I agree. And as I've said before on the other thread, it's so "un-Disneylike". I know that Disney released movies like Coyote Ugly and what not under other brands (mostly Touchstone Pictures), but they don't use those in the parks. Avatar has scantily clad humanoids, tons of bad language, is HEAVILY carried by the special effects, and has almost no originality when it comes to the story.
Originally Posted by Jodi
Now, before I get jumped on, I'm well aware that there was violence and what not in Indiana Jones and Star Wars, but you didn't have the language, and for the most part, you didn't have the sexual themes. The worst you really got was Leia's slave girl outfit in RotJ. And those franchises weren't built ON THAT CONTENT. Avatar is all about the Na'vi, which are shown to wear next to nothing in the movies. It's just little things like that. Stuff you can't leave out in Avatar that you could leave out from their other franchises.
Also, I know Fantasyland is based almost entirely on attractions that were inspired by movies that were based on fairy tales. However, that was Disney's own content. I don't think Disney should license other content that isn't entirely unique. Also, the similarities between Avatar and the other movies (okay, I'll say it - Dances With Wolves) is extreme. There's very few differences in the actual plot lines, etc. of Avatar. All it really has different is the time frame and race of creatures. Star Wars borrowed from various other stories, legends and archetypes to create as unique a story line as possible. So did Indiana Jones.
03-21-2012 12:58 PM
Watched Avatar last night. In my opinion this franchise is not a fit for Disney unless it is 3D thing at DHS. A whole land based on Avatar at Animal Kingdom is a misplaced idea. Not all ideas are good. John Carter was a flop even though someone at Disney thought it was a good idea. AK is natural not science fiction. I say once there is a Mermaid ride at MK that they convert DHS Voyage of the Mermaid into a Avatar 3D experience if they need to fulfill contract. Otherwise scrap the whole thing.
Trust, but verify
I thought the Avatar visuals were pretty cool. I can see a ride or two being based on some of the scenes. The story-line was rather lack-luster however -- just another one of those thinly veiled "We've got to save 'Mother Earth' types" that I'm really tired of. But can an entire land be built from a movie whose best feature is pretty cool visuals? I don't know--but if anybody can do it, my money would be on Disney.
"Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!" -- Donald Duck
I, too, finally watched Avatar last night. As others have said, great visuals with a somewhat hokey story line. I can see where you could make some rides out of this, but to do Avatar when you could have done Star Wars? Weird!
Hated Avatar. Just another hate the "big evil company and military movie, with the whole get on the band wagon save the earth theme.
But that generates the Big dollars for them.
Would have LOVED a star wars tomorrow land type area that would have been cool.
I just can't see something like this being very interesting at all. MY 9 yr old was so ticked at Avatar for ripping off all the cool vehicles from the Halo games.
Gee like anyone who plays the games wouldn't notice that at all.
I do hope they come up with something far more interesting for AK. I just went there for the 1st time ever and enjoyed it. I could have done with more rides, and less pushing the whole save the earth thing.
It would have been cool to have a whole Indy type land where you could explore the area and visit temples with animals featured in them. Some cool rides to go with it maybe?
I just hope they find something better then that movie for a new land.
LoVed Avatar and plan to visit WDW for a 3-week vacation if Animal Kingdom opens an Avatar-based land and/or attractions. Otherwise, it'll just be a 2-week vacation. Love WDW no matter what....but I'll love it more with Avatar!
Disneyland ~ Forever Close To My Heart ~
I find all these Avatar haters humorous. Obviously the story was nothing new, but the visuals were amazing, especially in theaters. Avatar was the first 3d film to be filmed with 3D cameras, which Cameron himself engineered. I liked the movies, and am looking forward to a sequel.
However, I don't think they should be placed within the parks. The idea of a screened ride too really ticks me off, am I the only one who finds motion simulation and 3D/4D attractions underwhelming? I have not rode transformers,Harry Potter, or Spiderman, so the blended rides could work here, but a theater ride or Soarin'....no thanks.
I agree with your overall enthusiasm, but the above is not correct. 3D cameras have been around for decades. It is true that these cameras were engineered with input from Cameron, and they provided a 3D image that was superior to what came before them. But they weren't the first.
Originally Posted by cdcooper
The secret of life is enjoying the passage of time.
- James Taylor
Agreed. The camera system in question was indeed engineered partially with input by Cameron, but four movies were shot and released prior to Avatar using the same system:
Originally Posted by danyoung
- U2 3D (filmed in 2006, released in 2008)
- Journey to the Center of the Earth (released in 2008)
- Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience (filmed in 2008, released in 2009)
- The Final Destination (filmed in 2008, released in 2009)
And as for 3D movies, 3D films have been around since the early 1950s. Look up Bwana Devil. It was released in 1952 and is considered the first 3D American feature-length film. Avatar is far from the first 3D film shot by a 3D camera....