Pandora: The World of Avatar Announcement, Construction, & Preview Discussion

[UNIrd]

What would really interest me to see is how the Blu-ray/DVD sales were for Avatar in comparison to some of the other mega-blockbusters from within the past ten years or so. That could be a much better gauge of how popular the film really is.

On Blu-ray, #2 behind Frozen.

 

[Stitch_101]

What would really interest me to see is how the Blu-ray/DVD sales were for Avatar in comparison to some of the other mega-blockbusters from within the past ten years or so. That could be a much better gauge of how popular the film really is.

I'm not sure about units sold, but here is a decent look of overall bluray/dvd revenue compared to the first Avengers movie:

Avatar: $390,677,194 Domestic
Avengers: $227,858,091 Domestic

Now I'm not sure how up to date those numbers are as they were the only bluray/dvd revenue numbers I could find.

Note: Those numbers are bluray and dvd sales figures combined.

 

[Mad Dog]

What would really interest me to see is how the Blu-ray/DVD sales were for Avatar in comparison to some of the other mega-blockbusters from within the past ten years or so. That could be a much better gauge of how popular the film really is.

:agree:

 

[Mad Dog]

On Blu-ray, #2 behind Frozen.

Blu Ray wouldn't be a good comparison since there were very few BR players in use when Avatar debuted. Combined DVD/BR sales would be a better indicator. Download sales are still fairly insignificant. Any Avatar BR figures would be much greater if it was a recent release.

 

[misterID]

The wow factor was derived entirely from the realistic 3-D, so the success of the film was more predicated on a gimmick than any lasting value found in the story and characters. If the exact same movie had come out now instead of 2009, there's a good chance it wouldn't have done anywhere near as well in the face of so many other 3-D spectacles. I think the park may see a big initial boost in attendance, but then the long-term effect may be negligible. I would wager that the new night show and other nighttime offerings will probably have a better effect on long-term attendance gains than Avatar does.

I think trying to dismiss the record shattering success as simply the product of a gimmick is kind of funny. It was the experience and return viewings that made the film a success, that matters. Avatar is the reason films started making 3D versions of films, and I could make a case a lot of the following blockbusters like Avengers would not have made as much as they did without 3D, so Avatar was pretty revolutionary in that way, and I still can't think of a film that succeeded in the CGI execution as well as Avatar did. Titanic also had a pretty generic story and did pretty darn well also solely on the spectacle.

Because we don't personally like something is pretty meaningless in the endgame. Like how people were certain Potter was going to be a bomb for UNI because the books and films were a passing fad and were not on the level of SW in popular culture. I will say if the ride is as incredible as Ithjink it will, thern no a night time show will not trump it.

 

[*Q*]

On Blu-ray, #2 behind Frozen.

I'm not sure about units sold, but here is a decent look of overall bluray/dvd revenue compared to the first Avengers movie:

Avatar: $390,677,194 Domestic
Avengers: $227,858,091 Domestic

Now I'm not sure how up to date those numbers are as they were the only bluray/dvd revenue numbers I could find.

Note: Those numbers are bluray and dvd sales figures combined.

That's just so crazy.

I think trying to dismiss the record shattering success as simply the product of a gimmick is kind of funny. It was the experience and return viewings that made the film a success, that matters. Avatar is the reason films started making 3D versions of films, and I could make a case a lot of the following blockbusters like Avengers would not have made as much as they did without 3D, so Avatar was pretty revolutionary in that way, and I still can't think of a film that succeeded in the CGI execution as well as Avatar did. Titanic also had a pretty generic story and did pretty darn well also solely on the spectacle.

Because we don't personally like something is pretty meaningless in the endgame. Like how people were certain Potter was going to be a bomb for UNI because the books and films were a passing fad and were not on the level of SW in popular culture. I will say if the ride is as incredible as Ithjink it will, thern no a night time show will not trump it.

Maybe the word "gimmick" is a little unfair, but the 3-D is why people went to see it, not for the characters, the story, or anything beyond pure spectacle. Titanic had a generic story, but people at least formed emotional connections with the characters in that movie and I think that's what really drove repeat viewings for that more than anything. It also contributed to pop culture vernacular in the form of things like "I'm king of the world!" I can't think of anything from Avatar that has produced such similar cultural touchstones. And I just don't really know ANYONE who talks about Avatar the way they do about Star Wars, or Harry Potter, or Star Trek, or Doctor Who, or Indiana Jones, or Back to the Future, or the Marvel movies, or anything like that. There's no one I know who pops that in for repeat viewings every once in a while, or anyone that is really clamoring for a sequel. Yes, that's all purely anecdotal, but it sure seems like there are a LOT of people who are all pretty much telling the same story.

 

[IzzyB]

The wow factor was derived entirely from the realistic 3-D, so the success of the film was more predicated on a gimmick than any lasting value found in the story and characters. If the exact same movie had come out now instead of 2009, there's a good chance it wouldn't have done anywhere near as well in the face of so many other 3-D spectacles. I think the park may see a big initial boost in attendance, but then the long-term effect may be negligible. I would wager that the new night show and other nighttime offerings will probably have a better effect on long-term attendance gains than Avatar does.

But by the time long term effects are noticed SWL will be open and printing money. So I don't think Avatar has any impact on what Disney does in the future. Also, when the other movies come out they will do better with Merch sales because it will be popular then.

 

[brianlo]

Don't worry, Pandora has another 'gimmick'.

It will easily be the most spectacular thing WDW has built in over a decade, not a very high bar admittedly...

The guests are already there in the general sense that they are on property, I think this will seriously shift a lot of people over who are starved for something new. Whether they have affinity for the property or not, it will definitely be the 'must see' thing - until Star Wars arrives that is.

 

[Nick]

Also, I think many of you need to watch Avatar again. Those who say it was a mediocre/bad movie I would never take any cinema advice from. The movie was very well done in every way. Sure 3D was sort of it's "pull" but people didn't come back time and again just for the 3D. They came back to enter the world of Pandora, which is exactly what they will do at DAK.

 

[*Q*]

I would say it's... technically competent. It's a well-crafted film, all of the pieces are put together the way they should, it's just not something that adds up to more than the sum of its parts the way that truly great films do.

 

[Nick]

I would say it's... technically competent. It's a well-crafted film, all of the pieces are put together the way they should, it's just not something that adds up to more than the sum of its parts the way that truly great films do.

I'm not saying Avatar is a "great" film, but neither are many theme park properties. However it DID get nominated for the highest award possible in it's Oscar year.

F&F and Transformers are certainly no masterpieces of cinema by a long stretch. However, at least in Transformers case, it works. Even though I feel the ride is a bit jumbled, it works.

Now, some may say that those examples are singular rides, not full lands. IMO, it doesn't matter if this had the Avatar name attached to it or not. If it was being built as an original IP, no one would be bitching.

 

[UAN17]

Any word on if the boat ride will include any small drops?

 

[twebber55]

Any word on if the boat ride will include any small drops?

Great question
Im hopong at least a small POTC drop
I do think this ride will be heavy on effects ala mystic manor

 

[Brian G.]

Also, I think many of you need to watch Avatar again. Those who say it was a mediocre/bad movie I would never take any cinema advice from. The movie was very well done in every way. Sure 3D was sort of it's "pull" but people didn't come back time and again just for the 3D. They came back to enter the world of Pandora, which is exactly what they will do at DAK.

There are people who feel Avatar is nothing original from a story/plot standpoint, and usually cite it borrowing heavily from Dances with Wolves and others. I like the movie, but I think it's a fair criticism.

I'm not saying Avatar is a "great" film, but neither are many theme park properties. However it DID get nominated for the highest award possible in it's Oscar year.

F&F and Transformers are certainly no masterpieces of cinema by a long stretch. However, at least in Transformers case, it works. Even though I feel the ride is a bit jumbled, it works.

Now, some may say that those examples are singular rides, not full lands. IMO, it doesn't matter if this had the Avatar name attached to it or not. If it was being built as an original IP, no one would be bitching.

I would say being nominated for an Oscar doesn't really translate into a great film (Sounds silly I know). Crash won 'Best Pic' but the plot was boring, it just had a great cast with great performances.

As far as the Avatar name attachment, IDK. It's definitely "would it? could it? Maybe."

I'm looking forward to the project but I question the longevity of its appeal. If it was just an original "Glow Forrest Land", I'd counter we would have gotten different main E-Ticket which might impress the people who aren't impressed with the project.

 

[IzzyB]

As far as the Avatar name attachment, IDK. It's definitely "would it? could it? Maybe."

I'm looking forward to the project but I question the longevity of its appeal. If it was just an original "Glow Forrest Land", I'd counter we would have gotten different main E-Ticket which might impress the people who aren't impressed with the project.

It may impress the people who are not impressed, but an original land would not bring in the masses as much as Avatar will. I think original content not tied to an IP (i.e. Pirates, Small World, Haunted Mansion) is probably not going to happen with Uni or Disney. Because IPs bring people in that like those IPs and the rides are normally good enough for those who are not into those IPs. It is like original content to those people. As much as everyone complains about Avatar, I imagine most of us will go see it. And now they are getting all the people who remember it. My complaint isn't Avatar vs. original work. It is Avatar vs another more relevant IP. There was too much time between the first film and the second film.

 

[Cole]

IPs are sadly here to stay for the rest of the theme park industry. Everest might be the last original ride we may ever see for possibly decades. It's almost been a decade since it's opened. I welcome them because they make for amazing rides and lands but still, we've hit a new era

 

[Brian G.]

IDK, Volcano Bay seems pretty original.

 

[misterID]

I'm still holding out hope AK gets that Mysterious Island hybrid that was once planned for the Avatar plot. They still have a lot of room behind Asia.

Any word on if the boat ride will include any small drops?

It doesn't sound like it will. It's definitely not being advertised as such.

 

[IzzyB]

IDK, Volcano Bay seems pretty original.

I think water parks is very different from theme parks. The rides are cheaper to build, quicker to build, and way less people go into water parks. I think with the price point, number of guests, and size of a water park won't sustain an IP unless it is an already owned IP. Which even Disney doesn't use their IPs in their water parks. So I think that is a different beast all together. Water parks are also not known for merchandise sales, which is another reason to use an IP.

I was more talking about IPs within a theme park. I don't see many original ideas being used these days because the IPs brings in more guests, but more importantly more merchandise is bought when an IP is involved.

 

[Brian G.]

I think water parks is very different from theme parks. The rides are cheaper to build, quicker to build, and way less people go into water parks. I think with the price point, number of guests, and size of a water park won't sustain an IP unless it is an already owned IP. Which even Disney doesn't use their IPs in their water parks. So I think that is a different beast all together. Water parks are also not known for merchandise sales, which is another reason to use an IP.

I was more talking about IPs within a theme park. I don't see many original ideas being used these days because the IPs brings in more guests, but more importantly more merchandise is bought when an IP is involved.

My comment wasn't directed at you.