DCTooTall
<MARQUEE BEHAVIOR=ALTERNATE><img src=http://www.em
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2008
Lots of back and forth on this, definitely interesting. I did have a thought that I didn't see raised elsewhere, though, on why this is a really odd move, thought I'd share and see if anyone had any feedback.
Avatar was an absolutely eye-popping movie, and it's not too difficult to imagine it being translated into a theme park, but as others have pointed out, it was the visuals, not the story, that drove people to the theaters. Part of the reason, I think, is that Avatar was the first 3D movie that actually offered the sort of immersive 3d experience that you got at -- wait for it -- places like Disneyworld. For eons, "good" 3D was only available at theme parks (with Disney leading the way IMO) and if you went to a 3D movie elsewhere, it meant you were going to see a movie that incorporated some choppy 3D effects from time to time.
With that in mind, there is certainly some irony in Disney welcoming with open arms a franchise that ushered in an era where great, immersive 3D could be found at any major movie theater anywhere in the country. I really wonder how some of Disney's 3D shows will stand up now that you can get quality 3D so easily -- sure, they have other interactive elements, too, but the "wow" factor of the 3D itself is going to slide away as more and more "regular" movies are made in 3D using technology that matches or exceeds what Disney has been using for years. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, I guess?
Now for a less original, but still related, thought: I'm concerned that Disney is basically all-in on this with no guarantee that the 2nd and 3rd movies are going to be good enough to create the sort of franchise that you can build a whole theme park land around. Avatar was visually groundbreaking, but by the time 2 and 3 come around, it will be commonplace to see great visuals like that. If they don't similarly push the envelope from a technological standpoint -- and there's little incentive for Cameron to do so, frankly, because he's going to make a mint either way -- then it has to rely upon story, and that's somewhere that Avatar kinda fell short. Not that the story was bad, it just wasn't particularly original, and it was fairly predictable.
I'm definitely rooting for Disney here, and it looks like they intend to sink enough money into it to do it the right way. Moreover, Avatar does lend itself to some pretty awesome ride experiences and could provide a vehicle for Disney to do something along the lines of what Universal did with HPatFJ, which is the single most impressive thrill ride I've ever been on. With those things in mind, I'm excited about this. It does still seem odd, though.
The interesting thing about Avatar I feel is that it had basically 3 different components.
1. Incredible 3D. This helped generate the buzz and helped push it into the money printing press that it was. It was one of the first films to utilize 3D as a way to add depth to a film, instead of just popping things out at you. (I still think of MuppetVision with the door sign...). To be perfectly honest, just about the only other instance I can really think of of 3D that utilized the depth aspect it gives vs just throwing stuff into the audience? HISTA w/ the stage.
2. Fully formed world and ecosystem. Yes, the Jungle was pretty.... but what's interesting is that the plant life and the animal life seemed to work together. The different Animal species all had the common traits you'd expect with animals living within a common world. You could basically see the "circle of life" as it were with animal species that seemed to really fit into their own hierarchy. It's was just "a horse with stuff added" because you wanted to show someone riding a horse to get around.... but a beast of burden that worked within the environment.
3. The story/narrative of the film. This would be your love story / Dances with Smurfs/ Ferngully: The Sequel / Pocahontas in Space / Whatever.
Most people see items 1 and 3.... but totally neglect item 2. In My Opinion, It's item 2 that is the real asset here. It's what Disney has to work with to create a compelling theme park environment with several attractions. Something that can fit pretty well into the AK landscape..... and leaves them free to create their own narrative within the land and attractions which don't even need to seriously reference the films in order to tell their story. It's what will allow whatever Disney does to stand on it's own feet instead of riding off the coattails of the film franchise.
And honestly.... Unlike a "Beastly Kingdom" which could very easily have turned into another DinoLand with a disjointed internal narrative w/ a common theme...... The fact that they already have a compelling and complete environment complete with plant and animal life to work with, gives them a very good head start in creating the story and experiences we look forward too without needing to first take time to create the backstory/setting of the narrative they want to treat us too.
(And also of note. Item 1.... It'll become old hat. With everything doing 3D these days, people are already getting bored with it and the novelty is quickly running out. Item 3..... As we've seen on the DIS, it's not something universally loved by everyone... and between the accusations of anti-capitalism/anti-military/ hardcore pro-nature/ etc etc etc.... it would be a very dangerous thing to build a theme park experience around without risking major splits on opinions of it and/or being exposed to becoming very dated very fast.)
