EPCOT Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[October82]

I don't think that's true because of the size. Motion, the Land, and Imagination are nowhere near as tall as the Guardians gravity building, which is my whole point.

This is a large volume building, but not especially tall. Disney themes buildings this tall (or taller) all of the time - look at every park icon or most of the Disney "mountains".

More to the point, Epcot's architecture is not medieval European or old Hollywood. This is future world - contemporary structures of this size are built - routinely - with architectural designs that would not look out of place in Future world. It is easy to imagine how to theme a structure of this size and volume that would complement its surroundings.

The only motivation here is, frankly, marginal cost savings.

I would have happily seen a themed building built there, but I don't envision any way they could build a 14 story themed huge box building that didn't immediately detract from Spaceship Earth and make it look small.

It goes back to my overall point that they should have built a different ride that would have allowed for a themed building.

Designing structures to complement historic buildings nearby is something that architects do all the time. There are examples of 100+ story residential towers that respect neighboring religious or civic buildings. The challenge of designing a 14 story building to not detract from a similarly sized building nearby is really not an especially challenging one.

As to the appropriateness of GotG in the first place, you'll have no disagreement from me. This ride doesn't belong in Epcot.

 

[UNCgolf]

This is a large volume building, but not especially tall. Disney themes buildings this tall (or taller) all of the time - look at every park icon or most of the Disney "mountains".

More to the point, Epcot's architecture is not medieval European or old Hollywood. This is future world - contemporary structures of this size are built - routinely - with architectural designs that would not look out of place in Future world. It is easy to imagine how to theme a structure of this size and volume that would complement its surroundings.

The only motivation here is, frankly, marginal cost savings.



Designing structures to complement historic buildings nearby is something that architects do all the time. There are examples of 100+ story residential towers that respect neighboring religious or civic buildings. The challenge of designing a 14 story building to not detract from a similarly sized building nearby is really not an especially challenging one.

As to the appropriateness of GotG in the first place, you'll have no disagreement from me. This ride doesn't belong in Epcot.

It has nothing to do with overall height in a vacuum. It's the fact that it's situated right next to Spaceship Earth.

I completely disagree with your paragraph about designing buildings to complement historical structures. That's not similar to this. Spaceship Earth is a unique building; it's not something you can easily complement. It would be incredibly difficult to put something in that spot that didn't overshadow Spaceship Earth.

Also, I'm not even talking about the appropriateness of GotG as an IP. While it absolutely does not belong, if this was a Big Bang themed ride that had nothing to do with an IP, it would still be bad. They should not have built a roller coaster with a 14 story building in that location regardless of theme.

There's nothing they could have done to make this ride work in that location. At best, it would be a themed building that would ruin Spaceship Earth as the park icon. The whole idea was flawed from the start regardless of what they did with the building.

 

[October82]

It has nothing to do with overall height in a vacuum. It's the fact that it's situated right next to Spaceship Earth.

I think that's sort of my point. The height and size of the building is a red herring. Buildings of much larger size are designed - routinely - to fit into and acknowledge their surroundings. It's simply a matter of will.

I completely disagree with your paragraph about designing buildings to complement historical structures. That's not similar to this. Spaceship Earth is a unique building; it's not something you can easily complement. It would be incredibly difficult to put something in that spot that didn't overshadow Spaceship Earth.

Century old churches in urban areas are unique buildings that are not easily complemented. Yet, somehow, architects manage to add to the aesthetics of these buildings on a regular basis. Spaceship Earth is certainly unique, which is why it deserves a unique and complementary gravity building nearby.

A giant blue box next to spaceship earth certainly isn't the answer. I'm not even sure it's the least expensive answer either.

Also, I'm not even talking about the appropriateness of GotG as an IP. While it absolutely does not belong, if this was a Big Bang themed ride that had nothing to do with an IP, it would still be bad. They should not have built a roller coaster with a 14 story building in that location regardless of theme.

I wasn't talking about the IP either. This building doesn't belong in Epcot. If the IP is the injury to the park, the big blue box is the insult.

There's nothing they could have done to make this ride work in that location. At best, it would be a themed building that would ruin Spaceship Earth as the park icon. The whole idea was flawed from the start regardless of what they did with the building.

To go back to my earlier point - a decorated building was never going to fit here. A themed and designed building would have. I'm certain that there are workable designs for this somewhere in Imagineering - perhaps we'll see them one day.

 

[UNCgolf]

Century old churches in urban areas are unique buildings that are not easily complemented. Yet, somehow, architects manage to add to the aesthetics of these buildings on a regular basis. Spaceship Earth is certainly unique, which is why it deserves a unique and complementary gravity building nearby.

This is where we fundamentally disagree, I guess. I don't think century old churches in urban areas are unique at all. There are buildings like that everywhere -- it's not hard to match or complement facades with a long architectural history.

There's very little like Spaceship Earth anywhere else on the planet. I just don't believe they could have built a complementary themed building of that size in that location. I cannot imagine any way it would have worked without diminishing Spaceship Earth. A much smaller themed building could probably be complementary, but not one that's basically the same height.

Either way, we definitely agree that the current building is a disaster.

 

[October82]

This is where we fundamentally disagree, I guess. I don't think century old churches in urban areas are unique at all. There are buildings like that everywhere -- it's not hard to match or complement facades with a long architectural history.

There's very little like Spaceship Earth anywhere else on the planet. I just don't believe they could have built a complementary themed building of that size in that location. I cannot imagine any way it would have worked without diminishing Spaceship Earth. A much smaller themed building could probably be complementary, but not one that's basically the same height.

On the contrary, Spaceship Earth (and all of Future World) are examples of futurist architecture. Today we mostly associate this tradition with "sustainable architecture", that incorporates simple orientations, shapes, and materials to create intelligible and pleasing spaces. SSE is certainly a remarkable structure, and one that has contributed to and defined its tradition, but this tradition is a widespread one. There are many examples of futurist and sustainable industrial buildings, many much larger than the gravity building, and many of them would complement and add to SSE.

 

[James Alucobond]

I agree with @October82 on this one. While it should certainly not be busily decorated in the spirit of Mission: Breakout, something with a simple, modern, curvilinear (if possible) silhouette would be vastly preferable to and less distracting than what’s there now. Especially from within the park, the main vantage points from which you can see it are as a backdrop to other structures in World Discovery. Something that feels like it flows with the lines of Test Track and PLAY would actually make people pay less attention to it, in my opinion.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Telephoto shots are a deception. They do not show what it's like in real life. And posting them and saying "SEE??!!" is, in fact, a deception. Notice how anyone wanting to make the point of how horrible they are almost never posts a regular shot. Instead, they show an exaggerated view.

I've been to Epcot with the BBB. It is indeed towering from the parking lot. But, once inside the parks, the buildings and landscaping surrounding one in Future World quickly makes it mostly obscured. And looking from across the lagoon, it easy to miss unless you look for it.

That said, I'm not defending an unthemed visible building. It definitely should have had a facade or architectural elements to make it 'fit.'

But telephoto shots and claims of it towering over SSE are just hyperbolic, and what's truly risible.

So you tell me, at which point in this sequence do these stop being photos and become "a deception"?:

1:

2:

3:

4:

I took all of these photos with my phone within a 3 minute period while walking by International Gateway. The compression is the same with all of them. The only difference is that I zoomed in and out a bit, effectively cropping the image. It's the same view. No one who has seen the thing in person and percieved how large it was would look at any of these photos and say "well, when I look at THIS it's not THAT bad", or vice-versa. What's actually happening in these pictures is obvious to anyone with a cursory sense of the layout of EPCOT, which I feel safe assuming is all of us here.

None of these photos are deceptive - they show exactly how much of the building is in view from World Showcase. People aren't actively and maliciously removing context to try to convince people of a point that will be unfounded the second they set foot in the France Pavilion.

Your goalpost of requiring people to post a "regular" shot is unquantifiable - all of these are "regular shots". Are you under the impression that people can't tell when a photo is zoomed in? That anyone here is being fooled into thinking Photo 4 was taken at the front step of the old Energy building? Come on. No one is legitimately confused by this.

And not for nothing, but I'd challenge you to find ANY photo of ANYTHING that presents the human field of vision *so* accurately that it could be considered "a regular photo". A camera's field of view is different from that of a person and that's just mechanically true. And the even, the standard FOV for a camera varies from model to model - there is no one standardized measurement. So from a technical perspective there is no "regular" beyond your assertion that a given photo does or doesn't meet your special, personal criteria.


But, you know, far be it from me to keep you from insisting you're somehow the arbiter of such matters.

 

[doctornick]

I think the biggest mistake they made with Guardians is not putting the box further away. It already requires a tunnel to connect the two buildings, they could have extended that tunnel a few hundred yards and put the building behind Mission Space rather than behind the Play Pavilion, that would make it much less noticeable. Looking at an overhead it looks like they intentionally put it far away from SSE, I just think they should have gone further.

That or a 20 foot berm around the building with 40 foot trees on it, wouldn’t make it disappear completely but would certainly help.

Hmmm. Off the cuff thought: would have been interesting if they had used WoL for the building for Cosmic Rewind. They could have shifted the gravity building more to the east and it would both be more blocked by other buildings and further away from SSE.

 

[UNCgolf]

On the contrary, Spaceship Earth (and all of Future World) are examples of futurist architecture. Today we mostly associate this tradition with "sustainable architecture", that incorporates simple orientations, shapes, and materials to create intelligible and pleasing spaces. SSE is certainly a remarkable structure, and one that has contributed to and defined its tradition, but this tradition is a widespread one. There are many examples of futurist and sustainable industrial buildings, many much larger than the gravity building, and many of them would complement and add to SSE.

I know what futurist architecture is -- that's not really the point.

This is all opinion, of course, but for me, anything they built of that size in that location would detract from Spaceship Earth. It's mainly an issue of scale. Of course they could have built something that's better than what's there, but nothing was going to be good at that size and location.

Regardless, my original point was about the building that exists; that decorating it would have been even worse than leaving it painted blue. I wasn't trying to argue that they couldn't have built something better. But I believe the whole idea of a building of that scale in that location is fundamentally flawed. There are better options, but no great ones.

 

[UNCgolf]

I agree with @October82 on this one. While it should certainly not be busily decorated in the spirit of Mission: Breakout, something with a simple, modern, curvilinear (if possible) silhouette would be vastly preferable to and less distracting than what’s there now. Especially from within the park, the main vantage points from which you can see it are as a backdrop to other structures in World Discovery. Something that feels like it flows with the lines of Test Track and PLAY would actually make people pay less attention to it, in my opinion.

I absolutely agree with that too, but that wasn't the point we were discussing (or at least it wasn't to me, maybe we're talking about two different things and talking across each other).

 

[RSoxNo1]

Disney has been building similarly tall, and well themed, buildings for decades. They made a cost-cutting choice to leave the building un-themed. It's as simple as that.

A giant warehouse does overshadow Spaceship Earth. A competently designed gravity building would have complemented it and the rest of the park. Just as the other pavilions have done.

What's odd is that this attraction has a ridiculous budget ($450 mil). We're all struggling to figure out how they get to that number without some massive exterior theming.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

What's odd is that this attraction has a ridiculous budget ($450 mil). We're all struggling to figure out how they get to that number without some massive exterior theming.

I suspect there isn't as much interior theming as we'd like either.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I remember reading online that RSR cost over $300 million to build. I'm not sure why this would be 50% more expensive.

 

[J4546]

i dont know either, but we will all see the finished product sooner than later and hopefully it lives up to the hype.

 

[Disnutz311]

The show building is around 50metres tall, and it was built in Florida ...at Epcot of all places, exactly what difference would spending a bunch of money to dig 3 metres lower to the ground to 99% of guests who aren't turning around behind them looking for a show building?


I'm just so angry they have installed the barges in the lagoon, how do they expect me to be able to complain about a sky blue show building with those barges blocking my view of it!!

The difference is exactly what I am talking about. The old Imagineering and company would do that. They would dig. Current leaders and decision makers won’t. I will break it down with a picture. The left is the old Disney. The right is Chapek’s…

 

[Giss Neric]

What's odd is that this attraction has a ridiculous budget ($450 mil). We're all struggling to figure out how they get to that number without some massive exterior theming.

Ain't Hagrid's Motorbike like $300 million which is now currently the most expensive roller coaster, overtaking Expedition Everest. So if this opens this will overtake Hagrid's.

The rotating cars is not really that new so I wonder where is the budget going? I'm not really sure what the effects are in the show building going to be. If it will be like Tron then it would be disappointing cause it's just like a step above Aerosmith's cardboard cutout effects with glow in the dark lighting.

 

[J4546]

i think the que building has a ton of stuff in it, like a domed imax like theater ceiling area. Hopefully its really really awesome, the que building is massive so it could be spectacular. Time will tell

 

[tommyhawkins]

Yeah, they have - but they didn't construct a giant box right next to Cinderella's Castle - which is what this would be the equivalent to had it been built in Magic Kingdom, being as the castle and Spaceship Earth (like the Tree of Life) serve the same centerpiece functions.
If a giant ride box were that close to Cinderella's Castle, would you want it highly themed?
And no, Tron doesn't count.

Tron is IKEA themed

The difference is exactly what I am talking about. The old Imagineering and company would do that. They would dig. Current leaders and decision makers won’t. I will break it down with a picture. The left is the old Disney. The right is Chapek’s…

View attachment 593749

No. No one would dig in Florida, certainly not to lose 10ft. That's insane. They didn't dredge and create a 180 acre lagoon for the Disney difference they did it because they couldn't have built a park at all if they hadnt . And with the water management they had to do at Epcot all around Guardians show building we should be thankful it's not potentially sinking like certain other projects .

 

[Touchdown]

Which has to make Disney wonder if it’s worth the added expense.

Velocicoaster is being praised as the best ride in Florida… all while being a very visible coaster with no attempt to hide any of the supports or track, and ironically with the huge blue Harry Potter show building visible behind it. I find it hard to believe that hasn’t been brought up in the board room meetings at Disney. They are spending tens of millions trying to hide things and being crucified for it while the competition is being praised for not spending money trying to hide anything.

See that’s a benefit of the theme. Have you ridden it, have you watched Jurassic World? Jurassic World is a dinosaur theme park, complete with theme park rides. As explained very well and humorously in the queue cooperate has decided to build a roller coaster in the raptor paddock (much to the chagrin of raptor whisperer Owen Grady) to give the guests a new thrill. The trains are equipped with safety equipment (Sonic emitters that the raptors can hear and makes them avoid you, you cant.).

It’s actually very logical, much like California Screaming/Incridicoaster at DCA. You’re better off complaining by using the Flying Hippogriff or the Incredible Hulk.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I remember reading online that RSR cost over $300 million to build. I'm not sure why this would be 50% more expensive.

Zach ne sais quoi.

No. No one would dig in Florida, certainly not to lose 10ft. That's insane.

You should tell Universal and Disney, who have both dug basements in recent years.