(11-22-2022 09:57 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 09:03 AM)otown Wrote:  Disney can potentially get royally burnt by Avatar. This is one of the most expensive movies ever. I have seen reports that it will need to become the 4th most profitable movie in order to just break even. If it dives, they already have a crap load more that were filmed already. If they write them off, that's a billion+ dollar write off.

I never understood the need to make three sequels to Avatar.
However, folks would go broke betting against James Cameron. The guy has two or the top-five grossing films of all-time.

Sequels usually outearn the original movie, even though sequels are rarely as good as the original movie.


But I'm not entirely sold on Avatar sequels doing well because it's one of the few hit movies that is now considered to actually be mediocre. Avatar had high viewership since it was a cultural event, and a whole lot of viewers (including me) thought they had wasted $15 and three hours of their life after they had actually watched the movie, and presumably had no interest in seeing a sequel. This is a contrast to a typical hit movie, where viewers actually enjoy the movie and want to see a continuation of the story once it ends. Plus even the people who enjoyed Avatar were mostly mesmerized by the technology, which seems a lot less impressive 13 years later.

(11-23-2022 03:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think the reaction to Universal Studios (specifically the Wizarding World of Harry Potter) had a lot to do with the Disney Park direction over the past 10-12 years. The young kid set actually still has a ton to do at the Magic Kingdom in Florida - I recall taking my kids as preschoolers and they were able to ride everything other than Space Mountain. (Even the Big Thunder Mountain Railroad roller coaster was allowed for them.)

The more teenager-level piece (more than adults) was what was lacking at Disney World, so I'm not shocked at the pivot. That was exacerbated with how well Universal did with the Harry Potter property. I'm not even the biggest Harry Potter fan, but the way they did their lands really does make it feel like you're walking into the movies/books and all of their rides are phenomenal. Disney saw that the game was being upped for immersive lands, so that spurred them building Pandora (from Avatar) in Animal Kingdom and Star Wars Galaxy's Edge.

I'm a much bigger Star Wars fan compared to Harry Potter and I'd say that Rise of the Resistance is the best theme park ride anywhere (bar none), but I really wish Disney had set Galaxy's Edge in Mos Eisley in Tatooine as opposed to creating a non-movie location that is Tatooine-like. They also made an error in setting the land in the time of the latest trilogy as opposed to the original trilogy (although I'm going to guess that will be rectified in the near future).

In any event, it's no fun choosing between (a) paying $60 extra (or from what I've seen from reports with dynamic pricing during this Thanksgiving week, $100 or more extra) for a 4-person family for an Individual Lightning Lane to go onto Rise of the Resistance... and that's if you're *lucky* enough to have the privilege of paying that amount by grabbing a time within the first 30 seconds after you're allowed to buy them at 7:00 am of the day that you're going to the park or (b) waiting in line for the ride for 2-3 hours, which eats up your ability to do other things at the park when you're paying several thousand dollars for your vacation.

To be sure, I only complain because I love places like Disney World and Universal, so it's frustrating when the latest Disney World experience didn't track with the prior times that I've gone that were truly just pure fun. 4 years ago, there was a lot of prep work to go to Disney World, but once you got there, your planning paid off and you could just enjoy your vacation. Now, the new systems require a lot of logistical prepping *during* the vacation itself and that's not fun (and Disney World is *supposed* to be simply fun).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/20...hapek-ceo/

"9 changes Disney fans want returning CEO Bob Iger to make at parks"

You and a lot of other people...

(11-23-2022 03:35 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 09:57 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 09:03 AM)otown Wrote:  Disney can potentially get royally burnt by Avatar. This is one of the most expensive movies ever. I have seen reports that it will need to become the 4th most profitable movie in order to just break even. If it dives, they already have a crap load more that were filmed already. If they write them off, that's a billion+ dollar write off.

I never understood the need to make three sequels to Avatar.
However, folks would go broke betting against James Cameron. The guy has two or the top-five grossing films of all-time.

Sequels usually outearn the original movie, even though sequels are rarely as good as the original movie.


But I'm not entirely sold on Avatar sequels doing well because it's one of the few hit movies that is now considered to actually be mediocre. Avatar had high viewership since it was a cultural event, and a whole lot of viewers (including me) thought they had wasted $15 and three hours of their life after they had actually watched the movie, and presumably had no interest in seeing a sequel. This is a contrast to a typical hit movie, where viewers actually enjoy the movie and want to see a continuation of the story once it ends. Plus even the people who enjoyed Avatar were mostly mesmerized by the technology, which seems a lot less impressive 13 years later.

Who was Avatar popular with? Maybe it was a younger age than my kids. I don't remember any interest like the Superhero or Star Wars movies from them or their friends.

I never watched it because it made humans as the bad guys. Struck me as one of those movies that might get too political.

(11-23-2022 06:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-23-2022 03:35 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 09:57 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 09:03 AM)otown Wrote:  Disney can potentially get royally burnt by Avatar. This is one of the most expensive movies ever. I have seen reports that it will need to become the 4th most profitable movie in order to just break even. If it dives, they already have a crap load more that were filmed already. If they write them off, that's a billion+ dollar write off.

I never understood the need to make three sequels to Avatar.
However, folks would go broke betting against James Cameron. The guy has two or the top-five grossing films of all-time.

Sequels usually outearn the original movie, even though sequels are rarely as good as the original movie.


But I'm not entirely sold on Avatar sequels doing well because it's one of the few hit movies that is now considered to actually be mediocre. Avatar had high viewership since it was a cultural event, and a whole lot of viewers (including me) thought they had wasted $15 and three hours of their life after they had actually watched the movie, and presumably had no interest in seeing a sequel. This is a contrast to a typical hit movie, where viewers actually enjoy the movie and want to see a continuation of the story once it ends. Plus even the people who enjoyed Avatar were mostly mesmerized by the technology, which seems a lot less impressive 13 years later.

Who was Avatar popular with? Maybe it was a younger age than my kids. I don't remember any interest like the Superhero or Star Wars movies from them or their friends.

I never watched it because it made humans as the bad guys. Struck me as one of those movies that might get too political.

Avatar was, and I believe still is, the highest grossing movie of all time. Plenty of people in all age groups saw it, except for children under 12 or whatever age would have been considered too young to see it.

People never ended up buying Avatar apparel because so many people who watched the film ended up being disappointed by it.


I didn’t really find the film as that political at the time (although I might see the film as more political now after stuff like COVID lockdowns.) I just thought it had an average to below average plot and weird dialogue. And I didn’t really care in the least about the special effects in the film.

(11-23-2022 06:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-23-2022 03:35 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 09:57 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 09:03 AM)otown Wrote:  Disney can potentially get royally burnt by Avatar. This is one of the most expensive movies ever. I have seen reports that it will need to become the 4th most profitable movie in order to just break even. If it dives, they already have a crap load more that were filmed already. If they write them off, that's a billion+ dollar write off.

I never understood the need to make three sequels to Avatar.
However, folks would go broke betting against James Cameron. The guy has two or the top-five grossing films of all-time.

Sequels usually outearn the original movie, even though sequels are rarely as good as the original movie.


But I'm not entirely sold on Avatar sequels doing well because it's one of the few hit movies that is now considered to actually be mediocre. Avatar had high viewership since it was a cultural event, and a whole lot of viewers (including me) thought they had wasted $15 and three hours of their life after they had actually watched the movie, and presumably had no interest in seeing a sequel. This is a contrast to a typical hit movie, where viewers actually enjoy the movie and want to see a continuation of the story once it ends. Plus even the people who enjoyed Avatar were mostly mesmerized by the technology, which seems a lot less impressive 13 years later.

Who was Avatar popular with? Maybe it was a younger age than my kids. I don't remember any interest like the Superhero or Star Wars movies from them or their friends.

I never watched it because it made humans as the bad guys. Struck me as one of those movies that might get too political.

It was a huge hit in the theatres with a widescreen and the most incredible 3D I've witnessed. It had depth instead of popping out at you. Just the opposite of the earlier 3D experiences. And it's colors and the animation were superb. So, story aside of humanity's greed for unobtanium, it was simply unlike any visual experience anyone had seen on the screen. Any format beyond that one is not going to be anywhere near as impressive visually.

(11-23-2022 07:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-23-2022 06:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-23-2022 03:35 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 09:57 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 09:03 AM)otown Wrote:  Disney can potentially get royally burnt by Avatar. This is one of the most expensive movies ever. I have seen reports that it will need to become the 4th most profitable movie in order to just break even. If it dives, they already have a crap load more that were filmed already. If they write them off, that's a billion+ dollar write off.

I never understood the need to make three sequels to Avatar.
However, folks would go broke betting against James Cameron. The guy has two or the top-five grossing films of all-time.

Sequels usually outearn the original movie, even though sequels are rarely as good as the original movie.


But I'm not entirely sold on Avatar sequels doing well because it's one of the few hit movies that is now considered to actually be mediocre. Avatar had high viewership since it was a cultural event, and a whole lot of viewers (including me) thought they had wasted $15 and three hours of their life after they had actually watched the movie, and presumably had no interest in seeing a sequel. This is a contrast to a typical hit movie, where viewers actually enjoy the movie and want to see a continuation of the story once it ends. Plus even the people who enjoyed Avatar were mostly mesmerized by the technology, which seems a lot less impressive 13 years later.

Who was Avatar popular with? Maybe it was a younger age than my kids. I don't remember any interest like the Superhero or Star Wars movies from them or their friends.

I never watched it because it made humans as the bad guys. Struck me as one of those movies that might get too political.

It was a huge hit in the theatres with a widescreen and the most incredible 3D I've witnessed. It had depth instead of popping out at you. Just the opposite of the earlier 3D experiences. And it's colors and the animation were superb. So, story aside of humanity's greed for unobtanium, it was simply unlike any visual experience anyone had seen on the screen. Any format beyond that one is not going to be anywhere near as impressive visually.

I seem to recall James Cameron saying at the time that only Avatar and Tron were shot with the special 3D cameras. All other 3D movies of the time just did 3D post-processing.

(11-23-2022 07:18 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I seem to recall James Cameron saying at the time that only Avatar and Tron were shot with the special 3D cameras. All other 3D movies of the time just did 3D post-processing.

Uh, no. Some films add the effect in post-processing, but a number of films have been made using 3D cameras, especially Imax 3D.

On the topic of Avatar, it was visually stunning but the plot leave little to be desired. I felt like Cameron cherry picked elements of Pocahontas, Fern Gully, Dances with Wolves, and the Matrix and mashed them together. Even the whole reason for being on that planet was vague—mining unobtainium? Which does what exactly?

Disney World has a surplus of demand - they need to keep raising the price. This makes people really upset, but there are just too many customers at Disney World for the ride supply. I was there last week & 4 rides in Hollywood Studios all had 3+ hour posted wait times (Rise of Resistance, Tower of Terror, Toy Story roller coaster, other Star Wars ride). To be financially responsible they need to charge more.

Folks have complained that Disney World has been going to hell for 30+ years. Folks just like to complain & they remember the past with rose colored glasses.

(11-24-2022 08:17 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-23-2022 07:18 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I seem to recall James Cameron saying at the time that only Avatar and Tron were shot with the special 3D cameras. All other 3D movies of the time just did 3D post-processing.

Uh, no. Some films add the effect in post-processing, but a number of films have been made using 3D cameras, especially Imax 3D.

Still looking for the interview - the internet is shy about coughing up things from over a decade ago : )

But my guess is that he was talking about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_Camera_System

And per this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_film#Ma...93present)

Those post 2003 imax 3D ones from your list were apparently James cameron's 3d too.

(And click on "Reality Camera System" and see where it sends you : )

Anyway, I was just referencing an old interview I saw of his. What he was meaning to say, and whether he was correct or not, I'll leave to him.

(11-24-2022 08:17 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-23-2022 07:18 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I seem to recall James Cameron saying at the time that only Avatar and Tron were shot with the special 3D cameras. All other 3D movies of the time just did 3D post-processing.

Uh, no. Some films add the effect in post-processing, but a number of films have been made using 3D cameras, especially Imax 3D.

That list is explicitly starting at 2005, so it doesn't contradict a pre-2005 interview

(11-24-2022 09:38 AM)Section 200 Wrote:  Disney World has a surplus of demand - they need to keep raising the price. This makes people really upset, but there are just too many customers at Disney World for the ride supply. I was there last week & 4 rides in Hollywood Studios all had 3+ hour posted wait times (Rise of Resistance, Tower of Terror, Toy Story roller coaster, other Star Wars ride). To be financially responsible they need to charge more.

Folks have complained that Disney World has been going to hell for 30+ years. Folks just like to complain & they remember the past with rose colored glasses.

I don't disagree. But, even within those 30 years, a lot has happened to the parks in that time. And not everything was great. The parks were just able to rebound very well. I do think people are making a bit too much about park operations since the pandemic; so much of what people really don't like according to that previously linked article are pandemic-era moves.

Perhaps any "rose-colored glasses" some view the parks experience/perception of the past are more from a philosophical approach to how they were run: banking on the long bet of cultivating customers and reaping rewards from multi-generational return traffic. What isn't nostalgia, however, if the real loss of organic discovery; that you didn't need to rigorously schedule, or compete to obtain a schedule to reasonably experience the parks. On that front, because the parks ran for so long on an older, free-form model, and profited greatly, what makes it so "financially responsible" to make so many significant changes and continue to retain them in such a short time? Is Disney allowed to breathe and explore the space? Yes. Should they? I think this is the uglier, harder, and divisive question.

I'm more bothered by "parks people" getting excited about the return of Iger. Umm. Chapek was his guy. I doubt the parks pivot off operations that profit no matter what critical words are thrown toward them. "The second coming of Iger" is about cable and streaming.

(11-24-2022 09:38 AM)Section 200 Wrote:  Disney World has a surplus of demand - they need to keep raising the price. This makes people really upset, but there are just too many customers at Disney World for the ride supply. I was there last week & 4 rides in Hollywood Studios all had 3+ hour posted wait times (Rise of Resistance, Tower of Terror, Toy Story roller coaster, other Star Wars ride). To be financially responsible they need to charge more.

Folks have complained that Disney World has been going to hell for 30+ years. Folks just like to complain & they remember the past with rose colored glasses.

If this was a restaurant or a grocery store or a theatre or whatever other business, I would think one would open another location.

I honestly do not understand why Disney doesn't pick some spot out in the middle of nowhere and build a park/studio. Doesn't matter where - people would show up.

Together, Disneyland and California adventure are around 500 acres (compared to WDW's 25k acres) - Depending on the reference, Disneyland alone is between 100 and 160 acres.

By comparison, 6 flags great adventure (New Jersey) is just over 500 acres, Carowinds (NC) is just over 400 acres, Cedar point (ohio) is around 360 acres, 6 flags great america (In Gurnee, just north of Chicago) is just over 300 acres, etc.

For a different comparison, Arlington Park - which the Bears are in the process of buying - is 326 acres.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington_Park

Speaking of buying, they could also probably buy any one of several existing parks and just remodel it - a lot of amusement park rides are actually movable, so they could be removed and Disney-themed attractions placed instead.

If not, then I think they should pick somewhere next to the Mississippi River. That just so would fit with several of their themes. And knowing them, the next thing we'd see is Disney Riverboat Cruises : )

So anyway, it's not like Disney couldn't open up shop somewhere.

I think this would make a lot of people happier than what's going on now...

Rather than jacking up the price to reduce demand to numbers that match capacity, they should be drawing up plans for a Disney World San Antonio or Houston to help ease the traffic flow issues in Orlando and Anaheim. There’s clearly a very high domestic demand so they need to match their supply to demand. If not, they will continue to build a reputation as a nickel-and-diming corporate bully.

Instead they keep building parks in Asia, the market they really care about.

A third park would be a huge hit, if executed properly.

(11-25-2022 09:09 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Rather than jacking up the price to reduce demand to numbers that match capacity, they should be drawing up plans for a Disney World San Antonio or Houston to help ease the traffic flow issues in Orlando and Anaheim. There’s clearly a very high domestic demand so they need to match their supply to demand. If not, they will continue to build a reputation as a nickel-and-diming corporate bully.

Instead they keep building parks in Asia, the market they really care about.

A third park would be a huge hit, if executed properly.

I think Eisner was considering a Disney Texas.