Avengers Campus - Reactions / Reviews

[Suspirian]

This is a stretch by all means, but I always saw Avengers Campus as harking back to some of the most renowned college campuses in California (Stanford, USC).

Though I know that's just me doing WDI's work for them.

I think “Campus” is just a phrasing thing. Interchangeable with base or station. Im prob in the minority but I feel like the “Avengers Campus that exists somewhere in California” is a fine justification for it to be in the park though I wish the placemaking could be more specific.

I’ve shared this before but I wish they did something more inspired by this https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Hydrobase

 

[el_super]

Why are you upset that people expect more?

Giving something a negative review because it doesn't conform to some arbitrary definition of "quality" just seems like a massive waste of energy. Giving something a negative review before it even opens is just dumb.

There's probably a lot this ride deserves in criticism, but seeing the same tired empty complaints here does absolutely nothing. In five months when the ride still has hour+ long waits (or even still having a VQ), the assertion that this ride was a failure based on early reviews is really going to be something to watch.

 

[Suspirian]

As far as Avengers Campus goes I genuinely think its a positive for the park even though I think its not a great land and there are ideas that def could have made better use of that space. But I think I'm just glad they have a dumping ground for Marvel and can move on to improving other areas of DCA. Very interested to see what they do with the Hollywoodland area and the potential expansion pads on either side of the park. They can’t really use their heavy hitters (Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar) now that they have designated lands in either park. The silver lining of IP lands I guess...may force them to get a bit creative again.

I do want to add that all of this makes me very curious about the inner workings of Imagineering. I remember reading an article that was recounting a podcast that Joe Rhode did where he discusses the potential rethemes of the Tower. He seemed to imply that the reason we didn't get a Spiderman or Dr Strange tower retheme (all of which were in the table at some point and work better imo) was because of internal pushback from other imagineers and I just wonder why that is or maybe I interpreted that wrong.

 

[Sue_Vongello]

They better fast track Phase 2 ... this cannot be the anchor attraction (it wasn’t intended to be I get that). Was there any mention of phase 2 or rumors of it recently?

 

[CaptinEO]

Giving something a negative review because it doesn't conform to some arbitrary definition of "quality" just seems like a massive waste of energy. Giving something a negative review before it even opens is just dumb.

There's probably a lot this ride deserves in criticism, but seeing the same tired empty complaints here does absolutely nothing. In five months when the ride still has hour+ long waits (or even still having a VQ), the assertion that this ride was a failure based on early reviews is really going to be something to watch.

I see your points, don't get me wrong. But how can you offer more than empty criticism when the concept was flawed from the start?

As I said myself, having the villians in this and making it exciting could be a really cool ride.

Whether something "fails" is subjective. The ride from the sound of it fails to bring out the best of spiderman or capture my imagination. The ride also fails to compete with the other rides in Disneyland.

Disney's criteria is different. They just want a thing to sell Spiderman toys and this ride probably will accomplish that goal. Doesn't mean I'm vested in Disney's goals.

 

[CastAStone]

Everyone: DCA NEEDS MORE B C AND D TICKETS THAT ARENT KIDDIE RIDES!

Disney: (builds a perfectly nice C ticket ride and B ticket walkthrough that aren’t kiddie rides)

Everyone: WHY ARENT THESE E-TICKETS!!

 

[marni1971]

In five months when the ride still has hour+ long waits

I’d be surprised if it hasn’t. It’s a shiny new ride with a low THRC in a park still lacking attractions.

 

[britain]

Again: It's an interactive attraction and you are not fairly reviewing the interactivity by watching a video of it.

The reason these rides work, and keep getting added to parks, is that they encourage communication and dialogue between members of a family or party in a way that is mostly lacking in the modern world. They are providing family entertainment.

Watching a video on YouTube and then complaining that the sets don't look right, the video looks cheap, the music sounds off, or that it just looks boring, missing the entire point of the attraction. You'd be better off reviewing a movie you hadn't seen.




Wouldn't you have to be in the Twilight Zone the entire time, in order to believe that this hotel, abandoned for years, is still powered up and playing music?

"This rollercoaster POV video just isn't doing it for me. I don't feel a single g-force! It clearly must suck."

 

[CastAStone]

I’d be surprised if it hasn’t. It’s a shiny new ride with a low THRC in a park still lacking attractions.

Do we have a sense of the THRC? I hope it’s more buzz than TSM but I’m not optimistic looking at the ride videos

 

[marni1971]

I just don't like people saying this is imagineering's best

Oh they’re not.....

are they?

 

[Californian Elitist]

Everyone: DCA NEEDS MORE B C AND D TICKETS THAT ARENT KIDDIE RIDES!

Disney: (builds a perfectly nice C ticket ride and B ticket walkthrough that aren’t kiddie rides)

Everyone: WHY ARENT THESE E-TICKETS!!

Who’s “everyone?” I haven’t seen people being upset about Spidey not being an E.

 

[marni1971]

Do we have a sense of the THRC? I hope it’s more buzz than TSM but I’m not optimistic looking at the ride videos

I’ve a ballpark that I’m trying to clarify.

 

[britain]

It being an “interactive attraction” or “targeted at kids” isn’t really an excuse for the incredibly poor quality of creative direction. Where are the Spider-Man villains and characters? Where are the cool set pieces?

Why are they putting guests through a screen target practice in CG recreations of the existing land? There are no interesting set pieces, characters, story, or environments. The entire emphasis is placed on the web gimmick. That’s not strong enough to carry an entire Spider-Man attraction.

Other than Mysterio and Vulture, the MCU hasn't created any of the other Spidey villains yet.

 

[Supreme Leader]

I keep forgetting that Guardians of the Galaxy: Mission: Break Free Fall From The Tower of Terror is the E ticket attraction for this land...

 

[britain]

I’ve a ballpark that I’m trying to clarify.

This will be interesting to hear, because the rumor was WDI first proposed that Spider-Man pendulum-coaster and TDA shot that down for being too low capacity. "Why do you keep proposing amazing attractions that we can't possibly get enough people through each day? Don't give us a Marvel RotR. Give us a Marvel TSMM!"

(Again folks, this is looking like excellent work on WDI's part considering what was asked of them.)

 

[marni1971]

This will be interesting to hear, because the rumor was WDI first proposed that Spider-Man pendulum-coaster and TDA shot that down for being too low capacity.

(Again folks, this is looking like excellent work on WDI's part considering what was asked of them.)

Given the budget it could’ve / should’ve been more impressive. But cutting hundreds of millions off for the E ticket didn’t help.

 

[britain]

Given the budget it could’ve / should’ve been more impressive. But cutting hundreds of millions off for the E ticket didn’t help.

I wonder how much of that went to the stunttronic.

 

[el_super]

I see your points, don't get me wrong. But how can you offer more than empty criticism when the concept was flawed from the start?

What part of the concept was flawed from the start?

As I said myself, having the villians in this and making it exciting could be a really cool ride.

I don't know if I agree, but I can definitely see a valid criticism coming from this. The ownership of Spider-man as an IP is a convoluted mess of legal entanglements, Hollywood political drama and movie reboots. I definitely see Tom Holland's Spider-Man as the more tolerable version (so far) but there is so much IP baggage attached to it, that it story wise, makes the decision to use Spider-Man questionable.

However, expectations aside, lack of a certain character or feature doesn't seem like a fair criticism of the ride that exists today. They can always add new scenes, new characters and new villains later on.

Whether something "fails" is subjective.

Not ... really. If most of the reviews turn out negative but the ride still garners 60+ minute waits, and draws people to the park, then it could be objectively a success, even if you subjectively hate the ride.

I guess I'm old enough to remember the massive amount of online complaints levied at Midway Mania not using real sets and just basically being a warehouse of screens, but that ride is still hanging on 13 years later.... and I still never go on it because the line is too long.

Disney's criteria is different. They just want a thing to sell Spiderman toys and this ride probably will accomplish that goal. Doesn't mean I'm vested in Disney's goals.

I'm definitely not buying any Spider-Man toys, but seriously more power to the people who like them.

 

[CaptinEO]

On they’re not.....

are they?

I've seen quite a few comments (both on here and the rest of the internet) that do so, I wonder how many of them are bots.

 

[el_super]

I’d be surprised if it hasn’t. It’s a shiny new ride with a low THRC in a park still lacking attractions.

I still have to believe in some form of a free market of Disney Guests: people wouldn't wait an hour long for a ride they didn't like.

If they are still waiting for it, they are definitely getting enjoyment out of it that I don't realize.

As for lacking attractions? It could be worse: they could have just repainted Lady Bug Boogie.