Avengers Campus - Reactions / Reviews

[Disney Analyst]

Yes, but Soarin' is presented as a film, not a real experience (one of the reasons I don't like it.) You walk in to see a giant screen showing screensaver blue. Its clear you are in a movie theater and they don't try and convince you otherwise.

I have always been annoyed by this on Soarin'.

I've always felt there were better ways to do this, especially now that we have FoP and they have found a clever way to hide the screen.

 

[DavidDL]

... WEB Slingers is concerned with immersing you into the larger land of Avenger's Campus and so the transitions break that immersion because of how poorly they're pulled off. ...

Thank you. Even us "needlessly critical" Guests are aware of the fact that our disbelief needs to be suspended, to an extent on attractions. Of course I know ghosts aren't real but that doesn't ruin my enjoyment of something like Haunted Mansion, because the execution isn't pulled off poorly. Haunted Mansion's vehicles don't turn to show me the Graveyard scene from the back and all the nasty hydraulics powering the ghosts, which is effectively what WEB SLINGERS does, from time to time.

What the vehicles and Guests have the capacity to see upon spin is so immersion shattering, that it reveals both the previous and upcoming scenes, to be lies. Of course we know the scenes on any attraction to be "lies" but that is not an excuse to showcase that fact to Guests, especially when something like Avengers Campus is being sold by Disney to be as immersive as possible.

Therefore, the comparisons to other attractions are not 1:1. Yes, it's true that you can't magically turn the corner on Jungle Cruise from one major river to another. Same as you can't magically turn the corner from the WEB SLINGERS building into the Collector's fortress in such a short distance. The difference between the two, is that Jungle Cruise doesn't reveal to you, upon turning, the robotic skeleton of and pumps powering the elephant you just passed. These immersion breaks are especially offensive when you consider that, like movies, each attraction normally sets it's own "in-universe rules" before boarding. Attractions like WEB SLINGERS, can unfortunately not just be judged in a single vacuum because Disney is selling us the land and attraction as a package deal. Nay, it demands to be judged in relation to the rest of the land itself and then, just can't quite seem to go the extra mile to abide by the rules of the land it inhabits.

It's worse, still, when you consider that Disney effectively concedes the importance of little details like these when trying to sell you the "live your own adventure" angle with some of their attractions and lands. Because over on Smuggler's Run and Rise of the Resistance, little details like time of day for Batuu are taken into account when riding those attractions. In one instance, Disney has clearly demonstrated the ability and desire to assess little details like these (even though most Guests likely wouldn't care enough to notice) and in the other, they dropped the ball.

-and it's okay to be disappointed by something like that.

 

[DavidDL]

I have always been annoyed by this on Soarin'.

I've always felt there were better ways to do this, especially now that we have FoP and they have found a clever way to hide the screen.

A giant hanger door on screen, that would open up as we rise from the floor and out of the park, would probably be more appropriate.

 

[el_super]

Yes, but Soarin' is presented as a film, not a real experience (one of the reasons I don't like it.) You walk in to see a giant screen showing screensaver blue. Its clear you are in a movie theater and they don't try and convince you otherwise.

Yeah but within context of the post, the other poster was suggesting that instead of evaluating Soarin as a film, it be treated more as a stage play ... where you can excuse some of the failings (like the poor transitions). It was a a flimsy attempt to setup a double standard. And of course films cut out scenes and transitions down to the bare minimum... that's why the whole profession of film editing exists.

As for Soarin itself, I don't have much of an issue with it being a "just a film." It reminds me a lot of the old CircleVision films that, admittedly as a nerd, I still very much enjoy. Obviously the lack of storytelling elements within the ride, isn't much of a problem since it's still being enjoyed, literally, around the world.

 

[el_super]

Thank you. Even us "needlessly critical" Guests are aware of the fact that our disbelief needs to be suspended, to an extent on attractions. Of course I know ghosts aren't real but that doesn't ruin my enjoyment of something like Haunted Mansion, because the execution isn't pulled off poorly. Haunted Mansion's vehicles don't turn to show me the Graveyard scene from the back and all the nasty hydraulics powering the ghosts, which is effectively what WEB SLINGERS does, from time to time.

Wasn't there just a discussion on the big empty loading area at Haunted Mansion and just what exactly it's supposed to be? At some point we're supposed to be in the Mansion, but then we leave the Mansion to be in the "Boundless Realm" only to re-enter it again? It is a pretty bad transition. Nevermind that there is no real in-universe explanation for what the Doombuggies are supposed to be or why they are running through this mansion in the first place.

You have to come equipped with some level of disbelief.

 

[Curious Constance]

Which is ridiculous. Really disappointed with this move.

Don’t blame you. I just would never wait 5 hours to get the chance to walk around a new land. I can’t believe anyone paying full price would. I get that their hands are tied for now but dang there had to be a better way.

 

[truecoat]

I'm not even sure the Quinjet ride breaks any new ground. It'll be criticized as Soarin' 2 and an Avatar clone. It might even be a little worse than those 2 attractions.

The description sound like it's going to be even better.

 

[DavidDL]

Wasn't there just a discussion on the big empty loading area at Haunted Mansion and just what exactly it's supposed to be? At some point we're supposed to be in the Mansion, but then we leave the Mansion to be in the "Boundless Realm" only to re-enter it again? It is a pretty bad transition. Nevermind that there is no real in-universe explanation for what the Doombuggies are supposed to be or why they are running through this mansion in the first place.

You have to come equipped with some level of disbelief.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Avengers Campus and the Haunted Mansion abide by two completely different set of "in-universe" rules, as established by Disney. A blanket expectancy cannot be applied to them at the same time. Mansion is a literal haunted house which can only exist should we accept the ethereal and other worldly as a reality to begin. In that sense, anything becomes possible should other worldly forces will it so.

The same cannot be said for Avengers Campus. It is sold to us as something entirely different and purports to be a "live your own", hyper-immersive adventure, grounded within it's own clearly established reality. The notion that, whatever Disney gives should be acceptable just because another attraction with an entirely different context exists, doesn't wash for myself and others.

If Mansion did something so painfully obvious to break it's immersion, I would rightfully call it out. However, taken in context of itself, are a seemingly endless series of chairs and strange, other-worldly loading zone that much of a deal breaker for me when I consider that I just stepped out of an expanding portrait gallery and am about to look down an endless hallway? Not so much. -and for the record, I actually would like to see the boundless realm replaced with something more "physically present". But whatever issues I have with the boundless realm (built in the 1960's) does not excuse for me, the issues other attractions might have. Even if I were to be convinced fully that the boundless realm were a problem, why would that forgive a different problem? That's whataboutism.

I understand that the transition points on WEB SLINGERS are not an issue for you. That's fine. No one is stopping you from enjoying it and ignoring us. But for myself and others, it's an immersion breaking issue that we wish Disney had the foresight to address and we have the right to feel the way we do about it. This isn't us being unfair or "mean", this is just us caring about Disney delivering what we each feel would have been a higher quality product than what is currently being offered. Myself and others are not one note. When Disney does something I think is good, I say so. -and when I feel they underdelivered, I say something too.

It feels like you are trying to convince us that the way we are grading art, is wrong. Or that we should simply forgive what we perceive as shortcomings on one attraction because other instances that aren't even applicable, exist in some form on another. If you think the transition points on WEB SLINGERS are good enough, then that's the way you feel. I am happy for you. But others feeling the opposite isn't some kind of "double standard" on their end. It's Disney's failing to immerse them in this instance but succeeding in others. Both are possible without being a "double standard". Arguing against that notion, would be to effectively argue that Disney can do no wrong. -and we all know that's not true.

 

[DavidDL]

I draw a comparison when it comes to the limits of "suspending your disbelief":

If you were told that a movie was going to be a gritty, serious, zombie apocalypse-type of film, you would obviously have your belief suspended in advance. You know before you sit down that zombies aren't real and that whatever you're about to watch is going to be over the top levels of unbelievable.

That said, what if the film starts and the zombies featured are unfinished renders? One could technically argue that "Hey man, zombies aren't real and this definitely fits the ticket for over the top levels of unbelievable". But the overly poor execution and presentation could still forcefully remove you from the immersion of the film and cause you to rightfully call it out.

That's how I feel about the Spider-Man ride. I know that superheroes aren't real. I know I'm riding a ride based on screens that doesn't actually travel through Avengers Campus. I am willing to accept that going in. The problem is that the lazily executed transitions on WEB SLINGERS are enough to pull me back out of the fantasy of what the attraction was telling me it would be. The execution on other attractions doesn't pull me out the way these thin screen walls do.

-and that's just me. Like I said towards the beginning of all of this; your own mileage will vary. More power to you if you don't care about it.

 

[Professortango1]

You're comparing apples to oranges. Avengers Campus and the Haunted Mansion abide by two completely different set of "in-universe" rules, as established by Disney. A blanket expectancy cannot be applied to them at the same time. Mansion is a literal haunted house which can only exist should we accept the ethereal and other worldly as a reality to begin. In that sense, anything becomes possible should other worldly forces will it so.

The same cannot be said for Avengers Campus. It is sold to us as something entirely different and purports to be a "live your own", hyper-immersive adventure, grounded within it's own clearly established reality. The notion that, whatever Disney gives should be acceptable just because another attraction with an entirely different context exists, doesn't wash for myself and others.

If Mansion did something so painfully obvious to break it's immersion, I would rightfully call it out. However, taken in context of itself, are a seemingly endless series of chairs and strange, other-worldly loading zone that much of a deal breaker for me when I consider that I just stepped out of an expanding portrait gallery and am about to look down an endless hallway? Not so much. -and for the record, I actually would like to see the boundless realm replaced with something more "physically present". But whatever issues I have with the boundless realm (built in the 1960's) does not excuse for me, the issues other attractions might have. Even if I were to be convinced fully that the boundless realm were a problem, why would that forgive a different problem? That's whataboutism.

I understand that the transition points on WEB SLINGERS are not an issue for you. That's fine. No one is stopping you from enjoying it and ignoring us. But for myself and others, it's an immersion breaking issue that we wish Disney had the foresight to address and we have the right to feel the way we do about it. This isn't us being unfair or "mean", this is just us caring about Disney delivering what we each feel would have been a higher quality product than what is currently being offered. Myself and others are not one note. When Disney does something I think is good, I say so. -and when I feel they underdelivered, I say something too.

It feels like you are trying to convince us that the way we are grading art, is wrong. Or that we should simply forgive what we perceive as shortcomings on one attraction because other instances that aren't even applicable, exist in some form on another. If you think the transition points on WEB SLINGERS are good enough, then that's the way you feel. I am happy for you. But others feeling the opposite isn't some kind of "double standard" on their end. It's Disney's failing to immerse them in this instance but succeeding in others. Both are possible without being a "double standard". Arguing against that notion, would be to effectively argue that Disney can do no wrong. -and we all know that's not true.

I think the only problem is when you are on the inside of the turn, but even then its a minor problem. It's a D Ticket and it works okay as that. Not amazing, but not terrible or broken as many are trying to imply.

 

[el_super]

You're comparing apples to oranges. Avengers Campus and the Haunted Mansion abide by two completely different set of "in-universe" rules, as established by Disney.

I get that, but I am saying that the Haunted Mansion doesn't follow it's own rule-set.

If Mansion did something so painfully obvious to break it's immersion, I would rightfully call it out. However, taken in context of itself, are a seemingly endless series of chairs and strange, other-worldly loading zone that much of a deal breaker for me when I consider that I just stepped out of an expanding portrait gallery and am about to look down an endless hallway? Not so much. -and for the record, I actually would like to see the boundless realm replaced with something more "physically present".

I mean, let's be clear: I obviously don't have any issue with the rule breaking going on at the Haunted Mansion. It's still a great ride. But it definitely sets a precedence for bending some of the rules in order to deliver an overall product. That said, the loading area is an even more egregious slight when you consider that they fixed it in every other version of the mansion, but somehow never got around to going back and fixing it at Disneyland.

But whatever issues I have with the boundless realm (built in the 1960's) does not excuse for me, the issues other attractions might have. Even if I were to be convinced fully that the boundless realm were a problem, why would that forgive a different problem? That's whataboutism.

Whatbaboutism might be taking it a little too far. It's establishing a precedence within Disney to produce works that are less than a 100%, and also establishing that by and large, the audience will accept some degree of world breaking.

This isn't us being unfair or "mean", this is just us caring about Disney delivering what we each feel would have been a higher quality product than what is currently being offered.

In this case though, it's about consistency. When you are faulting one ride for similar traits that are in others, that's being inconsistent. And yeah, I get that you can easily just dismiss these criticisms by trying to find differences between examples ad infinitum, and that's just going to be up to you whether it's worth the effort.

It feels like you are trying to convince us that the way we are grading art, is wrong.

Just consider it my criticisms of your criticisms. And certainly I'm not trying to be mean or unfair either, just trying to move the conversation forward. It's hard to do when there is, what I am seeing as an obvious confirmation bias taking place here. There was obviously a group that came in with the idea that the ride would/should be a failure before it even opened, that are now trying to justify that early opinion, by stretching examples of faults. I'm not entirely sure if you should be counted in that group, so apologies if you didn't come into this thinking the ride should be written off already.

I definitely don't see this transition issue as all that big of a deal.

 

[el_super]

That's how I feel about the Spider-Man ride. I know that superheroes aren't real. I know I'm riding a ride based on screens that doesn't actually travel through Avengers Campus. I am willing to accept that going in. The problem is that the lazily executed transitions on WEB SLINGERS are enough to pull me back out of the fantasy of what the attraction was telling me it would be.

I guess to go a little deeper, why should that ruin an attraction though? I don't think Space Mountain suffers from the fact that I'm not wearing a helmet while riding thru the vacuum of space. Hearing people scream, maybe breaks the illusion, but doesn't change the fun I get out of it. I suppose if Disney really cared, they could have enclosed every bit of track in Space Mountain, but maybe that's too far?

 

[pwnbeaver]

After watching a ride through, I'm not sure how it is possible to defend this ride. The only really interesting thing is the motion tech, but that isn't new or innovative since Xbox Kinnect did it in your living room ten years ago. The ride DLC is the absolute worst kind of slippery slope.

Putting aside my complaints about this interpretation of the character, it's one thing to make a Midway Mania ride using Spider-Man. It's another thing to make a ride about Spider-Man that has none of his villains. It's an indefensible thing to make a ride that is unquestionably worse than a twenty year old ride.

Kudos to actually having entertainment in the land. That looks awesome, but we'll see how long that lasts.

 

[D.Silentu]

I have yet to ride Web-Slingers, nor have I viewed a ride through, but based on what I'm reading about immersion breaking I am surprised the ride doesn't virtually travel at times via the screens.

 

[milordsloth]

Friend of mine went this weekend for Avengers Campus opening. They made reservations over a month ago. They had no idea about the required virtual queues and were not able to get in to see the land.

I feel so bad for people blind-sighted by Disney not mentioning virtual queues up front when they first announced Avenger's opening date.

They also told me it took an hour to get a Mickey pretzel via mobile order...

This just sounds wild to me. I've been in the parks today and yesterday, and have had no problem whatsoever getting a morning boarding group and then entering and enjoying the land at a slow fun pace.

 

[DavidDL]

I get that, but I am saying that the Haunted Mansion doesn't follow it's own rule-set.

...

In this case though, it's about consistency. When you are faulting one ride for similar traits that are in others, that's being inconsistent. And yeah, I get that you can easily just dismiss these criticisms by trying to find differences between examples ad infinitum, and that's just going to be up to you whether it's worth the effort.

Just consider it my criticisms of your criticisms. And certainly I'm not trying to be mean or unfair either, just trying to move the conversation forward. It's hard to do when there is, what I am seeing as an obvious confirmation bias taking place here. There was obviously a group that came in with the idea that the ride would/should be a failure before it even opened, that are now trying to justify that early opinion, by stretching examples of faults. I'm not entirely sure if you should be counted in that group, so apologies if you didn't come into this thinking the ride should be written off already.

I definitely don't see this transition issue as all that big of a deal.

I have to disagree regarding the Mansion. It's a haunted house and typically, those can do pretty much whatever stories want them to. There's hardly a limit on what the supernatural can accomplish. Lots of things about it don't "make sense" but that's what we typically come to expect from supernatural things. So in a way, it actually does make sense.

I would like to think I am pretty consistent (then again, consistency across multiple topics where opinions differ is rough, we're not machines, after all). The crux of my argument is this: the thin wall transitions where I'm supposed to believe a warehouse once was, are a deal-breaker for me in terms of illusion. I can't say that this specific criticism applies to many other attractions in the parks? I know none of it is real, but other attractions don't so obviously place something in my line of sight that makes me go, "Ey, wait a minute..! Wasn't that just..?". Different people have different tolerances for this sort of thing. During my work in the VFX industry, my leads would often let mistakes slide through the approval process because "the majority of folks won't notice or care". I imagine something similar happened when they were discussing how these vehicles would spin and transition from scene to here and on the whole, they might be right. So maybe I'm in a minority with the ability to notice and quickly apply the logic to the situation but it still affects my ability to enjoy the attraction, regardless. I can't pretend to be someone I'm not.

For what it's worth in a weird way, I'm flattered you consider my criticisms worth addressing at all.

-and regarding where I stand in terms of bias, I was someone who was disappointed to see the initial blueprints for the attraction. I was disappointed to consider the notion that we'd be getting basically a second Midway Mania in the same park. Still, my mindset was generally not to expect anything and judge for myself when I see it. I want to love it but having seen it, nothing has changed for me. Even still, when I go on June 19th, I will attempt to ride the attraction and give it a fair and honest final shot and I will come to an honest and final conclusion if that happens. No one wants to dislike stuff. I want this attraction to be good. Whether or not an in person ride through changes that for me, I will be honest with myself. I would love to be wrong and have egg on my face because I'd come out a winner with a new attraction to enjoy.

I guess to go a little deeper, why should that ruin an attraction though? I don't think Space Mountain suffers from the fact that I'm not wearing a helmet while riding thru the vacuum of space. Hearing people scream, maybe breaks the illusion, but doesn't change the fun I get out of it. I suppose if Disney really cared, they could have enclosed every bit of track in Space Mountain, but maybe that's too far?

It all comes down to the intention. If Disney tells me I should be expecting one thing, then I expect that thing. But if they give me something else and try to tell me the second thing is still the first thing, that's when an attraction can be "ruined" for me. Disney doesn't outright tell me that Space Mountain is meant to be perceived as a hyper detail-oriented, personal adventure that has any connection to the land around it. Lands like GE and AC go the other route and really want you to buy into their attention to detail and they want to make you believe that you're actually in that living, breathing land.

For example, I loved the original Star Tours. They purposefully left it vague as to just be a fun adventure. But when they were making Star Tours 2.0, they said they were designing it as taking place between Episodes 3 and 4. Well, if you tell me that, naturally that's the expectation I set and how I am going to judge the update. When the attraction opened and the ride combinations didn't meet that expectation, now I suddenly don't care for Star Tours because it feels like a failed attempt at story telling.

I hope that makes some sense. With something like Space, I feel like I get exactly what I am pitched. With something like WEB SLINGERS, I feel like I was promised something and the final product didn't deliver that.

 

[el_super]

After watching a ride through, I'm not sure how it is possible to defend this ride.

Most of the ride experience is the interactive game element, which you are missing by just watching a youtube video of it.

 

[el_super]

I have to disagree regarding the Mansion. It's a haunted house and typically, those can do pretty much whatever stories want them to. There's hardly a limit on what the supernatural can accomplish.

You can, if you are willing to suspend belief, also apply this to a comic book universe that has traditionally not taken itself so seriously. We're talking about a setup with Avengers Campus where they stayed purposefully silent on things like timelines and logistics and a lot of the other "rules" that would apply, because at the heart, the Marvel universe is one that doesn't have a hard time making fun of itself. And that's part of the fun.

So maybe I'm in a minority with the ability to notice and quickly apply the logic to the situation but it still affects my ability to enjoy the attraction, regardless. I can't pretend to be someone I'm not.

I do appreciate that you might be hypersensitive to these issues, and that it certainly impacts your personal enjoyment. That's certainly fair, but as an overall criticism of the ride, I don't see it as being something that detracts from the overall experience. Again, part of that is that the transitions themselves are really just meant to be downtime for the riders to recoup and recover from scene to scene and take stock of their score/standings.

For what it's worth in a weird way, I'm flattered you consider my criticisms worth addressing at all.

Well it is all academic at this point. There's not a whole lot any of us can do about the ride but keep chatting about it.

Whether or not an in person ride through changes that for me, I will be honest with myself. I would love to be wrong and have egg on my face because I'd come out a winner with a new attraction to enjoy.

We all have biases and I am certainly no exception to that. I honestly haven't given this ride much thought in the last three years, and really didn't think it would amount to much. So yeah, I definitely had lower expectations, and it exceeded them.

There is something that can be downright clinical about analyzing a piece of themed entertainment online though, that misses the point. We could all rant day and night about how carnival rides are inferior forms of entertainment, and that Disney is so much better to ignore them, but then that fails to acknowledge that some people can have as much fun on a carnival ride as Pirates of the Caribbean. The end goal is always the entertainment factor.

Lands like GE and AC go the other route and really want you to buy into their attention to detail and they want to make you believe that you're actually in that living, breathing land.

I don't know... at the same time Rocket's "that's thematically inconsistent" would seem to counter this statement, and show that the land isn't trying to take itself too seriously. And that's entirely in character for Marvel.

 

[DavidDL]

You can, if you are willing to suspend belief, also apply this to a comic book universe that has traditionally not taken itself so seriously. We're talking about a setup with Avengers Campus where they stayed purposefully silent on things like timelines and logistics and a lot of the other "rules" that would apply, because at the heart, the Marvel universe is one that doesn't have a hard time making fun of itself. And that's part of the fun.

Sure, MARVEL is all in good fun and has over the years, slowly delved deeper into the more magical elements of the franchise they were hesitant to tackle at first. However, even they seem to have their limits. -and I draw the line at endless warehouse that is revealed to be about as thin as one of the machines I use at work. If this were Monsters Inc. or maybe some kind of Dr. Strange sling ring shenanigans were involved, I'd be more understanding.

... but as an overall criticism of the ride, I don't see it as being something that detracts from the overall experience. Again, part of that is that the transitions themselves are really just meant to be downtime for the riders to recoup and recover from scene to scene and take stock of their score/standings.

This is entirely subjective, of course. If not looking out the ride vehicle during these moments isn't important, I would have installed a sliding shield over the cover of the vehicle that re-opens at each segment. Come to think of it, I can't help but wonder if that would have been an option during transitions to better hide that you're just bouncing from screen to screen? Not knowing what's going to be right there in front of you when the shield lifts from your pod would have added an element to better further this attraction from Midway Mania. It would have also opened up options for different track layouts or other visual tricks but I digress.

There is something that can be downright clinical about analyzing a piece of themed entertainment online though, that misses the point. We could all rant day and night about how carnival rides are inferior forms of entertainment, and that Disney is so much better to ignore them, but then that fails to acknowledge that some people can have as much fun on a carnival ride as Pirates of the Caribbean. The end goal is always the entertainment factor.

Cynical is one way to think about it but I tend to think of it as coming from a place of love. We all love the parks and want to see them succeed but we have different ideas about what that means or how to go about doing it. If the statement, "it's always about the entertainment factor" or "people can have as much fun on a carnival ride as Pirates of the Caribbean" are applied too literally or given too much leeway then it's sort of like conceding that Disney has the all clear to just go ahead and do that and that nothing they do can ever be bad as long as someone, somewhere is having fun on it. -and for what they charge, they don't. With a place like this which stirs so much emotion in so many of us, I think it would be more cynical not to pick it a part and make sure that it remains more than just something fun which I can find down the street from me. It's true that you can find fun in places other than Disneyland but if we're going to concede that it doesn't really matter what Disney builds or how they do it as long as it's the same type of fun we can find elsewhere, then why are we going to Disneyland to begin with? Disneyland is an elevated piece of entertainment and it's for this reason we need to analyze and discuss it online. Cynically, if we honestly feel that way about something they create or do.

I don't know... at the same time Rocket's "that's thematically inconsistent" would seem to counter this statement, and show that the land isn't trying to take itself too seriously. And that's entirely in character for Marvel.

This doesn't help sell me at all, lol. In fact it's one of my most hated lines on that attraction. To me, it's Disney acknowledging that "Yeah, we know this doesn't make any sense and this is a problem but we don't really care." They do the same thing with Violet on the Incredicoaster as if it's some sort of meta-statement of saying there's a problem so now there isn't one.

There most definitely still is.

 

[DavidDL]

I think another reason why I sweat the little details like this far more in a land like Avengers Campus or Galaxy's Edge is because the MCU and Star Wars have a habit of also addressing and sweating the little details in their films, comics, games, etc.

Star Wars fans like myself, for example, are extremely spoiled getting every little bit of detail fleshed out for even seemingly random background characters and connections constantly being made across eras, etc. The MCU does this, too with little things like Jimmy Woo's card trick in WandaVision.

I think, at this point, I just have that association made with these properties and expect their theme park lands to reflect them in that way in order to be "true" to where they come from. If there's even a minor plot hole in Star Wars, some comic or TV show comes along later and addresses it. That won't be the case with Avengers Campus and it's just frustrating.