Avengers Campus - Reactions / Reviews

[Phroobar]

Whatever happened to that Imagineer lady who was in charge of Little Mermaid? She was in all the publicity pre-opening, but POOF! she isn't mentioned any more. https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2011/06/under-the-sea-with-imagineer-lisa-girolami/

EDIT: Oh my gosh. I just Googled her, and she's alive and well and apparently quite a gal. She is still with WDI according to her Linkedin, but she also is a "Marriage and Family Therapist (MFT) licensed with the Board of Behavioral Sciences, California." That's an unusual skill to take to Imagineering, don't you think? And she is an author of books that, um, you'd probably want to put a paper book cover over if you were taking them to the beach. Here is the only book image I found that was suitable for this family website, from a 2008 book she wrote titled "Love On Location". Ms. Girolami's other titles include such steamy reads as "The Heat of Angels", "Fugitives of Love", "The Pleasure Set", etc.

And so they chose her to be in charge of the Little Mermaid Omnimover ride??? Things are starting to make sense on that one, even though I'm even more confused than I ever was.

I wonder if she writes Big Foot erotica under a pen name.

 

[GhostHostWiththeMostToast]

Whatever happened to that Imagineer lady who was in charge of Little Mermaid? She was in all the publicity pre-opening, but POOF! she isn't mentioned any more. https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2011/06/under-the-sea-with-imagineer-lisa-girolami/

EDIT: Oh my gosh. I just Googled her, and she's alive and well and apparently quite a gal. She is still with WDI according to her Linkedin, but she also is a "Marriage and Family Therapist (MFT) licensed with the Board of Behavioral Sciences, California." That's an unusual skill to take to Imagineering, don't you think? And she is an author of books that, um, you'd probably want to put a paper book cover over if you were taking them to the beach. Here is the only book image I found that was suitable for this family website, from a 2008 book she wrote titled "Love On Location". Ms. Girolami's other titles include such steamy reads as "The Heat of Angels", "Fugitives of Love", "The Pleasure Set", etc.

And so they chose her to be in charge of the Little Mermaid Omnimover ride??? Things are starting to make sense on that one, even though I'm even more confused than I ever was.

The original choice of fish geysers is also starting to make more sense

 

[BrianLo]

IDK how you become a theme park designer without extensively thinking about things like capacity, and how operations actually will work an attraction, but somehow it seems to be a pretty common oversight. Like it doesn't take having worked in operations to know that the classic people eaters all have capacity in the 3000s per hour and that a bare minimum is 2000. I get that achieving excess of 3000 without an omnimover or large-scale boat ride is difficult, especially when you want to offer more personal, intimate rides, but like this is what the resources of imagineering should be tuned towards solving.

I tend to think the lack of capacity on many modern attractions might be an intentional choice, rather than oversight, and that's a real bummer.

A bit of both. They are certainly capable of building modern attractions with high capacity. Ratatouille is surprisingly high (Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway might be too). Shanghai's Pirates capacity is huge.

There is no reason Flight of Passage and Millennium Falcon cannot be 'higher capacity'. They just choose to build four ride platforms as opposed to 6.

1800 actually seems to be the reasonable comfort level. I say that because TSMM and Soaring both had that bump and are actually fairly pleasant these days in Florida. There is a bit of a game to it. You actually don't want a 3 minute ride with a capacity of 3000 pph. It leads to very little 'capacity' towards the park. Sure it is something people can easily get onto, but if they spend less than 10 minutes as a total experience they are ultimately back into the walkways again.

Universal has the opposite problem, seemingly. They are building a lot of very high capacity attractions, but in some ways the attractions are far worse off for it.

The one 'intimate' high capacity attraction that I wish either party would re-examine is the Robocoaster. It's too good for a complete one off.

 

[kap91]

A bit of both. They are certainly capable of building modern attractions with high capacity. Ratatouille is surprisingly high (Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway might be too). Shanghai's Pirates capacity is huge.

There is no reason Flight of Passage and Millennium Falcon cannot be 'higher capacity'. They just choose to build four ride platforms as opposed to 6.

1800 actually seems to be the reasonable comfort level. I say that because TSMM and Soaring both had that bump and are actually fairly pleasant these days in Florida. There is a bit of a game to it. You actually don't want a 3 minute ride with a capacity of 3000 pph. It leads to very little 'capacity' towards the park. Sure it is something people can easily get onto, but if they spend less than 10 minutes as a total experience they are ultimately back into the walkways again.

Universal has the opposite problem, seemingly. They are building a lot of very high capacity attractions, but in some ways the attractions are far worse off for it.

The one 'intimate' high capacity attraction that I wish either party would re-examine is the Robocoaster. It's too good for a complete one off.

Well if I had my way rides wouldn’t be 3 minutes long and closer to 10-15 or longer unless thrill attractions but that’s a different discussion entirely.

 

[DanielBB8]

IDK how you become a theme park designer without extensively thinking about things like capacity, and how operations actually will work an attraction, but somehow it seems to be a pretty common oversight. Like it doesn't take having worked in operations to know that the classic people eaters all have capacity in the 3000s per hour and that a bare minimum is 2000. I get that achieving excess of 3000 without an omnimover or large-scale boat ride is difficult, especially when you want to offer more personal, intimate rides, but like this is what the resources of imagineering should be tuned towards solving.

I tend to think the lack of capacity on many modern attractions might be an intentional choice, rather than oversight, and that's a real bummer.

Roller coasters aren’t high capacity rides to begin with. So how do you add capacity without just adding 2 tracks and then piling on the cutting edge special effects and storylines that we come to expect with Disney attractions?

If all you want is boat or omnimover rides, then variety isn’t your thing. We can’t expect the same result with different rides.

 

[kap91]

Roller coasters aren’t high capacity rides to begin with. So how do you add capacity without just adding 2 tracks and then piling on the cutting edge special effects and storylines that we come to expect with Disney attractions?

If all you want is boat or omnimover rides, then variety isn’t your thing. We can’t expect the same result with different rides.

My point was to do R&D to develop ride systems that weren't omnimovers and boat rides but could approach that kind of capacity.

And the capacity of roller coasters can vary greatly depending on how they're designed. Flagship Disney coasters in particular have usually been designed to run many more trains than most typical coasters, as well as incorporate for example, dual loading stations. There are creative solutions to these kind of problems if that's where the priority is. Forbidden Journey merges the best aspects of an omnimover with an individual ride vehicle and has really high capacity. You might not always reach the levels of It's a Small world or World of Motion, but that should definitely always be the aspiration.

 

[Ismael Flores]

Agreed.

As far as the lack of capacity on modern attractions I don’t think it’s so much a choice but that the imagineers are more focused on giving us cutting edge technology and unique ride systems and in the process they forget the basics like capacity or just making the ride fun. With that said maybe “forget” is the wrong word. Lower the priority of those basics is probably more accurate.

I think we as consumers are more to blame than anything. We expect more innovative and thrilling rides especially the younger generations. I'm sure that some of the classic rides like IASW and the jungle cruise if built now would be considered boring. It is quite frustrating how many times i know see young adults on these rides and even young children staring at a phone playing games instead of enjoying the visuals. They walk out of the rides and the only thing they talk about and remember is the drop.
it was on these boards actually in one of the threads that someone mention hearing a girl yell at their friend to get out of the line for Splash mountain because it was the same as IASW but with a drop.

recent additions like Mermaid and the Sinbad ride in Tokyo are charming and beautifully made and have great ride capacity. The problem is that you don't see the crowds lining up for them that these rides were made for and sadly most of the time sit empty with long queues and empty vehicles.

It is sad when the majority of the newer generation only consider a ride worthy to ride only if it is full of thrills and high tech. Seems like WDI somehow feels the pressure to move towards attracting that crowd but forgets that there has to be balance.

The new group of WDI should really study their archives and place close attention to designs like the original Indiana Jones Idea and Splash mountain. I think that the original Indiana Jones concept was one of the more clever ideas that they came up with and a shame that it wasn't built.
The combination of a thrill ride with more passive rides is the perfect example of how a project can involve everyone from the age of 1 to 99. Having the train go thru sections of the ride and get glimpse of what the thrill seekers get to see was pure genius. Maybe then a lower capacity thrill ride would not be so much of a concern since the show building would also offer something at the same time for another group of guests.

 

[mickEblu]

I think we as consumers are more to blame than anything. We expect more innovative and thrilling rides especially the younger generations. I'm sure that some of the classic rides like IASW and the jungle cruise if built now would be considered boring. It is quite frustrating how many times i know see young adults on these rides and even young children staring at a phone playing games instead of enjoying the visuals. They walk out of the rides and the only thing they talk about and remember is the drop.
it was on these boards actually in one of the threads that someone mention hearing a girl yell at their friend to get out of the line for Splash mountain because it was the same as IASW but with a drop.

recent additions like Mermaid and the Sinbad ride in Tokyo are charming and beautifully made and have great ride capacity. The problem is that you don't see the crowds lining up for them that these rides were made for and sadly most of the time sit empty with long queues and empty vehicles.

It is sad when the majority of the newer generation only consider a ride worthy to ride only if it is full of thrills and high tech. Seems like WDI somehow feels the pressure to move towards attracting that crowd but forgets that there has to be balance.

The new group of WDI should really study their archives and place close attention to designs like the original Indiana Jones Idea and Splash mountain. I think that the original Indiana Jones concept was one of the more clever ideas that they came up with and a shame that it wasn't built.
The combination of a thrill ride with more passive rides is the perfect example of how a project can involve everyone from the age of 1 to 99. Having the train go thru sections of the ride and get glimpse of what the thrill seekers get to see was pure genius. Maybe then a lower capacity thrill ride would not be so much of a concern since the show building would also offer something at the same time for another group of guests.

You make a lot of good points even though they don’t apply to me personally. I hate when people bust their phones out on certain attractions. My wife is an offender on Little Mermaid. For her it’s more of break as my son is entertained for a few minutes.

Anyway I don’t think it’s omnimover/ boatride or new and low capacity. Their has to be some middle ground right? The only time I’ve asked for a new boat ride is for DCA as it could use a people eating family ride. Hopefully one with some depth and world building like Pirates.

I’ve been asking Disney to give us another traditional coaster for a while. For example, I don’t see why the Marvel coaster couldn’t be a traditional coaster with a show scene in the beginning and end (and maybe the middle too if possible) with effects and projections throughout? Who would be mad at that? I guarantee you it would be more fun and repeatable then whatever they’re cooking up. With higher capacity to boot.

 

[wityblack]

I've heard whisperings of Guardians of the Galaxy: Mission Breakout coming to Hong Kong Disneyland (possibly as a replacement for the large E-Ticket Coaster that was planned for Tomorrowland).

 

[Phroobar]

I think we as consumers are more to blame than anything. We expect more innovative and thrilling rides especially the younger generations. I'm sure that some of the classic rides like IASW and the jungle cruise if built now would be considered boring. It is quite frustrating how many times i know see young adults on these rides and even young children staring at a phone playing games instead of enjoying the visuals. They walk out of the rides and the only thing they talk about and remember is the drop.
it was on these boards actually in one of the threads that someone mention hearing a girl yell at their friend to get out of the line for Splash mountain because it was the same as IASW but with a drop.

recent additions like Mermaid and the Sinbad ride in Tokyo are charming and beautifully made and have great ride capacity. The problem is that you don't see the crowds lining up for them that these rides were made for and sadly most of the time sit empty with long queues and empty vehicles.

It is sad when the majority of the newer generation only consider a ride worthy to ride only if it is full of thrills and high tech. Seems like WDI somehow feels the pressure to move towards attracting that crowd but forgets that there has to be balance.

The new group of WDI should really study their archives and place close attention to designs like the original Indiana Jones Idea and Splash mountain. I think that the original Indiana Jones concept was one of the more clever ideas that they came up with and a shame that it wasn't built.
The combination of a thrill ride with more passive rides is the perfect example of how a project can involve everyone from the age of 1 to 99. Having the train go thru sections of the ride and get glimpse of what the thrill seekers get to see was pure genius. Maybe then a lower capacity thrill ride would not be so much of a concern since the show building would also offer something at the same time for another group of guests.

Well Homer did say that Epcot was even boring to fly over it.
“Special Edna” (Season 14, Episode 7)

 

[shortstop]

I've heard whisperings of Guardians of the Galaxy: Mission Breakout coming to Hong Kong Disneyland (possibly as a replacement for the large E-Ticket Coaster that was planned for Tomorrowland).

In my opinion that doesn’t add up. It seems like they aren’t planning on cloning any Marvel attractions. Of course, if this means they will tear down GotG in DCA, I’m all for it

 

[nevol]

I've heard whisperings of Guardians of the Galaxy: Mission Breakout coming to Hong Kong Disneyland (possibly as a replacement for the large E-Ticket Coaster that was planned for Tomorrowland).

Gross

 

[mickEblu]

Gross

Lol wow. A purpose built Mission Breakout. They re going to make a purpose built attraction modeled after an attraction that was rethemed. Lol.

Cheap. Just to save some design dollars.

 

[Kram Sacul]

And then people, most likely the same arm chair imagineers complaining about capacity, would be hypercritical of all the rides being the same.

Does anyone complain about Mr Toad, Snow White, Alice and Pinocchio essentially being the same ride with different sets?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Does anyone complain about Mr Toad, Snow White, Alice and Pinocchio essentially being the same ride with different sets?

You mean all the complaints about "book report" rides?

 

[Kram Sacul]

You mean all the complaints about "book report" rides?

No, about the rides sharing the same ride system.

 

[Old Mouseketeer]

The original choice of fish geysers is also starting to make more sense

I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS!!! OMFG--this is great. I've only heard the legend of the p*nis fountains! Thank you!!!

 

[MisterPenguin]

No, about the rides sharing the same ride system.

That system usually leads to the same type of ride. If you're on a slow omnimover in a ride dedicated to an IP, it's usually scene after scene of the movie.

The LPS, OTOH, allows for your vehicle to interact with the environment and tell more varied stories.

 

[mickEblu]

Does anyone complain about Mr Toad, Snow White, Alice and Pinocchio essentially being the same ride with different sets?

The fantasyland dark rides are an interesting animal. They re obviously great and charming but I wonder if people would accept the same approach by Disney if they went with the same scope/ scale/ ride system for new IP like Tangled or Frozen? I think most people outside of us hardcore fans would be disappointed. It’s interesting to me that Baxter and co. decided to include a new FL dark ride in 83 with Pinocchio. By then Disneyland guests had already been treated to E ticket dark rides like POTC and HM yet they understood that their was still a place for a new FL style dark ride. With that said, I wonder if Pinocchio’s lack of popularity has anything to do with it not being so grandfathered into DL nostalgia. Ehhh, it’s probably just because it’s not as unique or executed as well as the others and is based on an IP many kids don’t know about.

 

[Sharon&Susan]

With that said, I wonder if Pinocchio’s lack of popularity has anything to do with it not being so grandfathered into DL nostalgia

At this point I think people think Fantasyland has always been the way it is right now. Not helping is multitude of official sources make it sound like New Fantasyland just improved the exteriors and the Dizzytubers constantly doing what it does best.. spread misinformation.