for that.

Honestly, the last thing WDW needs is for more people to come. The parks are already full. If they continue to get 46 million turnstile clicks a year, I can't imagine Bob Iger's going to be firing anyone for poor attendance.
Maybe Pandora and RoL get visitors to make their trip a day longer, but it won't be because there's a pre-existing fan base, it will be because word gets out that these experiences are really good.
Yes, I've said this before. Yes, I'm sure I'll say this again.

 

[Roxyfire]

Pandora was their response, they are depending on it to boost attendance and they have sunk a fortune in to it for a reason ... and it's not to just expand AK, that could have been done for much less.

Maybe at one time, but it's not the same draw as Harry Potter and I think they know it. People will think "Oh I'll have to check out that Pandora land next time we go/ if we go to Disney." Whereas they say "We have to get to Orlando to see Diagon Alley/Hogsmeade" about Harry Potter. For the fans (and there's a whole lot of us) it's a huge draw. I know people who still haven't been to Wizarding World yet but plan on it in the next couple years.

That's the difference. Now, when 2019 gets closer, it's game on with Star Wars Experience.

 

[Farro]

It matters in a way because Disney isn't depending on this land to just help with crowds or create a bigger draw for AK or make a little bit of money, they are banking on this thing filling the banks with money they are not touching just like HP did for Universal. HP slammed them and this is their response. Folks all over the world were booking trips to Universal specifically for HP, no one is going to book specifically for Pandora. They may pick up some folks in a couple years that will come because of Pandora and SW Land .... and to lesser degree TSLand but there will be no way to gauge that based on timing.

If they don't come it's because it doesn't matter about grossing, it matters that it has no fan base, you have to have fan base to bring in the cash you weren't already getting. The new movies have opportunity to create a fan base, but the first one didn't It all depends on what Cameron does and that is not in Disney's control.



DS came home from theater and said "Visuals were great, movie was a remake of Fern Gully. Meh. It won't look anything on small screen as it did in theater." You hear it over and over, looked beautiful in theater but nothing else. I think we all hope success, enjoyable rides, immersive land but sadly it doesn't have a fan base for folks to go there specifically for that.

We'll have to agree to disagree. If it's awesome, it's awesome. Doesn't matter the fanbase of a movie. If people go and it's great, they will talk about it. If people talk about that it's great, other people will go based on that. Word of mouth, still powerful.

Would it draw people continuously as a stand alone park? Maybe not. Is it a fantastic (we hope) addition to an already fantastic place to visit, giving people more options and things to do, enticing more people to visit because it's something they've never seen before, bringing back people who may have been burnt out on Disney? Yep.

Also, a lot of people who book specifically to see Harry Potter World at Universal still end up tacking on days to Disney anyways! (and vice-versa)

I just don't get negativity about something new. It's new. It's at Disney World. It's vacation. I can't find one negative aspect to any of that!

 

[alpine75]

I think the biggest problem for Disney will be merchandising with Pandora. Disney wants to sell you things and to sell things to your kids. Pandora is not very marketable as has been mentioned in here already. HP was not only a success because people wanted to go visit Hogwarts and Diagon alley. It was a huge success(and still is) because people wanted Butter Beer, wands etc.. People spend tons of money on that stuff. That is where Universal makes the $$$.

 

[cobright]

The two main themes I've read so far in this thread seem to be, a) As a good but not incredible film, why does Avatar get its own land (the OP question)? and b) How does this film do close to $3billion in tickets and yet leave no cultural footprint?

In a way, they share the same answer. Why does Avatar get its own land in AK? Disney (in the corporeal form of Bob Iger) went to Cameron to pitch putting an Avatar attraction into Hollywood Studios. So, like a ride or a show or something. Cameron comes back and says, "Even better, give me 15 acres and a half billion dollar budget and let me build you a completely immersive experience." This is an easy call for Disney. Cameron excels at world building. Think Terminator (the first two), Aliens, The Abyss, as well as Avatar.

What's in it for James Cameron? He gets another way to tell a story. A medium that is unique to Disney, though other venues try, is taking a story and putting the guest in the middle of it. (don't bring up Universal Studios. Been there, fun to be had but in this regard it's crap. You will never lose yourself to the story at US.) And Disney is the stage with an audience so large and so packed they can actively chase some away.

How does this answer question b? Avatar did not leave a cultural footprint because Cameron owned near every part of the movie (directed, produced, filmed, edited, and to a large part marketed) and Cameron makes movies to tell stories. Marketing the movie was really subdued for as big of a deal as it became. 2 or 3 cross marketting campaigns (Coke and McDonalds I think) and a few comicon panels, but mostly marketing for Avatar consisted of showing bits of the movie and letting word spread. He didn't write in a bunch of gimmicks or catch phrases because he didn't need to. Once the movie took off, there was no need to milk it with an endless supply of derivative works (toys, tv series, children's cartoon show, etc.). Consider Titanic (the movie, obviously) what of that film has endured as a cultural staple? The Celine Dion song? It would have been a hit without the movie. The "I'm king of the world" line, with your arms out?

Last point to quickly make (I know I ramble)... It's worth pointing out that more than two-thirds of the gross was earned outside of the US and Canada. The movies explicitly environmentalist message gets it dismissed by a huge portion of the American people in ways that do not happen in other parts of the world. And foreign tourists make up about 20% of WDW guests. I imagine a great many Brazilians will be contemplating whether to alot an extra day for Pandora Land or stick to the plan of wearing a thong all day at Blizzard Beach.

 

[CAS239]

Apples and oranges.

Frozen is clearly Disney and appeals to children and adults alike, especially Disney fans. Avatar...not so much.


Having said that, I am glad Disney is adding to Animal Kingdom. Anything to make the Kilimanjaro and Dinosaur line shorter is great in my book.

Star Wars really doesn't appeal to children.

I think many are casting judgement on the movie before all the parts are out. Some are saying it's not a classic like Star Wars...when Star Wars came out 30+ years ago lol

 

[BrianL]

Last point to quickly make (I know I ramble)... It's worth pointing out that more than two-thirds of the gross was earned outside of the US and Canada. The movies explicitly environmentalist message gets it dismissed by a huge portion of the American people in ways that do not happen in other parts of the world. And foreign tourists make up about 20% of WDW guests. I imagine a great many Brazilians will be contemplating whether to alot an extra day for Pandora Land or stick to the plan of wearing a thong all day at Blizzard Beach.

This is a very important point. Maybe Avatar did not leave a big cultural imprint in the US, however in other countries, particularly Asia, it was really, really big. There's something about Americans where we immediately dismiss something a little, we'll say "quirky," a la the "blue people" in Avatar. I'm not trying to knock Americans, it's just a matter of taste, and ours is a little narrower.

Also, just because it' snot as big as Harry Potter, doesn't mean it's pointless to create a themed land. If that were the benchmark, well, may as well wreck it all and just build Star Wars, which is the big dog on that block. Avatar is something that fit, something that Disney found a great partner in James Cameron in, and something that will add two top-notch attractions to a theme park that needs them.

There is no way to lose here. I mean, I really do not care about Harry Potter at all, but I still enjoy going to Uni and riding the rides themed to it there. They're great, even if I don't have a deeper connection to it.

 

[cvjpirate]

Pandora isn't an answer to Harry Potter anyone who thinks so is fooling themselves. At best, Pandora gives you a reason to stay in AK all day vs half day but that will be b/c of ROL and the lighting stuff going on at night. AK needs Pandora, needs more stuff to do to keep you in the park all day. The answer Disney has for Harry Potter will be Star Wars. The fan base of both are crazy and will go just so they can say they have been there. If Disney markets Star Wars right, HS will see numbers like never before.

 

[cobright]

This is a very important point. Maybe Avatar did not leave a big cultural imprint in the US, however in other countries, particularly Asia, it was really, really big. There's something about Americans where we immediately dismiss something a little, we'll say "quirky," a la the "blue people" in Avatar. I'm not trying to knock Americans, it's just a matter of taste, and ours is a little narrower.

They did a study where they polled people at a hardware store about compact flourecent light bulbs, and about 75% said they were a good idea. The same percentage of republicans as democrats gave a favorable view. Then they ran the poll with one change. They put a sticker on the lightbulb box that said "Protect the Environment". In this sample, those who identified as republicans were far less likely to give the energy efficient bulb a favorable score.

Not bashing conservatives. It's a viewpoint and I respect that. But this level of anti-environmentalism is kind of unique to this country.

 

[kahrani]

My husband is puzzled about Pandora too but I just see it as a (hopefully) beautiful and imaginative new land to enhance Animal Kingdom. It doesn't really matter to me what movie it is based on, in fact in some ways I would prefer more lands and rides at WDW that were original instead of tied into the latest craze.

But I love Animal Kingdom, it only ranks 2nd fave for me behind MK because of the nostalgia factor for MK. I love the theming and it is the most relaxing park for me so I'll easily spend a couple of days there (and because it closed earlier could still park hop for a late night in EP or MK). The only thing I think is a bad fit in AK is Dino Land, would have much preferred to see something more natural there instead of the fun fair theme.

I'm dying to see Pandora but won't until 2019 if I wasn't having a baby in July instead of visiting my sister in Boston like normal, I'd have gone down to WDW to visit.

 

[cigar95]

The only thing I think is a bad fit in AK is Dino Land, would have much preferred to see something more natural there instead of the fun fair theme.

And, in keeping with earlier observations, I'll bet that the thing that makes DinoLand a poor fit in your eyes is not that it's about dinosaurs, but that it's simply not very well-done. A *good* dinosaur-themed area would probably get your support.
Again, related to my claim that Pandora will succeed or fail based on how good it is, not whether or not movie fans will flock to see it. The (apparent) lack of a fan-base may actually help it in the near-term, as you'll see less of a rush of super-fans who have to see it right away. We've all seen those unbelievable photos of opening day at Hogsmead. Pandora figures to avoid that.

 

[Hikergirl]

I am excited about the land, but really they could have named it la la land and I'd be excited about it. Avatar the movie stunk and I don't expect the sequels to be any better LOL I'm not going to see it for the Avatar reference, Im going because it's in a Disney park.

 

[Farro]

And, in keeping with earlier observations, I'll bet that the thing that makes DinoLand a poor fit in your eyes is not that it's about dinosaurs, but that it's simply not very well-done. A *good* dinosaur-themed area would probably get your support.
Again, related to my claim that Pandora will succeed or fail based on how good it is, not whether or not movie fans will flock to see it. The (apparent) lack of a fan-base may actually help it in the near-term, as you'll see less of a rush of super-fans who have to see it right away. We've all seen those unbelievable photos of opening day at Hogsmead. Pandora figures to avoid that.

I have to admit this.

I am the one and only person charmed by DinoLand. I really like it. Primeval Whirl is one of my favorite rides.

Nice to meet you.

 

[cigar95]

Not bashing conservatives. It's a viewpoint and I respect that. But this level of anti-environmentalism is kind of unique to this country.

Presumably you're aware that the effect you note is not about "anti-environmentalism" but about politics.
And with that comment, I probably send the thread down the slippery slope to a swift and inevitable closure.

 

[ktlm]

The two main themes I've read so far in this thread seem to be, a) As a good but not incredible film, why does Avatar get its own land (the OP question)?.

I think Avatar gets it own land because floating mountains look really cool (and glowing technology laden plants on a boat ride ought to look pretty amazing too).