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

[bkroz]

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?

[jasmineray]

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.

[Nikefutbolero]

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.

[gatheringrosebuds]

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.

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.

[Goofy Daddy]

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.

[bkroz]

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.

[sir clinksalot]

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.

[Giant Panda]

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 ...

[Goofy Daddy]

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! )

[JerrodDRagon]

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

[chesirecat]

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

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 ----------

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.

[fifthrider]

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 ...

Okay, now THAT's funny!

[Wren]

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.

[Sambo]

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

How about neither?

[Sorcerer's Apprentice]

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

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

[Wren]

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

How about neither?

The irony of you not liking Marvel in Disneyland, yet having an avatar with an Alan Moore influnced comic book Guy Fawkes mask on and mouse ears is not lost on me.

[Sambo]

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

The irony of you not liking Marvel in Disneyland, yet having an avatar with an Alan Moore influnced comic book Guy Fawkes mask on and mouse ears is not lost on me.

Not ironic at all. I love many comics, but do not think they all belong in all places. Marvel, more specifically Avengers, are just fine - in comics and movies. It is not at all ironic nor inconsistent to feel they are inappropriate for Disneyland. These forums are not Disneyland.

I created an Occupy Disneyland cover for my Facebook account. I do have a sense of humor about things, but I would still not think my Facebook cover would be appropriate for use in Disneyland.

[mey]

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

This is just speculation, but I would guess this is a consideration to those in charge: An E-ticket at Disneyland is not just for the attendence bump for a couple of years, but is meant to last decades. 10 or 20 years after the movies, even the most popular franchise (Star Wars, Indy) will be unfamiliar to a sizable part of the population. A ride meant to last decades should appeal both to those familiar and unfamiliar with the story. A 5-minute thrill ride with many main characters may be exciting, but the story could get muddled (what's with the green guy? ;-). With a single main character, there's a better chance for an understandable story for those unfamiliar with the movies.