Published: October 26, 2012 at 9:34 AMAvatar is part of a whole new Pandora-based land... Iron Man is rumored to be a smaller version of one attraction in Pandora. Gotta go with the whole new land. Avatar, baby!
Published: October 26, 2012 at 9:36 AMSince I'm a Florida local, I'm going with Iron Man. However, let's not forget California still has some Marvel limits (the others are fine).
Published: October 26, 2012 at 10:04 AMIron Man FTW!
Avatar was alright but I'm a bigger fan of Marvel. One thing I love about Harry Potter, Spider Man and Transformers is the thrill of being a Hero and the fight against the villains.
I believe Iron Man has a much stronger base to tap into these archetypes than the world of Pandora does. Not to mention the Iron Man character is much cooler and likable than the characters from Avatar.
Published: October 26, 2012 at 10:08 AMI'm with James on this one. As much as I enjoy Marvel over Avatar, Avatar's going to be a whole immersive land (Disney's strong suit) while Iron Man would just be an immersive attraction (Universal's strong suit).
Published: October 26, 2012 at 10:15 AMTo be honest, neither strike me as must see attractions. Neither inspire me to book a visit at this moment. Really, I'd rather save my vacation money for when the new Wizarding World of HP opens at Universal.
Published: October 26, 2012 at 10:26 AMAfter experiencing Carsland, I realize that you can really not like a film (I think the Cars films are PIXAR's laziest, most pointless productions) and still dig on its theme park counterpart (I love Carsland).
For that reason, I voted Avatar. If executed at the level of a Carsland, that fantastical Cameron-land could become an epic and insanely beautiful experience. I mean, my gosh, just the lighting alone could be worth seeing.
By contrast, I think of that lovable, little Tomorrowland in the orange grove, and just can't envision something nearly that expansive and powerful. In fact--if the Imagineers attempted to plop something half as vast as Carsland into Disneyland--it would completely dominate the east side of the park.
I guess in my mind, I imagine an Iron Man in the COP building as being just a slightly bigger Star Tours. In terms of drawing power, it'd definitely influence a trip to Disneyland, but it wouldn't force it.
Published: October 26, 2012 at 10:44 AMI loved both movies, but only once. I really don't think they can hold up in longetivity, but this is irrelevant for a theme park attraction. Both will find success as theme park rides. I just don't think most people will care. It doesn't warrant a special trip to the park. I will certainly visit as part of my regular vacation. I do love Animal Kingdom. I will visit the park anyways. Avatar will be a bonus. I just hope it opens when I arrive in 2016. It doesn't matter for Iron Man. I live 15 minutes away from Disneyland.
Published: October 26, 2012 at 12:46 PMDisneyland is our home park and we will continue to go semi-regularly regardless of what they put in (although I'd looking forward to the Iron Man ride). Avatar-land was announced shortly after we returned from our first family Disney World trip last fall. While I would go back right away, I can entice DH much more easily when Avatar-land opens in a few years.
Published: October 26, 2012 at 1:03 PMEveryone bash on Avatar being a bad movie, so the new Avatar land will be, in their mind, as bad. I'm sorry, but did any Harry Potter was a good movie. I know the books are great, but the movies were just OK, still, the Wizarding world is amazing.
My point is, even if you didn't like Avatar, the experience in Avatar land can, and i think, will be a wonderful experience. Just imagine being surrounded by all the great landscape Pandora has to offer, with the light effects, weird creatures, and a ride that will certainly be as fun as HP, Spidey or Transformers, since it will be similar. (or even better)
So my vote goes to Avatar, but i like the idea of Iron Man.
Avatar, here i come 2015-16
Published: October 26, 2012 at 2:09 PMAnd that's why I voted for Iron Man. I live quite a bit farther than 15 minutes, but I do have an AP. I would probably book a trip, even if it's a daytrip. WDW, on the other hand, is out of reach (yuk! no pun intended) for the forseeable future. And yes, I did read your tips, Robert.
Published: October 26, 2012 at 2:40 PMA Stark Expo could be really cool if it was done right. Not sure about Avatar yet, even the Disneyphiles are labeling it Soarin' 2.0 (if the leaked plans are authentic).
Ive been calling Tranformers "Spiderman 2.0" but the ride has different elements, so I will have to wait and see.
Either way, the parks are getting some serious attention in the coming years.
Published: October 26, 2012 at 3:28 PMI guess I'm just all for any new attractions.
Like someone mentioned before the Cars films were / are "generally" considered the weakest of pixars output (I disagree....) but the land itself is critically acclaimed.
Avatar, Iron man....it doean't matter to me, a new attraction is a new attraction.
That said, DLR is my home park, so I gotta go with the avatar this round
Published: October 26, 2012 at 3:31 PMThe reality is that no matter what a park adds, any new attraction is not enough to make me travel to the park if it is not a local park. All it will do is change its position on my park trip priority list. I voted Iron Man because that would potentially be enough to convince me to buy an annual pass to Disneyland versus once a year visits (which I currently do as I live 30 minutes away). Avatarland honestly holds no interest for me, as I found the movie seriously overrated. If the land ends up being excellent and I don't visit WDW before it opens, it could move a Florida trip higher on my priority list, but I wouldn't make a special trip there just because of Avatarland (especially if I end up visiting before it opens). What a new attraction might do in some cases, however, is delay a trip (for example, I will definitely not visit Florida until after the Harry Potter expansion is complete since I'm interested in that, but just because it is complete doesn't mean I'm automatically going to book a trip).
Published: October 26, 2012 at 3:37 PMI vote niether.
Published: October 26, 2012 at 9:08 PMWell I voted Avatar, just like I'd said "6-TIMES" with the Star Tours, Harry Potter comparison. Avatar full land, vs a ride. Full land will "almost" always win for me.
This coming from me, which Iron Man is my favorite Marvel character at the moment. But to answer one of the questions. Will a ride make me book a trip?
I went to Florida when all this attractions opened: Expedition Everest, Revenge of the Mummy, Cheetah Hunt, Sheikra. Any of you see a pattern here? Ha,ha! See what I am so displeased with the new MK expansion?
Also I do factor the "WDW vs DLR" into the equation too. At the moment from P.R. to Florida it's incredibly cheap when compared vs going to California. At least 30% cheaper in my searches... Besides the fact that I not only go to Disney I also go to Universal, Seaworld parks and others, for me it's easy to say Florida, not seeing it in a ride vs ride only vacuum. Disneyland/California it's closing the gap for me, taking into consideration the price/value(30% at leat more), but I'm not there yet...
Published: October 26, 2012 at 9:50 PMOn Avatar:
I really don't see how or why people are so against it, or not interested in this... Other that what I'll always say. The true "Disney fans only" that unconditionally "LOVE IT", and they can't accept the fact that Avatar it's not Disney. It didn't came from them, and it's not from the imageneers mind.
I love Iron Man!! I do... Iron Man 3 can't come soon enough... Way more than I like Avatar. But come on, Avatar it's the #1 movie of all-time, coming from the Director of the first two movies of all-time. Woah!! What a shocker!!! Disney is not really rolling the dice here, it's not like Disney is making a here comes Honey Boo Boo land!!
Besides I don't like Soarin that much either, but the fact that they would make it a 3D ride experience, it's not only logical, it's the absolute way to go. Listen Avatar's story an all-time great story? NO! "Spoiler ALERT!!" ((((It ways basically a cowboys and Indians movie. With the Blue people playing the "Good" Indians, and the Corporation playing the "Bad" Cowboys that wanted to "profit from the land" and didn't really care if they killed the Blue people. Ahh!! With a love story thrown in there, in a similar way "Cameron" did Titanic, sinking ship movie/love story.))))
But to the ones that didn't see Avatar, or that didn't see it in 3D, I wouldn't even bother seeing it now... For me Avatar was one of the "GREATEST" experiences I'd had and probably will ever have going to the Movies. And I LOVE going to Movies, probably even more than Theme Parks!! WOW!! The Blasphemy!!! lol I watched Avatar 3 times in a Theater, 2-3D 1-2D. Yes the 3 hours or whatever it was... It was incredibly "EPIC" to watch!!! Even with the unimpressive story, it was just stunning... I always wanted to see that again, without staying there for the whole 2-3 hours. So I'm glad, (it seems) I will get the chance again!!!
Published: October 27, 2012 at 12:58 AMStark expo sounds strangely similar to the T2 experience at universal doesn't it? Don't forget that dated (but still good) attraction was a Cyberdine expo of sorts. Something tells me that iron man will be similar to that, not necessarily a ride.
Published: October 27, 2012 at 1:55 AMThe Avatar ride/movie system seems pretty innovative and conducive to some big thrills. With the success of the first Avatar film and the projected release of at least two sequels, I think this is a franchise that would do very well in the Animal Kingdom park, and would bring in some big crowds to a park that is rather short on big thrills. I could definitely see this same system being used for Iron Man, but I know the size of the space at Disneyland, and it just isn't big enough to do Iron Man properly. Now, if we were to take the space currently devoted to the Autopia and use it for Iron Man, I would easily give it the win. I think that the Innoventions building could be turned into a mega-Marvel meet-and-greet spot with any number of heroes (and villains) appearing throughout the day for photo ops. I think that if there were room, a Marvel stunt show would do very well, too.
Published: October 27, 2012 at 11:19 AMI voted for neither. Coming from outside the US, neither of these projects are exciting enough to make me book a trip. Honestly, I'm sick of Disney and Universal basing rides and lands off movies. The last thing that REALLY excited me from the planning stage was Expedition Everest. It had me hooked from the concept phase because I didn't know anything about it - there was no "movie" plot. Thus, when it became "live", I booked a trip from Australia to Florida to experience it! I say, more original story lines and concepts. Less movies. Pirates and Mansion are still some of my favourite memories. I think it's time to do some REAL imagineering again and base rides and lands on "themes" rather than "movies" ;) Now, THAT would excite me and bring my $$$$ into the US.
Published: October 27, 2012 at 12:23 PMWell Daniel, just about everyone here agrees with you. Were happy to get franchises over nothing at all, but ya I bet 90% of people here would trade iron man, avatar, cars for another haunted mansion or pirates of the Caribbean attraction, totally immersive and totally original!
Published: October 27, 2012 at 3:38 PMDaniel,
The whole premise of Universal is to "ride the movies"... it was part of the tagline when it opened.
I'm not sure where Disney is going, but they seem to be leaning that way due to the success of Hogwarts / Harry Potter. Everything Universal and IOA add in the future will more than likely be movie based, but that was the idea from day one.
Published: October 28, 2012 at 3:57 AMFantasy land, in all parks, is uninspiring and nonsensical. In Disney land it's a mini movie park and in Disney World it's half kiddy monster movie stuff and non fun stuff. Putting Iron man in there makes this horrible in cohesive mess even worse. Please Disney stop the movie tie in stuff (except for your move park). We know you look with wide eyes to Universal but you need to offer something else.
Iron Man or Avatar, I don't care. As long as it's a awesome ride system and not the thousand OmniMover system and as long as they can make it work (see failed projects that never got fixed like Rocket Rods, the Yeti, autumn tree of life, the Imagination pavilion, etc. And please no more rockwork. It looks Disney needs to force that now in every attraction they build.
Published: October 28, 2012 at 4:10 AMI used to read the Iron Man comics ( I was there at the beginning so tp speak ) when I was a kid in the 60's so the theme has a nostalgic draw for me and the recent movies have been pretty entertaining too.
Published: October 28, 2012 at 5:55 AMI also think Disney should leave the movie tie in for DHS and keep it out of the rest of the parks.
Published: October 28, 2012 at 11:06 AMAvatar? Meh. Nothing to see here.
My hope would be that the Stark Expo concept could allow for real Tomorrowland content, that is an attraction that previews what the future could be like, like Tomorrowland used to do back in 1967, for example. Right now it is all about space aliens, not our United States' futures decades from today.
My vote, Iron Man for sure. If they pull it off right, I will definitely want to bring my children there to ignite their own imaginations as mine were in the old Tomorrowland when I was their ages.
Published: October 28, 2012 at 12:39 PMI guess I'm wishing for the impossible. I want theme parks to introduce attractions that are unique and NOT tied to some existing franchise. Show me something I've never seen before. I have no use whatsoever for Avatar. Beyond the predictable plot and politically correct content, the movie itself looked like a freaking cartoon. It was embarrassingly bad. I actually like the Iron Man movies. I just don't want to see an attraction based on them.
Published: October 29, 2012 at 6:59 AMCan't understand, or agree with, some of the negativity here. These things are supposedly designed to be entertaining , fun and joyous . Seems to me that people are getting harder to please. Either of these proposed ventures will create something worth experiencing. We're just discussing which one might prove better than the other. You're 8 weeks too early for all this "Bah Humbug".
Published: October 29, 2012 at 10:22 AMYea, I personally agree with some other that Iron Man will only be one ride, while Avatar is going to be a whole land, so I had to go with Avatar.
Published: October 29, 2012 at 3:19 PMI agree with previous comments that Animal Kingdom needs a few more additions. It still offers a very unique and amazingly detailed themed expereince. We have just returned from Orlando and in the october quieter month we managed to finish the park by 3.30pm Avatar is a welcomed addition although I think it isnt the best fit for the park. I would have prefered to see existing parts of the park expended, a