Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
  1. #1

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    EST
    Posts
    218

    I Get It, But Why Wouldn't They Go Full AVENGERS?

    I understand that any ride placed in Tomorrowland ought to be futuristic, and that Stark Expo creates a reasonable facade for that. But why base the ride inside on only Iron Man instead of on the massively popular film that combines his story with other heroes', creating the most lucrative movie Disney has ever released?

    In terms of immersive-yet-thrilling dark ride, I imagine the Marvel attraction borrowing elements of Universal's Spider-Man / Transformers motion-based dark-ride simulator, KUKA arm, or other advanced technological marvel that can interact with projections, sets, and tactile effects (and indeed, I imagine that would be the best way to go with a superhero platform). But any and all of them seem like they could benefit massively from featuring the entire Avengers cast and not just one hero. That's like making a multi-million dollar Green Lantern ride when you have the rights to use the whole Justice League.

    So, yes, I get it. Iron Man is a successful franchise separate from the Avengers. But to me, a truly "epic," oversized, adventurous journey with the whole team of heroes would be much more exciting than following just one.

    Of course, nothing's been announced and some people are already against the very idea. But assuming you would have to have one or the other, which would you prefer to have housed inside Stark Expo: Iron Man, or the Avengers?
    I believe I chose the life of a tomb raider, because
    I'm addicted to the excitement that comes when life hangs in the balance.
    ...
    Famous last words.



  2. #2

    • Minion
    • Online

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,419

    Re: I Get It, But Why Wouldn't They Go Full AVENGERS?

    I'd rather just have Stark Expo. As cool as The Avengers are, as a whole, they don't really fit the theme of Tomorrowland. Iron Man alone indeed fits Tomorrowland's theme.
    Princess of Agrabah and Queen of Never Land

  3. #3

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    96

    Re: I Get It, But Why Wouldn't They Go Full AVENGERS?

    Not all the avengers tie in with the technology and future theme. Iron fits it perfectly. Especially with Stark Expo.

  4. #4

    • ~
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    557

    Re: I Get It, But Why Wouldn't They Go Full AVENGERS?

    Quote Originally Posted by jasmineray View Post
    I'd rather just have Stark Expo. As cool as The Avengers are, as a whole, they don't really fit the theme of Tomorrowland. Iron Man alone indeed fits Tomorrowland's theme.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikefutbolero View Post
    Not all the avengers tie in with the technology and future theme. Iron fits it perfectly. Especially with Stark Expo.
    That sums it up. I'm still not gaga about the idea of Marvel in Tomorrowland (yeah, I'm one of those people) but the idea is slowly growing on me when I consider it from different perspectives. Iron Man, in contrast to the other characters from the Avengers, does have many futuristic qualities that could be, dare I say it, a nice addition to Tomorrowland. I'm still not sold on the idea, but the sole fact that it's Iron Man rather than the complete Avengers gang gives me a bit of optimism about the attraction.

  5. #5

    • Knight that says Nee!!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Northern CA
    Posts
    2,647

    Re: I Get It, But Why Wouldn't They Go Full AVENGERS?

    The OP says he gets it...then asks the question anyway, despite answering his own question. Stark/Ironman fits the theme of TL...all the Avengers don't.

    I am actually pleasantly surprised that Disney Co even had the respect for theming and restraint this time, they often don't. But as stated...no real official announcement yet...so there is still a chance they screw it up and put neato-whiz-bang box office draw over long term theming. We'll see.

  6. #6

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    EST
    Posts
    218

    Re: I Get It, But Why Wouldn't They Go Full AVENGERS?

    Yes, I get it. I see that Stark Expo makes sense in Tomorrowland (at least, compared to Finding Nemo, or Buzz, or the full Avengers team). But couldn't Stark Expo be a front for an Avengers ride? I think it's a question of thematic integrity vs. longevity. Iron Man alone makes "more" sense, but I think that the Avengers brand will outlast the Iron Man franchise. If something has to be based on a film, wouldn't we want it on a film that's not going to be forgotten?

    I guess I'm playing devil's advocate here. Like I said, I do get it. But couldn't you visit Stark Expo (let's say a New Tomorrowland '15 borrows MK's Tomorrowland ideology and functions as a "real city" in which Stark Expo is the city's convention center) and while you're there sampling Stark's technological advancements, you're drawn into an adventure with Iron Man as he meets up with the whole Avengers team?

    "Home on the Range" made a whole lot of thematic sense as an overlay to the Big Thunder Ranch. But in terms of longevity... It just wasn't there. I guess I sort of feel that way about Iron Man. A great movie and more appropriate for Tomorrowland than many alternatives, but wouldn't AVENGERS: The Ride be a bigger draw and remain a headlining attraction a la Indy or Star Tours long, long after the movie Iron Man has faded from memory?

    I do get it. Just trying to get some opinions going and see what people think.
    I believe I chose the life of a tomb raider, because
    I'm addicted to the excitement that comes when life hangs in the balance.
    ...
    Famous last words.



  7. #7

    • Circle of Ancients
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    22,687

    Re: I Get It, But Why Wouldn't They Go Full AVENGERS?

    Because eventually there is likely to be a full slate of Avengers attractions at DCA or some 3rd park.


  8. #8

    • My Children's Father
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Island in the Sun
    Posts
    1,497

    Re: I Get It, But Why Wouldn't They Go Full AVENGERS?

    Maybe at the end of the ride they could have an interactive AA (like Roz on the Monsters Inc. ride) at the end of the Iron Man "ride" in the form of Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) making a pitch for an Avengers ride ...
    "She's taking everything. She's taking the house, she's taking the kid, she's taking the dog. IT'S NOT EVEN HER DOG. IT'S MY DOG! SHE'S TAKING . . . MY DOG!"
    - Ron Livingston, "Band of Brothers"

  9. #9

    • Knight that says Nee!!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Northern CA
    Posts
    2,647

    Re: I Get It, But Why Wouldn't They Go Full AVENGERS?

    PLease...please...PLEASE tell me you are not putting "Home on the Range" on the same level as either Iron Man film. The Iron Man films will not be forgotten because ONE: they are quality films that stand alone and TWO: because the main character does have an Avengers connection. So not only does it work thematically in TL, it will be relevant many years from now. "Home on the Range" never had that chance and was a bad choice as an overlay, even temporarily, for anything in the park.

    I do like the Nick Fury connection at the end of the ride idea! LOL, rides that make pitches for other rides??? Careful, Disney just might hire you if you keep that evil thinking!

  10. #10

    • Senior Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Splash Mountain
    Posts
    7,958
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: I Get It, But Why Wouldn't They Go Full AVENGERS?

    Maybe Hulk and Antman could fit...but the rest dont relate too much to Tomorrowland

  11. #11

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,268

    Re: I Get It, But Why Wouldn't They Go Full AVENGERS?

    Quote Originally Posted by bkroz View Post
    A great movie and more appropriate for Tomorrowland than many alternatives, but wouldn't AVENGERS: The Ride be a bigger draw and remain a headlining attraction a la Indy or Star Tours long, long after the movie Iron Man has faded from memory?
    Iron Man 3 is coming, in addition to a second Avengers film. Avengers was a good movie, but I think that Iron Man played an integral, if not the central role, in the film. So, I don't see Iron Man's popularity fading any time soon. Plus the idea of Iron Man, i.e. making such a suit isn't that hard to explain to Iron Man naive guests . . . explaining who Captain America is, that's a harder task as it isn't as obvious as a high tech suit.

    Interestingly, there are rumors that Captain America will also somehow be part of the ride, probably just an homage like a Captain America shield in the background or a map of the arctic.

    ---------- Post added 10-17-2012 at 06:57 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by sir clinksalot View Post
    Because eventually there is likely to be a full slate of Avengers attractions at DCA or some 3rd park.
    Will they ever rip out Paradise Pier? I doubt it as the Fun Wheel is part of WoC and Disney likes to run attractions into the ground in terms of use, even cheap-o rides like stuff in Paradise Pier.

    The only option, IMHO, for a slew of Marvel rides is a new park.

  12. #12

    •   
    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    752

    Re: I Get It, But Why Wouldn't They Go Full AVENGERS?

    Quote Originally Posted by Giant Panda View Post
    Maybe at the end of the ride they could have an interactive AA (like Roz on the Monsters Inc. ride) at the end of the Iron Man "ride" in the form of Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) making a pitch for an Avengers ride ...
    Okay, now THAT's funny!

  13. #13

    • Sorcerer Supreme Bean
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: I Get It, But Why Wouldn't They Go Full AVENGERS?

    Avengers is too broad for one land, its technology and magic and every day people

    Iron Man himself is more of a futurist, technology based, so its easier to fit him into Tomorrow land, than say the full team.
    There is no right or wrong in this debate. It is simply a matter of perspective.
    -Dr. Strange

  14. #14

    • Down Pluto!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Altered State
    Posts
    4,151

    Re: I Get It, But Why Wouldn't They Go Full AVENGERS?

    How about neither?







    I am Sambo, and I endorse this signature.

  15. #15

    • Mischievous Mouse
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    1178 Miles North of Disneyland
    Posts
    2,420

    Re: I Get It, But Why Wouldn't They Go Full AVENGERS?

    Ironman is the only "futuristic" Avenger... no?!!


    "We believed in our idea - a family park where parents and children could have fun- together."

    -Walt Disney

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. But, why Prattville, AL?
    By creamcityleo79 in forum MiceChat Main Lounge
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-21-2005, 12:09 AM
  2. Yeah, Mommie kissed Santa, but why do I have to keep hearing about it?
    By HiddenMickey in forum MiceChat Main Lounge
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 12-15-2005, 01:40 PM
  3. Why don't they have more Bike + Rollerblade Triails?
    By Bobby Brown Jr in forum Walt Disney World Resort
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-15-2005, 08:36 PM
  4. Why Aren't They Televising It?!!?!?!?!?!?
    By Imagineer8689 in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 08-15-2005, 06:19 PM
  5. Main Gate CMS - Why can't they greet you?
    By Disney Lover in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 06-17-2005, 04:35 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •