Avengers Campus - Reactions / Reviews

[Disney Irish]

I’m not referring to what works and what doesn’t work. I’m referring to effort.

I'm not going to debate it on effort, since I personally don't know the effort it takes to do a screen based attraction vs one that is not.

I have a feeling you're just basing your opinion on the limited screens that are around DLR.

 

[Disney Irish]

Switching out a projector bulb whenever one burns out costs the same as maintaining a custom built animatronic?

Projectors don't last forever and their initial cost isn't cheap. These are not the same projectors that you go buy as Best Buy. The screens and the actors on the screens aren't cheap either. Production costs can be higher as well.

So again when you do a cost based analysis I have a feeling they come out equal.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Theme parks are physical environment that guests can walk in and explore and movie screens are the anti-thesis of theme park design

Caps Lock key broken?

 

[SuddenStorm]

Projectors don't last forever and their initial cost isn't cheap. These are not the same projectors that you go buy as Best Buy. The screens and the actors on the screens are cheap either. Production costs can be higher as well.

So again when you do a cost based analysis I have a feeling they come out equal.

I dunno, Animatronics and the time spent designing, manufacturing, and maintaining them aren't cheap either.

Obviously, since neither of us have the numbers, we can't know for sure.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

There's no way the majority of the robots at Disneyland can cost that much to repair. Most of them barely move, with some exceptions being more advanced. I think keeping a nearly static mannequin in a translucent sheet (AKA a "ghost") from 1969 in operation probably requires less money than a modern digital projection system. They hardly do anything.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

But if this thing projecting the hat box ghost's head breaks:

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-v...h-dynamic-range-black/6298670.p?skuId=6298670

Uh oh!

 

[Disney Irish]

I dunno, Animatronics and the time spent designing, manufacturing, and maintaining them aren't cheap either.

Obviously, since neither of us have the numbers, we can't know for sure.

Now these are just estimates based on what I know about movie theater digital projectors. But I can say high-end 4k projectors the kind Disney would be using in GotG start at around $100k. So when you add in all of the projectors that are needed for that attraction, you're talking $1-3 Million or more just in projectors. That is no small chunk of change for what is suppose to be a cheap solution. And I'm sure my estimates are low.

 

[nevol]

This spiderman would be using the Bug's Life theater space. If it's a shooter and using the pendulum the only thing I could think of is something like Despicable Me Minion Mayhem but on a hanging pendulum that lifts up and swings around a bit with interactive bits. Entirely screen based with no real motion other than the swinging around. (You swing around in place).

Peter Pan‘s flight has a very small footprint. However, I think that patent and its potential applications as Jim hill described them was on a much more mega scale. Unless the person who saw these documents could see it the right track, they don’t really know if the ride system will expand beyond the existing bugs life building. They said that the queue would come all the way out to te bathrooms. How do they know where the ride track is?

 

[nevol]

screen attractions are super costly to shoot and render. Terminator 2:3d, captain eo and eventually that horrid kong were the most expensive segments of film ever made when they were made. I think kong cost 300 million and it isnt even remotely fun or effective.

 

[fctiger]

Oh my Gosh, can we just stop complaining all the time? Is that all we do now is say “I hate ________” or “They should have never removed ________” ? We have ONLY heard this From 1 source, (although i do trust them). WE at GETTING a Entirely NEW ride not cheap rethemes, so maybe you should shut your mouths, about bad it is until It actually opens....

It's the internet. That's how it works lol. We'll have to hear more to know where it's going one way or the other.

 

[fctiger]

I respect your opinions, but I react just the opposite on almost every point:
-The movement on TSMM adds more fun to the whole experience. What you find jarring and pointless I (and my whole family) find laugh-inducing and... gotta say it again... FUN!
-AA figures: Woulda been nice. It's not a deal-breaker for me.
-Graphics: The graphics are fine. The gameplay is perfect. Mr. Toad doesn't need AA's, and TSMM doesn't need "better" graphics.
-No sense of Danger: Not every ride needs a storyline or a threat. TSMM is pure lighthearted fun. It's about play. For this particular attraction, that's enough.
- No sense of Competition? What can I say--Ride with my group sometime: We are quite vocal and get *very* into the game.
- Like sitting in a stroller in Best Buy? That's an awesome burn, but c'mon. Some people think PoC is just a flume ride.
- Pulling the string hurts after a bit: So does spinning a teacup wheel. Sometimes a rider just has to grit their teeth and cowboy up!!! Sometimes fun takes a toll! (But everyone has their limit and I personally don't like being beaten up by the new bobsleds).

I love, love LOVE TSMM. But I love it as a single, unique attraction. I don't want *another* TSMM.

There is a reason, a decade later this is still a really popular and addicting ride: because it works!

I like the simplicity. Not everything has to have a long back story or a 'something goes wrong' crisis a lot of Disney rides do. It's just a fun shooter with famous characters and people like to be challenged. Honestly when I heard they were making an actual video game out of the ride I thought how many people are going to care about the ride when you can just do the same thing at home for hours at a time? But I guess A. You don't get same effects like the moment and lighting and B. YEah not everyone plays video games at home.

This ride still gets 2+ hour waits in Tokyo and it was so popular in WDW they added another track just to cut down the wait times. Clearly they knocked it out of the park with their customers and it proves not everything has to be Indiana Jones or POTC. Just a fun breezy shooter can be enough.

 

[SuddenStorm]

There is a reason, a decade later this is still a really popular and addicting ride: because it works!

I like the simplicity. Not everything has to have a long back story or a 'something goes wrong' crisis a lot of Disney rides do. It's just a fun shooter with famous characters and people like to be challenged. Honestly when I heard they were making an actual video game out of the ride I thought how many people are going to care about the ride when you can just do the same thing at home for hours at a time? But I guess A. You don't get same effects like the moment and lighting and B. YEah not everyone plays video games at home.

This ride still gets 2+ hour waits in Tokyo and it was so popular in WDW they added another track just to cut down the wait times. Clearly they knocked it out of the park with their customers and it proves not everything has to be Indiana Jones or POTC. Just a fun breezy shooter can be enough.

A singular fun breezy shooter can be enough- but it's ridiculous that we're getting a Spider Man one as well.

When building an attraction, you want it to embody the spirit of the IP. Indiana Jones is a fun adventure ride much like the films.

Toy Story is a natural fit for Toy Story Midway Mania for obvious reasons.

Spider Man? The pendulum vehicle that was rumored was a perfect fit, since it'd allow the audience to experience something that's distinctly "Spider Man". A game ride hardly fits the spirit of the IP.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Can’t agree more or like your post enough!

 

[Phroobar]

So if Buzz is Disney Shooter 1.0, and TSMM is Disney Shooter 2.0, then Spider-Man will be Disney Shooter 3.0.....

Disney Shooter 3.0 < Justice League Shooter 1.0

 

[Californian Elitist]

I'm not going to debate it on effort, since I personally don't know the effort it takes to do a screen based attraction vs one that is not.

I have a feeling you're just basing your opinion on the limited screens that are around DLR.

Then this conversation with you is over.

What else would I be basing it on? We’re talking about screens, no?

 

[Phroobar]

Now these are just estimates based on what I know about movie theater digital projectors. But I can say high-end 4k projectors the kind Disney would be using in GotG start at around $100k. So when you add in all of the projectors that are needed for that attraction, you're talking $1-3 Million or more just in projectors. That is no small chunk of change for what is suppose to be a cheap solution. And I'm sure my estimates are low.

I think a company that makes $6.2 million per day per park can afford a projector. Besides it's not like they are paying retail.

 

[Disney Irish]

Then this conversation with you is over.

What else would I be basing it on? We’re talking about screens, no?

Yes we're talking screens, but there is more than just what is at DLR in the Disney Parks world. So we can't just base everything on DLR when talking about screen based attractions. Several other posters have provided plenty of examples of other Disney Parks screen based attractions where the effort was put into it, Flight of Passage for example.

If your opinion is only going to be limited to DLR, then I can understand why you feel there has been no effort put into screen attractions. I disagree with you, but understand your point.

 

[Disney Irish]

Disney Shooter 3.0 < Justice League Shooter 1.0

We don't know that though.

 

[Disney Irish]

I think a company that makes $6.2 million per day per park can afford a projector. Besides it's not like they are paying retail.

This wasn't about whether Disney can afford it or not, they most definitely can. It was a discussion on how screen based attractions are not actually any cheaper then an attraction with practical sets and AAs.

Also Disney isn't buying the run of the mill consumer projector like at Best Buy. These are the highest quality projectors in the industry, they aren't cheap.

 

[Model3 McQueen]

Sorry, this response may be completely irrelevant based on what other users have said in my absence lol

I'm going to say it again, it all comes down to the content. Some content lends it self better to screens vs practical sets and AAs. I gave one example of content that would be very difficult to be done via practical sets and AAs. Some amazing things can be done with practical sets and AAs, but they can't be used for every single attraction. Just like screens can't be used for every single attraction either.

I think that it cheapens the experience or story or effect, if the only way of telling it is through a screen. So, I think like @TROR said, they should base the story or elements on physical elements for maximum efficiency in storytelling. Your example was a space battle; It's completely possible to do without the use of television. Let's wait and see how Battle Escape looks.

I'm not debating that screens shouldn't ever be used. I'm debating their usage in E-ticket, all-out attractions.

I think you forget that GotG does have an AA, a pretty impressive one in fact.

This I will certainly give you! At the same time, this is a proper usage of a TV screen (in the room), but it should be limited to this scene only. Screens in the actual ride itself are pathetic, IMO.

Forget for a second your disdain for GotG. You can't tell the same story using practical sets and AAs with that ride systems. The screens make it possible to use that content with that ride system and tell an interesting story.

NEVER!! I absolutely think they could. Look at the yeti in Matterhorn when you're going up the lifthill, or the hallways / mirror scene that was on ToT. They're extremely effective but don't necessarily use an AA. I'd personally argue they're not screens either.

Many factors including content, ride system, budget and time will determine the type of technology used for any particular attraction.

Agreed, but if they're going cheap on the plans after charging us a premium for an experience, I believe we have the right to hold Disney to this standard

WDIs set of tools in their toolbox should not be limited just because some fans dislike screens. The use of screens allows them to tell more and more complex stories within an attraction far more so than any practical set and AAs could ever do. Both practical sets/AAs and screens have their place in attractions, and fans should not be upset or disappointed when one is chosen over the other.

The problem is that all of their major, new offerings are seemingly grounded with TV screen-based effects (and IP). We know Disney is capable of creating some of the best, most immersive attractions and AA's in the world. And with the money we're giving them, there really shouldn't be much of an excuse as to why we aren't getting a non-IP, physical-based E-ticket attraction.