Announcement

Collapse

POLL: Help decide the future of the forums

Please go to the following link and provide your opinion on how we should proceed in regards to the forum software. https://discuss.micechat.com/forum/d...um-s-next-step
See more
See less

World of Pandora is better than Harry Potter.

Collapse

Ad Widget

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • World of Pandora is better than Harry Potter.

    I've never been there, and I don't care for avatar. But based on what I've seen in all the videos posted by Attractions Magazine, the level of detail is obvious. I don't get why people are hesitating to say this, but Avatar the World of Pandora is significantly a much more well-put together experience that Harry Potter.

  • #2
    Pandora is well put together the same way Cars Land is put together, both are, to me, exactly on par with Diagon Alley. The problem is this: do people want it? I've met far fewer people who want to ride a Banshee, eat Pandora food, or walk through Radiator Springs than who want to fly through a Quiddich match, drink butterbeer and walk onto platform 9 3/4.

    The land looks incredible, don't get me wrong, but I really think Star Wars Land will be Disney's true answer to Harry Potter. THat's a world that people are dying to walk through.
    Disneyland Wooooh!

    "You see- Everybody's got a laughin' place, trouble is most folks won't take the time to go look for it."

    Comment


    • #3
      Have you ever been to HP? The level of detail there is also pretty obvious.

      The very little bit I've seen of Avatar does look very nice. But I just have absolutely no interest in the IP. It does not have nearly the following that HP does, and if you ask me, the movie has not held up all that well over time, while HP has.

      I'll be heading to Orlando later this year, and I don't even plan on visiting AK for it. There's more that interests me at Universal and Epcot, personally.

      And don't even get me started on Star Wars. While I do believe the land probably will be amazing, and perhaps on par if not better than HP, the crowds that will come with it are so off putting, I don't plan on visiting it for at least 6 months to a year (maybe even more) after it opens. The crowds are just going to make it miserable, and effectively counter any joy I'd get from it.
      Does anyone even bother with signatures anymore?

      Comment


      • #4
        .... In other news, who else is PUMPED for Nintendo World at Universal Studios?!!

        Comment


        • #5
          So far Pandora is looking to be a very amazingly themed land. It looks amazing and the sound design is great. But at the same time, the land of Pandora just isn't that captivating to me. We've seen alien worlds before, we've seen futuristic sci-fi, and unlike Harry Potter with its fantasy setting or Star Wars with its sci-fi setting or Carsland with its Route 66 setting, the movie of Avatar just doesn't give off the same level of charm these other franchises give off. I have no interest in Pandora outside of the fact that I just really like small futuristic military bases on alien planets in movies.

          I will honestly say that Harry Potter is the better land for me. True there is an over abundance of projection screens, but at the same time I really do enjoy my time over at The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, both Diagon Alley and Hogsmeade. I guess I can only truly form opinions once I see the land myself in person, but at the same time I am just not feeling like it is offering much to combat Harry Potter. Star Wars might have a chance, but I have to see the end of construction to find out.

          Total Tender Rides: 20
          Total Lilly Belle Rides: 9
          Total Dapper Days Attended: 2
          Total Mark Twain Wheelhouse Rides: 5

          Comment


          • #6
            To me this is like picking "best of show" at a dog show, how do you compare a Chihuahua to Rottweiler? The answer it, you don't, you compare each dog to what the "ideal" dog of that breed would be like. Same goes for these theme parks lands. It's hard to objectively compare Cars Land, Avatarland and Wizarding World since they are based on very different worlds, but you can try to judge how well each succeeds in creating it's respective world. By that measure I think all three land (Avatar only based on what I have seen so far) are very successful and immersing you in their worlds. Yes, the level of detail in Avatarland is amazing, but it's based on a world that is thick with detail. Potter also has lots of details, but they are details appropriate to that world.

            Comment


            • #7
              I think that time (way too much) and effort have been obviously poured into Pandora, but as many posters say, the IP has very little appeal to the general public. It will never pull crowds like Harry Potter does and Star Wars will do, and this will be more than obvious when the land fails to draw the crowds it was expected to. Then Disney's reaction to it will be the same as the failed New Fantasyland: "this is just a small plussing to the park, it was not meant to be a "Potter swatter". Soon the stores will resort to just selling more generic merchandise (who wants Avatar merchandise, honestly?), and the project will be seen as an expensive and useless move. I still think that with the Avatar sequels pushed further and further, the land will be just repurposed to another IP, like Moana.


              The only true contender to Potter is Star Wars, which should have been built way earlier in my opinion.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by danlb_2000 View Post
                To me this is like picking "best of show" at a dog show, how do you compare a Chihuahua to Rottweiler? The answer it, you don't, you compare each dog to what the "ideal" dog of that breed would be like. Same goes for these theme parks lands. It's hard to objectively compare Cars Land, Avatarland and Wizarding World since they are based on very different worlds, but you can try to judge how well each succeeds in creating it's respective world. By that measure I think all three land (Avatar only based on what I have seen so far) are very successful and immersing you in their worlds. Yes, the level of detail in Avatarland is amazing, but it's based on a world that is thick with detail. Potter also has lots of details, but they are details appropriate to that world.
                I agree with this completely. But unlike a dog show, there is an additional layer: Disney Parks is a business, so the appeal of the concept, apart from its execution, matters. Yes all of these lands are executed fantastically, but there also should be consideration for whether there is a market.
                Disneyland Wooooh!

                "You see- Everybody's got a laughin' place, trouble is most folks won't take the time to go look for it."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by mtlchuck View Post
                  I think that time (way too much) and effort have been obviously poured into Pandora, but as many posters say, the IP has very little appeal to the general public. It will never pull crowds like Harry Potter does and Star Wars will do, and this will be more than obvious when the land fails to draw the crowds it was expected to. Then Disney's reaction to it will be the same as the failed New Fantasyland: "this is just a small plussing to the park, it was not meant to be a "Potter swatter". Soon the stores will resort to just selling more generic merchandise (who wants Avatar merchandise, honestly?), and the project will be seen as an expensive and useless move....
                  Originally posted by cruise View Post
                  ...Disney Parks is a business, so the appeal of the concept, apart from its execution, matters. Yes all of these lands are executed fantastically, but there also should be consideration for whether there is a market.

                  Exactly. If will be interesting to see how Disney spins it if it's not a sustained crowd magnet. Iger greenlit a humongously expensive land, based on a one-movie brand that has generated no ancillary market, and for which they have to pay a presumably pricey license fee to the franchise owner. Throw in that the concept was the vision of Tom Staggs, the guy Iger was grooming for CEO, and one can only wonder how the Point-the-Finger Blame Game will be played internally.
                  "With the acquisition of Marvel and now of Lucasfilm,
                  Disney may have finally found the grail. You don't need
                  imagination or art. All you need is a brand."

                  - Neil Gabler

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    IP wise, there's no real contest. Harry Potter wins that category hands down. The following for the IP is just way more popular. Immersive detail wise, can't really be sure. Harry Potter areas are extremely immersive and immensely detailed. I'd argue it set a new level for what to strive for in a theme park land and I do believe it was a major consideration and factor for not only Pandora but also Star Wars.

                    I do believe detail-wise it's probably on par with Harry Potter, maybe even slightly higher. That assessment is made solely on the fact that Joe Rhode was the man behind it. He takes that detail seriously and you see it all around Animal Kingdom.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Spectacular View Post
                      I've never been there, and I don't care for avatar. But based on what I've seen in all the videos posted by Attractions Magazine, the level of detail is obvious. I don't get why people are hesitating to say this, but Avatar the World of Pandora is significantly a much more well-put together experience that Harry Potter.
                      At first many Disney fans with blue-tinted glasses will declare Pandora the best land ever created. (See the hype when the subs opened at Disneyland.) But by the fall those who haven't drunk the blue Kool Aid will offer opinions I'll put more faith in. I do hope it is the best land ever--that wouldn't take anything away from the magnificent & conntected Wizarding WorldS of HP in Orlando, or from Tokyo Disney Sea.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        (Duplicate deleted.)
                        Last edited by jcruise86; 05-01-2017, 11:45 AM. Reason: Deleted a duplicate.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by cruise View Post
                          Pandora is well put together the same way Cars Land is put together, both are, to me, exactly on par with Diagon Alley. The problem is this: do people want it? I've met far fewer people who want to ride a Banshee, eat Pandora food, or walk through Radiator Springs than who want to fly through a Quiddich match, drink butterbeer and walk onto platform 9 3/4.

                          The land looks incredible, don't get me wrong, but I really think Star Wars Land will be Disney's true answer to Harry Potter. THat's a world that people are dying to walk through.
                          This is my exact answer when reading the post. Pandora is a gorgeous game-changer & I am visiting in October. Is it due to Pandora? Not at all! It's because Pandora looks awesome & I waited a few years for other new attractions to accompany it. After seeing a few pictures of Pandora (I'm staying spoiler free), I'm in the "I must see this category" but gladly waited for Volcano Bay, Fallon, the new Soarin Film, Frozen & King Kong to accompany it. To be fair, all those rides I mentioned weren't enough to get me out to the parks either as much I'd love to fly out to Florida every year.

                          Potter has the pull all by itself. I worked hard & took my first ever plane ride when I was 22 just to make the Diagon Alley opening. Pandora is very comparable to Carsland being that it is a gorgeous recreation of a film featuring a great attraction, but there is not a huge fan base or drive for people to see it beyond the high quality of the lands.

                          Makes me wonder if Disney making lands out of movies is a thing Disney is truly interested in or if they really are trying to just compete with Potter. I hope it's the first, as they've been doing a great job. But realistically, the only thing that would bring out those feelings I have for Potter would be with Star Wars or Marvel. Two franchises that very, very clearly have a dedicated fanbase. I will buy a light saber in a heartbeat once SWL opens & more of the same with Marvel merchandise. Even if the rides are horrible, if SWL & Marvel feature amazing lands people will flock. Can't exactly say the same about Pandora or Carsland as if those lands had horrible rides the land wouldn't be able to pull in crowds or merchandise sales. Everyone has their personal taste, but there are only a few franchises that have that guaranteed pull, a great recent one is Nintendo by Universal.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by BlAcKoUt510 View Post
                            This is my exact answer when reading the post. Pandora is a gorgeous game-changer & I am visiting in October. Is it due to Pandora? Not at all! It's because Pandora looks awesome & I waited a few years for other new attractions to accompany it. After seeing a few pictures of Pandora (I'm staying spoiler free), I'm in the "I must see this category" but gladly waited for Volcano Bay, Fallon, the new Soarin Film, Frozen & King Kong to accompany it. To be fair, all those rides I mentioned weren't enough to get me out to the parks either as much I'd love to fly out to Florida every year.

                            Potter has the pull all by itself. I worked hard & took my first ever plane ride when I was 22 just to make the Diagon Alley opening. Pandora is very comparable to Carsland being that it is a gorgeous recreation of a film featuring a great attraction, but there is not a huge fan base or drive for people to see it beyond the high quality of the lands.

                            Makes me wonder if Disney making lands out of movies is a thing Disney is truly interested in or if they really are trying to just compete with Potter. I hope it's the first, as they've been doing a great job. But realistically, the only thing that would bring out those feelings I have for Potter would be with Star Wars or Marvel. Two franchises that very, very clearly have a dedicated fanbase. I will buy a light saber in a heartbeat once SWL opens & more of the same with Marvel merchandise. Even if the rides are horrible, if SWL & Marvel feature amazing lands people will flock. Can't exactly say the same about Pandora or Carsland as if those lands had horrible rides the land wouldn't be able to pull in crowds or merchandise sales. Everyone has their personal taste, but there are only a few franchises that have that guaranteed pull, a great recent one is Nintendo by Universal.
                            Cars is not in the same category as Avatar at all. Cars is an absolutely massive merchandise seller. That's why they picked it for the land and why it's getting a third movie. With Avatar, I agree, it clearly doesn't have the audience of these other major franchises and isn't a big merchandise seller and even if it were Disney doesn't own it. It's an odd choice since it doesn't have so many of the qualities that Disney usually looks for except for a big box office haul. I've always though that it actually would be a really cool theme park land and it does look really beautiful and unique and I do want to see it, but it's not something that I just have to see. But in spite of all that, I think this will be a huge help to AK and make it vastly better and more complete park and draw a lot of guests. This will add two new rides that fill out the overall ride lineup much better and the area will be a huge nighttime draw and completely change the profitability of the park. So my guess is it will be seen as a success by Disney.
                            The Mickey audience is not made up of people; it has no racial, national, political, religious or social differences or affiliations; the Mickey audience is made up of parts of people, of that deathless, precious, ageless, absolutely primitive remnant of something in every world-wracked human being which makes us play with children’s toys and laugh without self-consciousness at silly things, and sing in bathtubs, and dream and believe that our babies are uniquely beautiful. You know…the Mickey in us.
                            -Walt Disney

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by mtlchuck View Post
                              I think that time (way too much) and effort have been obviously poured into Pandora, but as many posters say, the IP has very little appeal to the general public. It will never pull crowds like Harry Potter does and Star Wars will do, and this will be more than obvious when the land fails to draw the crowds it was expected to. Then Disney's reaction to it will be the same as the failed New Fantasyland: "this is just a small plussing to the park, it was not meant to be a "Potter swatter". Soon the stores will resort to just selling more generic merchandise (who wants Avatar merchandise, honestly?), and the project will be seen as an expensive and useless move. I still think that with the Avatar sequels pushed further and further, the land will be just repurposed to another IP, like Moana.


                              The only true contender to Potter is Star Wars, which should have been built way earlier in my opinion.
                              By what measure is the Fantasyland Expansion a failure?

                              Originally posted by cruise View Post

                              I agree with this completely. But unlike a dog show, there is an additional layer: Disney Parks is a business, so the appeal of the concept, apart from its execution, matters. Yes all of these lands are executed fantastically, but there also should be consideration for whether there is a market.

                              I was just referring to the quality of the lands, you are correct in that marketability is another issue entirely.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X