-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Avengers Campus - Reactions / Reviews
- Thread starter BrianLo
- Start date
Oops, I confused it with Tokyo's Monsters, Inc. Ride & Go Seek.Monsters isn’t a shooting attraction.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
You re so worldly. You should change your name to Mister Worldwide like Pitbull
It's because of all the times I've been to World Showcase in Epcot.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Haha. Well in that case I guess I’ve been to New Orleans a million times.
New Orleans is still on my list. Anyone have any good things to say about the real NOS?
WillWrambles
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I’d put down good money that Disney will play that up in the marketing.
If you're in your young twenties and looking to get wasted and getting, ahem, other stuffed, then everyday is a carnivalia bacchanalia. And WOOO! WOOO! good times.
If not... avoid Mardi Gras. Go in the off season and do a quick tour and have some meals at the best reviewed restaurants. If you want a parade, check for local parades happening before the actual tourist-trappy topsy-flashy Mardi Gras. After that, scratch it off the bucket list.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Oh yea wouldn’t dream of going on Mardi Gras. I just want to eat good food, tour the city, museums, cemetery, zoo / parks type stuff. Maybe hit up a swamp. Lol
But basically a food tour is what I want
Last edited:
PostScott
Well-Known Member
Dang man, you're going off
. Did Disney personally violate you as a child?To me, the attraction looks alright. We knew what we were getting and honestly, it's kinda a breath of fresh air that it's not a e-ticket, which is all the disney parks have really been getting. As much as I love the huge rides, the smaller attractions are what brings alot of charm to the parks. It looks to be a fun ride with some cool technology and I hope the queue is cool. If you go into it already so aggressive towards it, then you're gonna hate it. Theres a difference between being aggressive and having low expectations. I have low expectations and I hope they'll be broken by a little bit, but my guy, you just have a complete anger for it haha.
October82
Well-Known Member
Not at all.
I don't follow your reasoning at all. Yes, there's a better version of what Tower of Terror was in Florida. No, that does not detract from what Tower of Terror in Anaheim was. A flawed attraction, but one that retained that cultural salience and defining features of the original. At the risk of being self serving, I'll quote what I said on the previous page.
This isn't a good thing. WDI is horrendously inefficient.
el_super
Well-Known Member
Answering slightly out of order for artistic effect:
The cultural roots of Mission Breakout, togetherness, family, freedom, they are all just as prevalent as those of Tower of Terror. Tower of Terror was telling a story about facing the unknown, but Mission Breakout is telling the story of overcoming fears. They are both culturally significant.
I think the major difference in the design choices between the two though, just come down to subject matter. Tower of Terror was supposed to be a welcoming space, that had been neglected and abandoned. The Fortress isn't meant to be all that welcoming. In the Fortress the design is meant to feel foreign, cold and alien, because the central focus is on the characters of the story. Tower of Terror's focus was really just on the hotel itself.
So you have a design that is space driven versus character driven. Both have their place in our shared cultural understandings.
I think the point though, is that, cheap clone or not, people still enjoyed the attraction. It puts criticism of attractions in perspective.
I agree, Tower of Terror did not fit into the theme of Hollywood Pictures Backlot. Not at all.
They made the same conceit in 2004 that they revised in 2017: that somehow this corner of Hollywood isn't really on the "backlot" and not really a part of the studio campus. That while the backlot was meant to be real and modern, the Tower of Terror existed outside the rules of reality, and instead was a fantasy. It wasn't ever depicted as a movie or TV show being made, it was supposed to be you, the tourist, wandering into an abandoned hotel for no real conceivable gain. Tower of Terror has LOTS of design flaws.
But at the end of the day, its now a beloved and missed attraction. Flaws and all. That willingness to overlook the flaws and have fun is a key part of what separates theme park art and design from the paintings hanging up in a museum.
This might sound a little wacky but ... the core story that Mission Breakout is trying to tell is the same core story that Indiana Jones is trying to tell: you are put in this foreign and uncomfortable environment where you find yourself in danger and work to escape with the help of the hero (or heroes). It emphasizes the same sense of danger and adventure these characters are routinely subjected to (thru the movies), but also highlights the importance of skill, ingenuity and/or in the case of Mission Breakout: togetherness and family.
I'd like to believe that Joe, as one of the most prolific designers at Disney, does understand the need to tell a deeper story and convey emotion through attractions. The way he describes the necessity of storytelling evokes the idea of ancient humans telling stories around a campfire, and definitely Mission Breakout is very similar in that regard to the classic stories of a hero (or heroes) overcoming adversity.
As a core principal at least. I realized way too far into this, that your major design objections could just be the pipes and black paint, but that just leads back into a subjective loop of whether or not you think they are part of the story.
Let's not automatically assume that Mission Breakout does not provide a historically relevant or emotionally evocative response. It does. Even if, the design of the attraction was completely tossed out the window, both Tower of Terror and Mission Breakout utilize the same ride system and the same thrill elements to achieve a response.
I think this goes back to what I said above about the flaws in Tower of Terror. If you spend your day analyzing theme park attraction from a design perspective, you are bound to see the flaws and errors (and for sure, I know that Mission Breakout has a few too). But you have to weigh those flaws and determine their criticality based in a real world where you still need people to line up for your attraction. It still have a function it needs to achieve in order to be objectively successful or not.
Saying that Mission Breakout is a failure because you preferred the theme of Tower of Terror ignores that basic concept: different people like different things, and conversely not everyone will like every thing. It's really just a matter of "do enough people like it to justify keeping it around." People do keep lining up for Mission Breakout (well .... you know they would be if ...) and at a point as a designer, you have to start rationalizing why that is. Maybe the IP more popular? Maybe the characters are more compelling? Maybe the thrill element is more important than the story or design? Maybe the way it looks isn't all that important?
That's where these calls of what the "average guests" come from: an attempt to try to rationalize when someone, from a design perspective may feel like something should be a failure, but it ends up being a huge hit for some unfathomable reason. It's sort of the same level of disconnect you see (almost) every Oscar year when the academy picks a relatively unknown independent film as Best Picture over the huge hulking blockbuster that made 20% of the box office revenue that year.
The cultural roots of Mission Breakout, togetherness, family, freedom, they are all just as prevalent as those of Tower of Terror. Tower of Terror was telling a story about facing the unknown, but Mission Breakout is telling the story of overcoming fears. They are both culturally significant.
I think the major difference in the design choices between the two though, just come down to subject matter. Tower of Terror was supposed to be a welcoming space, that had been neglected and abandoned. The Fortress isn't meant to be all that welcoming. In the Fortress the design is meant to feel foreign, cold and alien, because the central focus is on the characters of the story. Tower of Terror's focus was really just on the hotel itself.
So you have a design that is space driven versus character driven. Both have their place in our shared cultural understandings.
I think the point though, is that, cheap clone or not, people still enjoyed the attraction. It puts criticism of attractions in perspective.
I agree, Tower of Terror did not fit into the theme of Hollywood Pictures Backlot. Not at all.
They made the same conceit in 2004 that they revised in 2017: that somehow this corner of Hollywood isn't really on the "backlot" and not really a part of the studio campus. That while the backlot was meant to be real and modern, the Tower of Terror existed outside the rules of reality, and instead was a fantasy. It wasn't ever depicted as a movie or TV show being made, it was supposed to be you, the tourist, wandering into an abandoned hotel for no real conceivable gain. Tower of Terror has LOTS of design flaws.
But at the end of the day, its now a beloved and missed attraction. Flaws and all. That willingness to overlook the flaws and have fun is a key part of what separates theme park art and design from the paintings hanging up in a museum.
This might sound a little wacky but ... the core story that Mission Breakout is trying to tell is the same core story that Indiana Jones is trying to tell: you are put in this foreign and uncomfortable environment where you find yourself in danger and work to escape with the help of the hero (or heroes). It emphasizes the same sense of danger and adventure these characters are routinely subjected to (thru the movies), but also highlights the importance of skill, ingenuity and/or in the case of Mission Breakout: togetherness and family.
I'd like to believe that Joe, as one of the most prolific designers at Disney, does understand the need to tell a deeper story and convey emotion through attractions. The way he describes the necessity of storytelling evokes the idea of ancient humans telling stories around a campfire, and definitely Mission Breakout is very similar in that regard to the classic stories of a hero (or heroes) overcoming adversity.
As a core principal at least. I realized way too far into this, that your major design objections could just be the pipes and black paint, but that just leads back into a subjective loop of whether or not you think they are part of the story.
Let's not automatically assume that Mission Breakout does not provide a historically relevant or emotionally evocative response. It does. Even if, the design of the attraction was completely tossed out the window, both Tower of Terror and Mission Breakout utilize the same ride system and the same thrill elements to achieve a response.
I think this goes back to what I said above about the flaws in Tower of Terror. If you spend your day analyzing theme park attraction from a design perspective, you are bound to see the flaws and errors (and for sure, I know that Mission Breakout has a few too). But you have to weigh those flaws and determine their criticality based in a real world where you still need people to line up for your attraction. It still have a function it needs to achieve in order to be objectively successful or not.
Saying that Mission Breakout is a failure because you preferred the theme of Tower of Terror ignores that basic concept: different people like different things, and conversely not everyone will like every thing. It's really just a matter of "do enough people like it to justify keeping it around." People do keep lining up for Mission Breakout (well .... you know they would be if ...) and at a point as a designer, you have to start rationalizing why that is. Maybe the IP more popular? Maybe the characters are more compelling? Maybe the thrill element is more important than the story or design? Maybe the way it looks isn't all that important?
That's where these calls of what the "average guests" come from: an attempt to try to rationalize when someone, from a design perspective may feel like something should be a failure, but it ends up being a huge hit for some unfathomable reason. It's sort of the same level of disconnect you see (almost) every Oscar year when the academy picks a relatively unknown independent film as Best Picture over the huge hulking blockbuster that made 20% of the box office revenue that year.
Mac Tonight
Well-Known Member
No one... and I mean no one... in their wildest imaginations... would have ever pictured a GOTG attraction from scratch and thought, "the best choice for this property... is an elevator drop ride." It "works", yes. But let's stop this nonsense that it "makes sense".
The only reason people like it is because they already enjoyed TOT and they think the characters are funny.
The only reason people like it is because they already enjoyed TOT and they think the characters are funny.
October82
Well-Known Member
Obviously lots to say, so I'll try to respond to everything.
It's not that MB has no cultural roots - I would have a hard time finding togetherness or family here - but I'm open to the possibility of their existence.
It's that MB's roots are not really roots. They're complicated abstract concepts. I can't experience "freedom" - freedom is something that I have to think about. I might interpret the story I'm told as being one that is about freedom, but I can't experience freedom in a tangible way. What MB does is not tell a culturally significant story, it reminds you of culturally prevalent narratives. That's exactly what it is intended to do, of course, it's a marketing vehicle for the MCU. The result from a design perspective is a series of scenes where you are told the story, told what you're expected to feel, and reminded of other times you've seen this story.
An attraction like ToT uses much simpler concepts and vocabulary to tell its "story". ToT is, as its name suggests, about fear - which is not something that needs to be explained.
Sure, but to be clear, I didn't mean to suggest that GotG has no cultural understandings. It has whatever cultural understandings its source material had because it is designed to repeat and echo those as a vehicle to sell the underlying product that is the MCU.
Part of the reason this is problematic is that comics, in general, have a large cultural vocabulary that could be used effectively here. It's a shame that those ideas and vocabulary aren't. It's the core failing of Avengers Campus.
This is really an oversimplification. There are flaws in attractions (and paintings) that detract from the lived experience, and there are those that do not. There are flaws that detract in tangible and explicit ways, and flaws that detract in less precise and more implicit ways. We can talk about objective criticisms, much like we can "objectively criticize" a work of art in an art gallery, or we can talk about the lived experience. What is unique about themed design is not a willingness to overlook flaws (which feeds the idea that themed design is not a kind of art) but how we experience these spaces - tangibly as opposed to viewed "on a wall".
I really appreciate this take and your willingness to share it, but I don't think the connection to this attraction is grounded here. In MB, we don't experience adversity, we don't struggle to overcome it, and it's unclear what our role in this place is supposed to be. Indiana Jones is a good counterpoint about how execution and not (only) concept is what is at stake here. In MB, the story is told to us. In Indiana Jones we are the subject of the story.
Thank you again for the long and thoughtful response. One of the issues that I see here is the idea that we need to rationalize anything. It goes both ways - arguments about the "popularity" of an attraction in defense of it's design or aesthetic qualities are non-sequiturs to begin with. It's certainly fine to enjoy GotG and many people do. It is a popular attraction for the simple reason that it is a thrill ride in one of the world's most well attended theme parks. It is promoted by Disney's massive marketing apparatus and was designed solely for its ability to serve in a marketing role for Disney's other products. Tower of Terror was just as popular an attraction, that was superior in its design and execution (even in its most flawed forms), and resonated with the millions of people who experienced it. We're not talking about the change from a food stand to Midway Mania. We're talking about a ~6 month overlay of an E-ticket attraction.
I'm not uncomfortable saying that Oscars should not go to whatever the year's MCU blockbuster was, and I'm similarly not uncomfortable saying that GotG is a failure of design that detracts from its park. It didn't have to be that way, just as it doesn't have to be the case that a MCU film will never win best picture. These are choices that corporations make to reduce their risk exposure.
SuddenStorm
Well-Known Member
This is the biggest issue with overlay attractions- you're forced to fit the new experience to infrastructure and a ride system designed to tell a very different story.
Mac Tonight
Well-Known Member
Honestly, I think that's my biggest argument against HMH. A NBC attraction would be fine, but what does NBC have to do with an old run-down mansion??
They just thought, Haunted Mansion = spooky... NBC = spooky... they're interchangeable! Brilliant!
The one thing I really do love about the WEB ride is that anyone can ride it like TSM. It's nice it will be a family ride, which was the one big issue with DCA 1.0 (among many) and the severe lack of family attractions. The park has improved on that in the last decade but can still use more. But that reason alone is why I think it will be another big hit even if I personally would've preferred a different type of attraction. But I'm still excited for it!
George Lucas on a Bench
Well-Known Member
It's good that it's indoors at least. DCA needs more dark rides.
George Lucas on a Bench
Well-Known Member
Considering it's a tall building in what was intended to be a Marvel land, I'd think Spider-Man would have been the better choice. Maybe you go into a skyscraper ("This is Jonah Jameson, we need the inside scoop what's happening up there--don't screw this up! Pose as tourists and take the elevator to the top floor!") and villains attack and Spider-Man "webs" the elevator to prevent you from falling. They could have done the swinging Spider-Man dummy outside of the building. Could have been cool! Instead, Spider-Man fights robots in a car factory...
Mac Tonight
Well-Known Member
That immediately strikes me as a better fit than Guardians.
I'd also have accepted it as Doctor Strange's Sanctum Sanctorum. I think that would have made great use out of the drop ride aspect as you're falling through dimensions being rescued along the way.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
True. ITTBAB was indoors too though. No it wasn’t a ride.
Now that super charming path to the underground ITTBAB queue is concrete for more vendor carts. Yay!