Avengers Campus - Reactions / Reviews

[mickEblu]

I don’t know: I see TSMM as a separate beast. I was thinking Buzz 2.0 or hopefully even an upgraded Men in Black.

I see. By 2.0 I meant sets, figures, maybe one AA.

 

[SuddenStorm]

I see. By 2.0 I meant sets, figures, maybe one AA.

The one AA seems to be Disney's thing now... design one that looks amazing, leave the rest up to the screenzzz.

 

[sedati]

The one AA seems to be Disney's thing now... design one that looks amazing, leave the rest up to the screenzzz.

Frozen, Seven Dwarves Mine Train, Little Mermaid, Cars, are all recent and have a healthy dose of AAs along with many upcoming rides that seem promising.
Ever been on "If You Had Wings" or "El Rio Del Tiempo?" Both screen-based rides from back in the day.
While we all want more (and yes, Na'vi River Journey could use more animatronic creatures) I think the balance we're getting is good. I'd call it a healthy mix.

 

[Disney Irish]

The one AA seems to be Disney's thing now... design one that looks amazing, leave the rest up to the screenzzz.

Well with the realistic AAs with fluid movement costing upwards of $1 Million (or more in some cases) a piece. It can get expensive really quick when adding more than a few. Its the reason why large scale AA based attractions are going to be few and far between. In my opinion I expect RotR to be the last large scale AA based attraction at DLR for a long while. Sure we'll get smaller AA based attractions like MMRR but nothing the size of RotR, Pirates, or Mansion for quite a while.

 

[TROR]

Well with the realistic AAs with fluid movement costing upwards of $1 Million (or more in some cases) a piece. It can get expensive really quick when adding more than a few. Its the reason why large scale AA based attractions are going to be few and far between. In my opinion I expect RotR to be the last large scale AA based attraction at DLR for a long while. Sure we'll get smaller AA based attractions like MMRR but nothing the size of RotR, Pirates, or Mansion for quite a while.

The mistake with this view is that it assumes every animatronic needs to be the most advanced figure when in reality the scope of Pirates of the Caribbean's relatively static animatronics are far more impressive.

 

[Disney Irish]

The mistake with this view is that it assumes every animatronic needs to be the most advanced figure when in reality the scope of Pirates of the Caribbean's relatively static animatronics are far more impressive.

And the mistake of your view is thinking about it as a fan rather than from a business who's guests expect "more" with each new attraction.

Guests today largely have a "been there done that" type of mentality, getting bored really quick. PotC and HM gets away with having relatively static AAs because of nostalgia. However if they were built today the same way I'd imagine they would universally be panned by most critics and guests would likely say "meh" and both would be one and done.

 

[TROR]

And the mistake of your view is thinking about it as a fan rather than from a business who's guests expect "more" with each new attraction.

Guests today largely have a "been there done that" type of mentality, getting bored really quick. PotC and HM gets away with having relatively static AAs because of nostalgia. However if they were built today the same way I'd imagine they would universally be panned by most critics and guests would likely say "meh" and both would be one and done.

They get away with it because they’re actually good attraction that have more than a one and done wow factor going for them

 

[Disney Irish]

They get away with it because they’re actually good attraction that have more than a one and done wow factor going for them

I'm not saying they're not good attractions, that is why they have stood the test of time with nostalgia playing a big part in that.

But I'm talking about new attractions, where if built using the same static figures wouldn't likely have the same appeal.

 

[TROR]

I'm not saying they're not good attractions, that is why they have stood the test of time with nostalgia playing a big part in that.

But I'm talking about new attractions, where if built using the same static figures wouldn't likely have the same appeal.

That’s because of people being stupid, not because the attractions are bad. If someone doesn’t appreciate true art that’s their loss.

 

[Disney Irish]

That’s because of people being stupid, not because the attractions are bad. If someone doesn’t appreciate true art that’s their loss.

Who said anything about the attractions being bad? I think you're making assumptions where none need to be.

One can appreciate art done in the 60s without wanting to have the same exact art created in 2019.

 

[TROR]

Who said anything about the attractions being bad? I think you're making assumptions where none need to be.

One can appreciate art done in the 60s without wanting to have the same exact art created in 2019.

Why would anyone want pop art when they can have Renaissance paintings?

 

[Disney Irish]

Why would anyone want pop art when they can have Renaissance paintings?

Except there is only one Mona Lisa created by da Vinci. So why would anyone want to have a replica Mona Lisa done by someone else?

 

[TROR]

Except there is only one Mona Lisa created by da Vinci. So why would anyone want to have a replica Mona Lisa done by someone else?

No one is asking for a replica, merely the same style of art.

 

[Disney Irish]

No one is asking for a replica, merely the same style of art.

And you don't think many new techniques and styles have been created and refined since then? Also style tastes are highly personal to the one taking in the visual. So just because you may personally behold a particular style as the best others may not see it the same way.

This is where I believe Disney does things best, they take the changing worlds styles and preferences and incorporate them into their art. Blending new with old and making art that appeals to a broad range of guests, not just a particular set of guests.

 

[TROR]

And you don't think many new techniques and styles have been created and refined since then? Also style tastes are highly personal to the one taking in the visual. So just because you may personally behold a particular style as the best others may not see it the same way.

There is such a thing as objective beauty.

 

[Disney Irish]

There is such a thing as objective beauty.

However in this context its not a statement that can be made across the board. A theme park attraction is meant to be experienced, this is its primary and only goal. Hence it has a subjective beauty because that experience is different to different people.

On the flip side you could say that PotC is objectively beautiful because of its place in theme park history. The same can't be necessarily be said for another theme park attraction, say Rocket Rods.

Anyways I think we've beat this topic dead. You can have whatever final word you want, but I'm done with this. We'll just not see eye-to-eye on it, like we don't on most topics.

 

[TROR]

However in this context its not a statement that can be made across the board. A theme park attraction is meant to be experienced, this is its primary and only goal. Hence it has a subjective beauty because that experience is different to different people.

On the flip side you could say that PotC is objectively beautiful because of its place in theme park history. The same can't be necessarily be said for another theme park attraction, say Rocket Rods.

Beauty in art stems from the rules which they follow. When those rules are broken, the art is no longer beautiful and furthermore is no longer art.

 

[Disney Irish]

Beauty in art stems from the rules which they follow. When those rules are broken, the art is no longer beautiful and furthermore is no longer art.

 

[TROR]

Pretentious trash is all that is.

 

[Disney Irish]

Pretentious trash is all that is.

And yet its art because someone considers it art. Whether you or even I agree with that assessment is irrelevant.