Avengers Campus: E-Watch! (Waiting on the new ride)

[Disney Irish]

The new attractions coming to DCA - Avatar, Avengers, and Coco are all relevant blockbuster franchises. Besides Up requiring some pretzel gymnastics to work at Grizzly Peak, Up is not a logical choice going by what type of franchises Disney is adding to DCA. It's not happening based on that pattern. Up fits perfectly at WDW though.

What is funny is that all this arguing about whether Up can fit into Grizzly Peak and DCA, Redwood Creek is already themed to Up. It uses the Wilderness Explorers (Russel's troop) from the movie as its theme, which isn't specifically said to be in "California", so its left ambiguous for a reason. So its already there and this idea that it can't fit as an IP is silly.

 

[Professortango1]

Agreed, as I mentioned before you could call it "Carl's Vacation". But I feel the only reason Prof here is being a stickler about it is because of the "California" theme. So if we just accept that there is no longer this requirement of everything being "California" then it doesn't really matter where Up is set.

But the land you are suggesting it for IS themed to California. Even if you were to make it vaguely "Generic American Forest Mountain" that for some reason looks like the California State Bear, but even that wouldn't work as that doesn't feel a lick like South America. Avengers Infinity Defense wouldn't belong in Grizzly Peak, but it certainly fits better than an Up attraction.

 

[Professortango1]

What is funny is that all this arguing about whether Up can fit into Grizzly Peak and DCA, Redwood Creek is already themed to Up. It uses the Wilderness Explorers (Russel's troop) from the movie as its theme, which isn't specifically said to be in "California", so its left ambiguous for a reason. So its already there and this idea that it can't fit as an IP is silly.

That's a play area where they slapped on Carl and Russel after the fact. Wouldn't say that is what people think of when saying an attraction themed to "Up."

 

[wityblack]

That's a play area where they slapped on Carl and Russel after the fact. Wouldn't say that is what people think of when saying an attraction themed to "Up."

Yeah, everyone is obviously thinking this when they think Up. Remember the part of Up when everyone went on swings?

 

[Disney Irish]

But the land you are suggesting it for IS themed to California. Even if you were to make it vaguely "Generic American Forest Mountain" that for some reason looks like the California State Bear, but even that wouldn't work as that doesn't feel a lick like South America. Avengers Infinity Defense wouldn't belong in Grizzly Peak, but it certainly fits better than an Up attraction.

The land is themed to a national park, its just said its in California but it really could be anywhere. You could call it Andean Bear Peak (native bear to South America) or Black Bear Peak, works just the same. Add a few trees and plants from South America and you're there.

That's a play area where they slapped on Carl and Russel after the fact. Wouldn't say that is what people think of when saying an attraction themed to "Up."

And it was originally a generic play area with no theme, and then they slapped Brother Bear on it which isn't even set in California as its predominately more Alaskan before the Wilderness Explorer from Up theme. So other than the name "Redwood" there is nothing that really ties it specifically to California that couldn't be easily changed.

So again I think this more has to do with your insistence of keeping the "California" theme for DCA than a specific area. And as said Disney is basically telling you, hey DCA have moved on from the "California" and broadening the Parks theme.

 

[DrStarlander]

A few things I'm confused about in this Up conversation:

1. Why does @Professortango1 keep thinking the attraction should start in South America? Isn't that like starting a Star Wars: A New Hope attraction on the Death Star?

2. Does anyone have any doubt that Disney would drop any attraction into any land if it would sell Lightning Lanes? Why are we even debating this, Disney put Nemo in Tomorrowland and is putting Cars in Frontierland and Tiana now runs a food company out of a salt mine.

3. Why are we trying to put an Up ride in DCA again? I liked it better when we were arguing about putting a Spider-Man coaster in Avenger's Campus.

 

[mickEblu]

1. Why does @Professortango1 keep thinking the attraction should start in South America? Isn't that like starting a Star Wars: A New Hope attraction on the Death Star?

Not sure. Also confused by what we’d be missing out on if the attraction started in Wilderness USA vs a generic city street or some version of Adventureland? The portions of Up that translate to an attraction is the flying and adventures at Paradise Falls.

2. Does anyone have any doubt that Disney would drop any attraction into any land if it would sell Lightning Lanes? Why are we even debating this, Disney put Nemo in Tomorrowland and is putting Cars in Frontierland and Tiana now runs a food company out of a salt mine.

Nobody doubts it but that wasn’t the debate. Not sure he was ever talking about what Disney would do. I wasn’t. Just what we think would work.

I also think Up in Grizzly Peak would work much better than any of those examples.

3. Why are we trying to put an Up ride in DCA again? I liked it better when we were arguing about putting a Spider-Man coaster in Avenger's Campus.

As much as I’d love another coaster at DCA I think the park could use another fam friendly dark ride before another coaster. Even with the new rides it’s only a net gain of 1 at a park that’s already light in that department. I also don’t think it would be themed to Spider-Man due to the fact that Webslingers already exists. Not impossible just makes it more unlikely IMO.

 

[coffeefan]

?

Also why does it require pretzel gymnastics? This old man flies his balloon powered house all over the world. Why does the starting point need to be generic city in California? His house is the notable landmark, setting, location or whatever you want to call it and that would be present at Grizzly Peak as part of the queue. The destination would be Paradise Falls. Kind of like how we go to Corelia / Star Destroyer and back in Smugglers Run / ROTR. The OCD is strong here today.

Coco is absolutely in the relevant and blockbuster franchise category.

It's been a while since I've seen Up, but the entire premise of that movie is Paradise Falls. It's not about traveling the world, but rather a specific South American destination, hence him traveling to Grizzly Peak initially to begin the attraction is a stretch. Carl also didn't show interest in traveling to other places during the movie.

 

[mickEblu]

Coco is absolutely in the relevant and blockbuster franchise category.

It's been a while since I've seen Up, but the entire premise of that movie is Paradise Falls. It's not about traveling the world, but rather a specific South American destination, hence him traveling to Grizzly Peak initially to begin the attraction is a stretch. Carl also didn't show interest in traveling to other places during the movie.

And Tiana didn’t want to be Steve Irwin and yet here we are.

By travel the world I meant flying across the world. He has the ability to get where he wants go.

I love Coco but it’s not a blockbuster or anything like the other two IP you mentioned.

 

[DrStarlander]

Maybe the Soarin' building (an old hanger up in the wilderness) is the Wilderness Explorer's headquarters. They're having their annual convention/jamboree (there would be banners advertising that), and the queue would go through the headquarters with all sorts of Wilderness Explorer's lore/artifacts.

The story could be that we are waiting to go "on stage" as or with Russell to accept some award or something and... oh, no, Carl has come to pick us up and we're off on a new adventure. Or the ride is a book report but it is initially framed as Russell and Carl presenting their story at the jamboree and we start "in the audience" and then fly into the adventure (through the screen) as it's told to us.

 

[coffeefan]

What is funny is that all this arguing about whether Up can fit into Grizzly Peak and DCA, Redwood Creek is already themed to Up. It uses the Wilderness Explorers (Russel's troop) from the movie as its theme, which isn't specifically said to be in "California", so its left ambiguous for a reason. So its already there and this idea that it can't fit as an IP is silly.

Wilderness Explorers is a global organization, so it having a presence at a fictional national park in California, like at AK, or other parks doesn't break that narrative. While a main Up attraction would need more convincing storytelling to explain how the main characters got there and why they're going back to Paradise Falls.

 

[Disney Irish]

Wilderness Explorers is a global organization, so it having a presence at a fictional national park in California, like at AK, or other parks doesn't break that narrative. While a main Up attraction would need more convincing storytelling to explain how the main characters got there and why they're going back to Paradise Falls.

The “narrative” is whatever Disney says it is because it’s all fictional. So if Disney says Up works in Grizzly peak, it does. Just like Avatar and Coco will work because Disney says it does, even if it’s not directly related to “California”.

So we need to let go this idea that everything in DCA needs to be strictly tied to California, because Disney certainly has.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

Or we could just put Soarin' Over California back permanently and prevent the further IPeeing on everything.

 

[mickEblu]

Or we could just put Soarin' Over California back permanently and prevent the further IPeeing on everything.

LOL @ IPeeing. That’s great.

I think when it comes to some IP at Grizzly Peak it might save the land from being turned into some single IP land or heavily altered although I’d like to believe the Grand Californian does that. I think the atmosphere will always be the star in Grizzly Peak. If a few Country Bear AAs on GRR or an UP ride tucked away at Redwood creek keeps Grizzly Peak around in 80% of its current form I’d take that deal. But for me the NON IP ship sailed a while ago. Now I’m more concerned with getting fewer single IP lands for more versatility and for those attractions/ IP to work aesthetically and thematically in those lands. With all of that said, I’d be perfectly content with Grizzly Peak staying as is.

 

[mickEblu]

Maybe the Soarin' building (an old hanger up in the wilderness) is the Wilderness Explorer's headquarters. They're having their annual convention/jamboree (there would be banners advertising that), and the queue would go through the headquarters with all sorts of Wilderness Explorer's lore/artifacts.

The story could be that we are waiting to go "on stage" as or with Russell to accept some award or something and... oh, no, Carl has come to pick us up and we're off on a new adventure. Or the ride is a book report but it is initially framed as Russell and Carl presenting their story at the jamboree and we start "in the audience" and then fly into the adventure (through the screen) as it's told to us.
View attachment 886839

I’d be ok with this but would prefer a bit more of an outdoor queue amongst the trees with a fully realized Carl’s house that we walk through. Maybe at the end of the queue.

I think at some point over the last year or two Soarin has become expendable for me. I never ride it. For 11 months of the year it’s absolutely not worth the wait and the queue is so boring and moves so slow. Maybe it’s the grainy not so sharp projections. Maybe it’s because I haven’t ridden Soarin over California in a year or two. Perhaps another ride on that would remind me why it should stick around. Or maybe if I just bought LL’s more often. I have to imagine it’s not a priority or in the rotation for many MK holders. I do think more people would get a lot more out of an Up ride in this location. No height requirement and an extra much needed dark ride. I’m assuming you didn’t mean an Up version of Soarin and are suggesting using the building for a suspended dark ride.

With all of that said its like DCA 1.0’s Jungle Cruise, is the original version of this attraction and has historical value. Not sure I’d pull the trigger on this but I’d probably consider it if I had any say.

Also it just occurred to me that you all must think I’m an Up fan boy at this point. I’ve seen it about 1.5 times. I just think it would make for a great Disney attraction and it’s the kind of thing DCA could use.

Edit: just noticed you said fly through the screen.

 

[coffeefan]

Maybe the Soarin' building (an old hanger up in the wilderness) is the Wilderness Explorer's headquarters. They're having their annual convention/jamboree (there would be banners advertising that), and the queue would go through the headquarters with all sorts of Wilderness Explorer's lore/artifacts.

The story could be that we are waiting to go "on stage" as or with Russell to accept some award or something and... oh, no, Carl has come to pick us up and we're off on a new adventure. Or the ride is a book report but it is initially framed as Russell and Carl presenting their story at the jamboree and we start "in the audience" and then fly into the adventure (through the screen) as it's told to us.
View attachment 886839

That would be one way to make it work. The characters would be CGI, but the environments could be either CGI or live action.

edit

 

[coffeefan]

The “narrative” is whatever Disney says it is because it’s all fictional. So if Disney says Up works in Grizzly peak, it does. Just like Avatar and Coco will work because Disney says it does, even if it’s not directly related to “California”.

So we need to let go this idea that everything in DCA needs to be strictly tied to California, because Disney certainly has.

Grizzly Peak is just the most California land there is. So even if DCA dropped the California name, Grizzly Peak would still be California. The land would need to be changed to something else, like Piston Peak National Park.

Like @Professortango1 said, an Up attraction would work at Pixar Pier, as that land doesn't have the same storytelling constraints.

 

[Disney Irish]

Grizzly Peak is just the most California land there is. So even if DCA dropped the California name, Grizzly Peak would still be California. The land would need to be changed to something else, like Piston Peak National Park.

Like @Professortango1 said, an Up attraction would work at Pixar Pier, as that land doesn't have the same storytelling constraints.

I think people forget how Up ends, with Carl, Russel, and Doug back in (name city here). They don’t stay in Paradise Falls, the house and Kevin do, but they do not. So in this world where Disney builds an Up attraction in Grizzly Peak it can be AFTER the events of the movie where they are back and the adventure continues. Heck they even had a Doug shorts series on D+ that did just that.

So you guys sticking to this idea that Up can’t fit is silly because Disney can craft whatever narrative they want to make it “fit”. As I said call it “Carl’s vacation” where he visits California national parks, boom, done, it fits.

 

[Nirya]

Coco is absolutely in the relevant and blockbuster franchise category.

It's been a while since I've seen Up, but the entire premise of that movie is Paradise Falls. It's not about traveling the world, but rather a specific South American destination, hence him traveling to Grizzly Peak initially to begin the attraction is a stretch. Carl also didn't show interest in traveling to other places during the movie.

Gonna jump into this wild tangent in the Avengers Campus thread to point out that the premise of Up is not a trip to Paradise Falls, the premise of Up is of a man dealing with the grief of losing a partner. Paradise Falls is the ultimate destination, but in the climax, Carl abandons the falls because he has finally discovered a new purpose. It's why an Up attraction can be set anywhere; at the end of the movie, Carl has the Spirit of Adventure airship, so it would not be a stretch for him to be touring the world and being in Grizzly Peak at the start of the attraction. It's why Up could easily become an IP insert at Soarin, and why an Up-based attraction taking over the Redwood Creek section would also work fine.

I think I am against either just because I like how un-IP Grizzly Peak is, but let's stop pretending Up could not fit into that section of the park.

 

[Professortango1]

Coco is absolutely in the relevant and blockbuster franchise category.

It's been a while since I've seen Up, but the entire premise of that movie is Paradise Falls. It's not about traveling the world, but rather a specific South American destination, hence him traveling to Grizzly Peak initially to begin the attraction is a stretch. Carl also didn't show interest in traveling to other places during the movie.

Exactly! Thank you for saying it better than I could.