nadroJ said:
I really do wish they'd go back to the Beastly Kingdom idea and continue expanding on that. It's a great idea, original and full of potential as well as providing a completely new experience!
If only my dear, if only. However, Eisner got rid of the imagineers that were responsible for that project and they ended up down the road and taking their Dragon themed coaster with them... (as Marc mentioned as I was typing this out).
nadroJ said:
Urgh, movie tie-ins that aren't in a movie-themed park make me sad =[
I partially agree with this. I have no issue with having movie tie-ins in the Disney parks, providing they are Disney movies in the first place. I have never liked the way Star Wars and Indiana Jones were in the parks to be honest and this is an extension on that.
For many years, they didn't even have many of their own tie-ins on park, except for the majority in Fantasyland and a couple in the Adventureland/Frontierland which were parts of the TV shows that Disney used to create.
Of late it seems that ALL the new attractions are related to one of the movies. I think this works perfectly in Fantasyland because that is the whole point of the area. The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast etc having their own attractions in this section of the park makes perfect sense.
What I really dislike is that certain movies are getting whole LANDS devoted to them. A Bugs Life, Toy Story and now Cars all having their own 'lands' in the parks. To me that is placing a lot of eggs in the basket of hope that the films will still be as popular in 20 years time. At least with attractions like the Seven Dwarves coaster thing we know it will still be applicable as the film is xx number of years old already.
The one saving grace of the Star Wars attraction was that it wasn't added to the park within a couple of years of the movie. In fact it was put in many years later when it was quite clear that the films would be quite timeless and have a cult following throughout future generations and beyond.
Avatar is barely 2 years old and devoting a whole land to the one (soon to be 2) movie seems a tad risky. There is no way of knowing if in 15 years the film will still be up there on the list of must sees. It could go the way of Titanic for example. Yeah, Titanic was massively popular at the time but does it have a cult following and ongoing support? I don't think so personally. In my eyes, Avatar will not retain its 'popularity' much beyond a few years of the sequel. Do I see the film being rereleased on several occasions and having massive box office success each and everytime like the Star Wars saga? Nope, not in the slightest. So why on Earth Disney have gone for it I have no idea. I'm at a total loss for suggestions. OK, so it will probably be a profit spinner in the short term but as a long term attraction (which is something Disney tend to do) will Avatar bring in the punters? I'm not convinced.
I want Disney to go back to telling their OWN stories. I want them to bring back the tradition of all their attractions have brand new stories to tell. Space Mountain, BTMR, The Matterhorn Bobsleds, Expedition Everest and so on all have their own stories, independant of even Disneys films and that is what makes them special. They rely solely on their own devices without relying on whether people have seen a specific film. Disney have prooved that this is a successful process. The stories being that successful that they have spawned their own mixed bag of movies like PotC (4 films all derived from 1 attraction
), The Haunted Mansion and the soon to be finished Jungle Cruise.
Don't get me wrong, Disney will probably manage a stunning Avatar area but I think they could do far better if they were doing their own thing. Lets face it, it might aswell be Pocahontas land anyways...
