I'll be the first to admit Animal Kingdom needs some work. The Camp Minnie Mickey area is terrible with only one Lion King show (which itself is pretty tired) and no other significant attractions or spectacles. Other areas of the park are sparse as well. Animal Kingdom is a large park, but has only a few real attractions. The most significant attractions are the Safaris, the river rapids, Expedition Everest, Dinosaur, "It's tough to be a bug", and the animal exhibits. However, these attractions do not even come close to filling up the park. In fact, guests usually spend less than one day at Animal Kingdom because they can do everything they want to in less than one day. That's Pretty sad. Disney needs more high level attractions and exhibits in Animal Kingdom, they know that. Then came the movie Avatar, a story about big blue aliens that has a subplot of living with nature, that was a large success that made a lot of money. Some people really loved this movie and it almost won the 2009 Oscar for Best Picture. Disney saw the opportunity to combine Disney with Avatar and recently announced an agreement to create a type of "Avatarland" inside Animal Kingdom under the guise of creating Pandora with the idea of promoting a symbiotic relationship with nature.
Is this a good idea? Well it is better than nothing, so at least Disney is doing
something, but overall I think this is a poor choice. Why? Well to start off with, Avatar is a good movie, but its not a franchise. This was a SINGLE MOVIE that made a lot of money that is now going to get two simultaneous sequels to come out in 2014 and 2015 because of those receipts. Will these two movies be as popular as the first movie? Will the sequels help feed the new Avatarland? I do not think it will and here's why.
There have been a few other movies that have attempted the simultaneous sequels following strong profits and they are all terrible. Think about the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels (Dead Man's Chest and At World's End), The Matrix sequels (Reloaded and Revolutions). Both of these sets of sequels were terrible because the stories made no sense. Can you actually think about what the plot of The Matrix Revolutions was or all the character turns in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End? These movies should serve as an example that one big hit DOES NOT ensure that simultaneous sequels will be popular, profitable, or even watchable.
So let's assume the Avatar sequels follow this pattern and these movies are big disappointments with no coherent plot. Disney will open up a whole area of a park to this franchise. How is this a good idea? When attractions are created based on bad movies they tend to be short lived (think The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian at Hollywood Studios). Additionally, Disney doesn't own the Avatar intellectual property. While I also don't agree with the creation of an entire Carsland at California Adventure (i'll save that for another post), AT LEAST DISNEY OWNS THE CARS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Disney will have little ability to change the context or intent of their attractions if it collides with the message of the films whereas Disney can do anything they want with the Carsland area. Disney cannot make the Avatar films any better, yet they are stuck with the result of those movies in the parks.
Next, ask yourself how much you'd really like to be in a Pandora type land. Could it be fun to look at? Definitely. Will it have some good stores and maybe a good restaurant? Probably. Are you enchanted enough with the Pandora world to spend a lot of your day there? Maybe. Would you rather go here instead of on the African Safaris? Heck no! Put simply, there is no excitement, anticipation, or need to experience Pandora at Disney. There is no buzz. When Disney undertakes a big project there's generally lots of buzz. The Fantasyland Expansion project has tons of buzz, so much so that people are flying their planes over the site just to get daily looks at construction. Star Tours II? Fair amount of buzz. American Idol Experience? Definite Buzz. Expedition Everest? Buzz was en fuego. Avatarland? No buzz.
The imagineers should not be looking for a quick solution to fill in Animal Kingdom, but should be looking for a solid solution with lots of growth opportunities. I am not against contracting with an outside entity for an attraction, such as Star Tours, but make sure it really fits. AVATAR AT ANIMAL KINGDOM IS A STRETCH. Look in-house first for the answers. Look at DisneyNature, a subsidiary that makes nature documentaries for Disney, a company with shrinking box office returns. As such, there is only one announce project at this time, meaning that the company may not be around much longer. Animal Kingdom can promote DisneyNature and house aspects of DisneyNature. Also, look at the scrapped plans for Beastly Kingdom. These are all viable ideas and will be MORE RELEVANT THAN AVATAR WILL BE IF THE MOVIES ARE TERRIBLE.
Be honest, when was your reaction to learning that Avatar was coming to Animal Kingdom? I didn't say "Yippee", I said "hmm" and felt disappointed. I felt more excitement when I learned that the parking signs at Magic Kingdom had been replaced or that walkway railings had been replaced at Disneyland...at least you KNOW those will be around a few years from now.
No comments:
Post a Comment