News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[No Name]

Michael Eisner wanted you to "ride the movies"

Perhaps, but with a healthy balance. He approved a ton of rides that weren't tied to a movie. Bob Iger has not.

 

[rocketraccoon]

Still not much to see here today outside of what I already posted. The signage telling you that it's 45 minute ride with Ellen and Bill is still there. From the front it looks like any other normal day of operation. Despite not having water, there was some mechanical noise coming from the wedge in the front, which I think houses the water supply and pump for the fountain.

Some workers to the right of the pavilion. A golf cart was visible, but I doubt they'd take anything out through that side entrance anyhow.

You can see one in the photo, but flags are visible on the right side. I saw three white flags, a blue flag, and a red flag. The red flag was actually on the guest side of that gate for some reason.

 

[MaximumEd]

The flags could be marking underground utilities. In my neck of the woods, white is steam, blue is water, and red is power.

 

[Cesar R M]

So just to put this all in perspective, Epcot Center took 3 years to build. On opening day that included: Spaceship Earth, UoE, WoM, LwtL, all of Communicore, Mexico, China, Germany,Italy, AA, Japan, France, England, and Canada and a completely new Monorail line plus all the relevant supporting infrastructure. Disney made $242m(2017 dollars) in 1982. They made $2.9billion in 2016. From where I sit it clearly feels like they have a heck of a lot more money now to support the man power to design, engineer and build all of these additions in a much narrower window. But then again, I am no finance expert, so with all the extra parks as well as the other business units, I may not be looking at all the key indicators correctly.

The thing that really sticks out to me here is that the quality feels light years ahead of where it is today, adjusting for the technology constraints they had in the late 70s early 80s. (example: Horizons had over 100 AAs and props, M:S has some video screens and two motion simulators). Disney is so much more "off the shelf" then customizing it for the ride these days. Just sad!

but..but.. my buybacks! is heard faintly in the background at Disney's CEO offices.

 

[Cesar R M]

I'm on the side that doesn't start the timer until ground is broken.

For some,Ladder spotting is the most true measurement.

 

[Cesar R M]

This has got to stop right now. It's a 'tiara', not a 'crown.'

That is all.

 

[*Q*]

That is why attractions like star tours were built. Look up any star Tours history documentary to see for yourself.

I particularly recommend the Ken Burns one.

 

[es135]

For those of us missing UOE, here's the website they mention at the end of the film. It's a real game! http://energynightmare.game/

 

[Daveeeeed]

For those of us missing UOE, here's the website they mention at the end of the film. It's a real game! http://energynightmare.game/

The memories!

 

[Jenny72]

I'm sure they'll make this ride family friendly, but does anyone else feel it's odd to have a Disney ride based on this *particular* movie? There's language, violence, some sexual suggestion, etc. I wouldn't let my kids see it until 13 or 14. I know there are other Disney rides based on PG-13 type movies (Indiana Jones, Avatar) but the fact that this movie can be crude makes it somehow even more offensive to me at Epcot, which always seemed to be the "civilized" park where you could explore big ideas for the future and eat crumpets with tea.

Btw, I enjoyed the movie well enough personally, so it's not about that. More that it seems kind of un-Disneylike and *very* un-Epcotlike.

 

[DisneyDodo]

I fail to understand the argument that putting IP in a ride automatically makes it less original. An IP does not constitute an attraction - they still have to decide how to convert the concept into a ride. Would anyone suggest that rides like Spider-Man or FJ at IOA, IJA at DL, or splash mountain at MK are unoriginal because they are based off IPs? Rather, they are extremely original because they were able to convert the concepts into a unique ride experience.

And why is it any less original to use an "IP" than any other preexising concept that just so happens to not be owned by anyone? Basing a ride on a mystical creature like the yeti is "original", but if Disney had created a movie about the yeti first, EE would've been considered a cop out? Is triceratop spin more original than dumbo because it is based off a generic dinosaur rather than an elephant from a movie?

We know very little about the GotG ride, and we have no idea how they will use the IP to facilitate the ride experience. Like with any new attraction, there is potential for this to be a dud, but let's not rule out the possibility that this could be an instant classic, just because it utilizes characters from a movie.

 

[marni1971]

For many, the use of the IP in this particular park, the fact it's a replacement and not an addition, and what it replaces is the issue.

Regardless of thoughts about the IP and it's movie. Or thoughts about corporate orders.

 

[DisneyDodo]

For many, the use of the IP in this particular park, the fact it's a replacement and not an addition, and what it replaces is the issue.

Regardless of thoughts about the IP and it's movie. Or thoughts about corporate orders.

Those are separate arguments, but I was specifically addressing those who have the habit of denouncing rides as "unoriginal" solely based on the fact that they make use of some IP

 

[Amidala]

I'm sure they'll make this ride family friendly, but does anyone else feel it's odd to have a Disney ride based on this *particular* movie? There's language, violence, some sexual suggestion, etc. I wouldn't let my kids see it until 13 or 14. I know there are other Disney rides based on PG-13 type movies (Indiana Jones, Avatar) but the fact that this movie can be crude makes it somehow even more offensive to me at Epcot, which always seemed to be the "civilized" park where you could explore big ideas for the future and eat crumpets with tea.

Btw, I enjoyed the movie well enough personally, so it's not about that. More that it seems kind of un-Disneylike and *very* un-Epcotlike.

Agreed. FWIW I still think movies like BH6 and Inside Out deserve a place in Epcot because these movies encourage kids to ask questions about science and technology, our bodies, and other topics relevant to FW. Guardians does none of this, and I think "juvenile" is a fair judgment of the movies (the Jackson Pollack blacklight sex joke in the first movie made me cringe). It's sad because there's a sincerity to the comic book GotG that the MCU versions really lack IMO.

Anyway, my feelings about GotG aside, I would have been fine w/ Guardians getting shoehorned into DHS (definitely preferable to Doctor Strange), but Epcot? Eh...I think all of this would sting less if the concept was for a Guardians dark ride that teaches guests something (even in the loosest, most simplistic way) but I can't see that really working with a coaster.

 

[bcoachable]

Martin-
From what you know and understand, is the Guardians coaster going to be "family friendly" BTM style or more "thrill seeker friendly" as in RnR? Understand if you can not say at the moment...

 

[Christian Fronckowiak]

You mention another thing that makes Avatar in DAK a poor business decision... the "synergy" (it's actually not synergy) only goes one way for Disney. The rest helps competitor Lightstorm Entertainment.

Apparently Mission Breakout and the summer of heroes bannerfest isn't bringing in the numbers Disney hoped for. Frozen Ever After didn't really boost attendance. I have many guesses as to why, but I think there will be a big lesson or two to be learned in the coming years. I just hope Disney learns them correctly.

Investment is good, they just have to invest in the right things.

In recent history, they typically, sadly, don't learn the right lesson.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I fail to understand the argument that putting IP in a ride automatically makes it less original. An IP does not constitute an attraction - they still have to decide how to convert the concept into a ride. Would anyone suggest that rides like Spider-Man or FJ at IOA, IJA at DL, or splash mountain at MK are unoriginal because they are based off IPs? Rather, they are extremely original because they were able to convert the concepts into a unique ride experience.

And why is it any less original to use an "IP" than any other preexising concept that just so happens to not be owned by anyone? Basing a ride on a mystical creature like the yeti is "original", but if Disney had created a movie about the yeti first, EE would've been considered a cop out? Is triceratop spin more original than dumbo because it is based off a generic dinosaur rather than an elephant from a movie?

We know very little about the GotG ride, and we have no idea how they will use the IP to facilitate the ride experience. Like with any new attraction, there is potential for this to be a dud, but let's not rule out the possibility that this could be an instant classic, just because it utilizes characters from a movie.

Process. A creative person saying "I have a great idea for a new [property] ride/show/sequel/whatever!" is completely different than a non-creative saying "I don't want to hear the best ideas. [Property] did well at the box office, so you must make a new ride/show/sequel/whatever."

 

[DisneyCane]

All I can say is that if this ride saved the Tower of Terror from getting that godawful overlay that they did at DCA, it will be my favorite ride in the history of WDW!

I finally looked at some pictures from that monstrosity and the exterior looks absolutely terrible and ridiculously stupid. Even though their ride was a little different, the exterior of ToT is one of the coolest looking buildings for any Disney ride. Especially the way it is ominously in the skyline of what I will always call Disney/MGM Studios. The DCA transformation into GotG would look really bad.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I'm sure they'll make this ride family friendly, but does anyone else feel it's odd to have a Disney ride based on this *particular* movie? There's language, violence, some sexual suggestion, etc. I wouldn't let my kids see it until 13 or 14. I know there are other Disney rides based on PG-13 type movies (Indiana Jones, Avatar) but the fact that this movie can be crude makes it somehow even more offensive to me at Epcot, which always seemed to be the "civilized" park where you could explore big ideas for the future and eat crumpets with tea.

Btw, I enjoyed the movie well enough personally, so it's not about that. More that it seems kind of un-Disneylike and *very* un-Epcotlike.

Hey, maybe they can make that side of Future World a mini-land dedicated to the films of James Gunn. Lets see, we could have rides based on.... ummmmmm... OK, maybe this isn't the best idea.

GotG deserves a ride (I'd give it a land) but it can't go into MGM because it's redundant with SWL and doesn't really fit anywhere else.

 

[Christian Fronckowiak]

Hey, maybe they can make that side of Future World a mini-land dedicated to the films of James Gunn. Lets see, we could have rides based on.... ummmmmm... OK, maybe this isn't the best idea.

GotG deserves a ride (I'd give it a land) but it can't go into MGM because it's redundant with SWL and doesn't really fit anywhere else.

Or Tomorrowland