EPCOT Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[yensidtlaw1969]

Going against my mockery of generalization or helping prove my point?

"But the omnimover format, which features complex sets and enables more elaborate narratives..." Would you not agree that Disney took a format that worked great in one use (Haunted Mansion) and then turned in a less than stellar use of the same format (Journey of LM)?

It's about execution!

Back to my original point with you, I do not believe IN MY OPINION that you can declare because a certain format is used or X# of AA are or aren't used that you can declare a ride a success or not.

It's about execution, I can not judge execution until I experience it, you obviously can. Let's leave it at that, I'll go experience it and form my opinion then, you can save your money and judge it from your keyboard.

I feel like you actually proved his point here.

Yes, it's about execution - and as executed, Space Mountain, TRON, Rock N' Roller Coaster all share a lot of DNA. Guardians has already announced that it will include many of those exact same elements and has not announced many different ones. The proof will be in the pudding, of course, but it's plenty logical at this point to expect the experience to have many similarities to the above.

That doesn't mean Guardians won't be successful - I don't think Casper was discounting the success of any of these attractions. It's fair to say Space, TRON, and RNR are in very many ways successful. But surely by now we can begin to form some opinion about Guardians based on what we've heard to be involved, and our opinions will of course be subject to change as fuller details emerge and eventually the attraction opens.

Isn't that the entire point of having a News and Rumors message board? To share what we know so far and engage with it while things develop? Insisting that one should not form any opinion until opening is antethetical to this forum.

 

[doctornick]

I feel like you actually proved his point here.

Yes, it's about execution - and as executed, Space Mountain, TRON, Rock N' Roller Coaster all share a lot of DNA. Guardians has already announced that it will include many of those exact same elements and has not announced many different ones. The proof will be in the pudding, of course, but it's plenty logical at this point to expect the experience to have many similarities to the above.

I don't really agree. Saying "it's a roller coaster in a building" tells us very little about the experience.

More specifically, I think elements like the backwards launch and the directional movement of the vehicles will make this very distinct from the other rides listed. I also expect heavier use of actual "scenes" (via video) in making this truly themed to GOTG, which will make it very different from Space and RNR that are in low light conditions lighter theming. We know there is a planet/moon in the show building that you helix around. I also expect a big pre-show/exposition which will probably extend into the first part of the ride before the launch. I also expect since it is GOTG that there will be a good bit of humor involved, something that was done very well with Mission Breakout.

I also would expect it to be less intense than either Tron or RNR. Probably less fast, no upside down portion, and the sitting positioning won't be as atypical as Tron (or Space for that matter). In terms of intensity, I'm thinking more BTMRR than any of those indoor coasters.

Admittedly, I'm also one of those who finds it mind boggling that people complain about Tron being next to Space as being "too similar" cause they don't seem similar to me at all. I think there is a tendency in these forums to lump coasters all together as being similar experiences which is unfair while given dark rides more leeway in pointing out "unique" parts. My guess is that it is probably because (overall) people here probably prefer dark ride and expositional elements in general more than the physical thrills.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I don't really agree. Saying "it's a roller coaster in a building" tells us very little about the experience.

More specifically, I think elements like the backwards launch and the directional movement of the vehicles will make this very distinct from the other rides listed. I also expect heavier use of actual "scenes" (via video) in making this truly themed to GOTG, which will make it very different from Space and RNR that are in low light conditions lighter theming. We know there is a planet/moon in the show building that you helix around. I also expect a big pre-show/exposition which will probably extend into the first part of the ride before the launch. I also expect since it is GOTG that there will be a good bit of humor involved, something that was done very well with Mission Breakout.

I also would expect it to be less intense than either Tron or RNR. Probably less fast, no upside down portion, and the sitting positioning won't be as atypical as Tron (or Space for that matter). In terms of intensity, I'm thinking more BTMRR than any of those indoor coasters.

Admittedly, I'm also one of those who finds it mind boggling that people complain about Tron being next to Space as being "too similar" cause they don't seem similar to be at all. I think there is a tendency in these forums to lump coasters all together as being similar experiences which is unfair while given dark rides more leeway in pointing out "unique" parts. My guess is that it is probably because (overall) people here probably prefer dark ride and expositional elements in general more than the physical thrills.

Okay, but you know that we know more than just "it's a roller coaster in a building", right?

I don't think anyone's trying to make the argument that Guardians will be "the same" as Space Mountain and TRON. I think the observation is merely that Disney has a pattern with these kinds of attractions and so far the known details about Guardians suggest this might be on a similar path. I feel like, at this point, that's a valid observation. If they take a left turn and surprise us I'm sure we'll pretty much all be thrilled, but it doesn't yet totally seem like that will be the case.

 

[UNCgolf]

Admittedly, I'm also one of those who finds it mind boggling that people complain about Tron being next to Space as being "too similar" cause they don't seem similar to be at all. I think there is a tendency in these forums to lump coasters all together as being similar experiences which is unfair while given dark rides more leeway in pointing out "unique" parts. My guess is that it is probably because (overall) people here probably prefer dark ride and expositional elements in general more than the physical thrills.

I think you're right about that, but it also works in reverse -- I've seen more than one person here suggest that all omnimovers and all boat rides are basically the same thing, and that you shouldn't have more than one in a park because then you're just duplicating a ride. That's crazy to me. Haunted Mansion and Spaceship Earth are about as different as two rides can possibly be, and they're both omnimovers. I'm sure those are people for whom the physical thrill matters the most, which is fine, but I'd also argue that if that's the case Disney probably isn't really the best park for them. It's always been more focused on expositional rides than physical thrills; the coasters they do build tend to be mild compared to what you can get elsewhere.

 

[mergatroid]

Isn't that the entire point of having a News and Rumors message board? To share what we know so far and engage with it while things develop? Insisting that one should not form any opinion until opening is antethetical to this forum.

I agree but I feel some take it a bit far. It's all about opinions but some seem to make their minds up early on what they think something will be like and that becomes their narrative and is banded about as if they know exactly what the attraction will be like. Of course people are entitled to post what they like about an attraction that's not yet opened, there does come a point though where it appears more an agenda than an opinion. That 'appearance' may be wrong however some really hammer anything and everything and make every post a negative experience based on a few guesses.

I'm pretty sure some will say it's an assumption based on previous budget cuts and a lesser end product, which is fine but not an absolute like they make it. Imagine if somebody hammered the new Epic Universe park that's being built everyday for the next 3 years based simply on the basis that Universal over uses screen based rides, or that Kong, Jimmy Fallon, Fast and Furious weren't great additions? It just gets a bit old, very quickly with one or two when they seemingly want to be negative about so much including stuff nobody has even experienced yet.

They're entitled to an opinion like everyone is, the value of their opinion does seem to suffer a bit though if everything they post is negative.

 

[James Alucobond]

Why is it not serious? In the update it says that they will start to conceal the support structure. The support structure is pretty substantial compared to the concept art.
Is the full structure going to be concealed? You make it seem like in construction they don't add temporary supports. Obviously the entire support structure isn't going away but that seems like a lot to conceal.

My comment about the steam coming from the ship would hide it as the steel is currently painted a light gray.

They mean “conceal” as in “make it look like an intentional, designed structure”, not “install a cloaking device”.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

Any word how many people the show building will hold? EoE is a huge and should be able to hold several hours of guest in line.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Any word how many people the show building will hold? EoE is a huge and should be able to hold several hours of guest in line.

It’s not all queue. A lot of the space is the stations, turn around and launch.

 

[WDWFREAK53]

They mean “conceal” as in “make it look like an intentional, designed structure”, not “install a cloaking device”.

In Pandora, they didn't install a cloaking device. They concealed the steel structure without looking like it was a designed steel structure.
Taking the concept art (and I understand that it's just concept art), it appears as if the ship is basically only being supported by the very tip of the fin. Now, I could be looking at the construction photos wrong and that fin may completely hide the structure and if so...that's exactly what I was asking about. I don't think any part of this structure (based on the art) is designed to be seen....because if it was, they would make it look decorative like a base that a statue sits on.

 

[James Alucobond]

In Pandora, they didn't install a cloaking device. They concealed the steel structure without looking like it was a designed steel structure.
Taking the concept art (and I understand that it's just concept art), it appears as if the ship is basically only being supported by the very tip of the fin. Now, I could be looking at the construction photos wrong and that fin may completely hide the structure and if so...that's exactly what I was asking about. I don't think any part of this structure (based on the art) is designed to be seen....because if it was, they would make it look decorative like a base that a statue sits on.

You’re looking at older concepts. The newer ones don’t include that extra fin and show the support as more of a defined structure.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I agree but I feel some take it a bit far. It's all about opinions but some seem to make their minds up early on what they think something will be like and that becomes their narrative and is banded about as if they know exactly what the attraction will be like. Of course people are entitled to post what they like about an attraction that's not yet opened, there does come a point though where it appears more an agenda than an opinion. That 'appearance' may be wrong however some really hammer anything and everything and make every post a negative experience based on a few guesses.

I'm pretty sure some will say it's an assumption based on previous budget cuts and a lesser end product, which is fine but not an absolute like they make it. Imagine if somebody hammered the new Epic Universe park that's being built everyday for the next 3 years based simply on the basis that Universal over uses screen based rides, or that Kong, Jimmy Fallon, Fast and Furious weren't great additions? It just gets a bit old, very quickly with one or two when they seemingly want to be negative about so much including stuff nobody has even experienced yet.

They're entitled to an opinion like everyone is, the value of their opinion does seem to suffer a bit though if everything they post is negative.

It seems like your issue is less about people forming early opinions and more about people being overly negative.

Which, you know, is valid . . . but not a good reason to tell people they can't have an opinion of an attraction until it's 100% done.

 

[gorillaball]

I feel like you actually proved his point here.

Yes, it's about execution - and as executed, Space Mountain, TRON, Rock N' Roller Coaster all share a lot of DNA. Guardians has already announced that it will include many of those exact same elements and has not announced many different ones. The proof will be in the pudding, of course, but it's plenty logical at this point to expect the experience to have many similarities to the above.

That doesn't mean Guardians won't be successful - I don't think Casper was discounting the success of any of these attractions. It's fair to say Space, TRON, and RNR are in very many ways successful. But surely by now we can begin to form some opinion about Guardians based on what we've heard to be involved, and our opinions will of course be subject to change as fuller details emerge and eventually the attraction opens.

Isn't that the entire point of having a News and Rumors message board? To share what we know so far and engage with it while things develop? Insisting that one should not form any opinion until opening is antethetical to this forum.

If I proved his point I'm not explaining myself very well. Agree the point of having News and Rumors message board is to engage in these things. However, I don't think in News and Rumors you turn in a completed review of something not yet complete. Beginning to form an opinion of your expectation is one thing, and so is agreeing or disagreeing with said preconceived opinion.

To borrow from Casper's analogy, movie critics don't turn in a review of a trailer, they turn in a review of the movie.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

If I proved his point I'm not explaining myself very well. Agree the point of having News and Rumors message board is to engage in these things. However, I don't think in News and Rumors you turn in a completed review of something not yet complete. Beginning to form an opinion of your expectation is one thing, and so is agreeing or disagreeing with said preconceived opinion.

To borrow from Casper's analogy, movie critics don't turn in a review of a trailer, they turn in a review of the movie.

Movie critics don't - but regular people do. The very basis of revealing a trailer is to encourage the public to form some sort of opinion of what's coming.

No one's turning in "complete reviews" of Cosmic Rewind. Be real. We're regular people forming opinions based off what we see knowing full well it could change as we see more. When it opens people will either see their feelings shift or be confirmed, good or bad. Some people may already feel they won't enjoy the attraction based solely on the known components, and that too can be valid. It's fair to decide not to see a movie just because it stars an actor you dislike. But let's not pretend that feeling that way is equal to publishing a full review of an unfinished work. No one's doing that.

 

[gorillaball]

Movie critics don't - but regular people do. The very basis of revealing a trailer is to encourage the public to form some sort of opinion of what's coming.

No one's turning in "complete reviews" of Cosmic Rewind. Be real. We're regular people forming opinions based off what we see knowing full well it could change as we see more. When it opens people will either see their feelings shift or be confirmed, good or bad. Some people may already feel they won't enjoy the attraction based solely on the known components, and that too can be valid. It's fair to decide not to see a movie just because it stars an actor you dislike. But let's not pretend that feeling that way is equal to publishing a full review of an unfinished work. No one's doing that

No one is doing that? It's a regular occurrence on the boards and part of what makes it fun, to see people proven right or to backtrack on their years of proclamations.

One of the most easily cherry picked examples I can come up with is - Remember the Skyliner was going to have people dying almost daily because it had no air conditioning... The fact it had no air conditioning was "released in a trailer". The message boards ran with that accurate trailer information and made inaccurate conclusions.

We do the same things with rides. No AA, crap ride, mind made up.

 

[lewisc]

When do we think Disney will announce and have AP previews?

 

[mergatroid]

It seems like your issue is less about people forming early opinions and more about people being overly negative.

Which, you know, is valid . . . but not a good reason to tell people they can't have an opinion of an attraction until it's 100% done.

It's really more about forming an opinion before experiencing it. You get far less people insisting it's going to be the best attraction ever without experiencing it than you do those insisting it's going to be terrible. And those that do rarely make posts repeatedly, unlike a minority of those who are overly negative.

And I have never said they can't have an opinion of an attraction until it's 100% done, just that their opinion isn't necessarily correct at that point be it negative or positive.

 

[mergatroid]

No one is doing that? It's a regular occurrence on the boards and part of what makes it fun, to see people proven right or to backtrack on their years of proclamations.

One of the most easily cherry picked examples I can come up with is - Remember the Skyliner was going to have people dying almost daily because it had no air conditioning... The fact it had no air conditioning was "released in a trailer". The message boards ran with that accurate trailer information and made inaccurate conclusions.

We do the same things with rides. No AA, crap ride, mind made up.

Indeed, remember how 'Avatar Land' was going to be absolutely terrible and how literally nobody wanted it etc, etc. Day in day out arguing a bit like the skyliner.

 

[No Name]

In Pandora, they didn't install a cloaking device. They concealed the steel structure without looking like it was a designed steel structure.
Taking the concept art (and I understand that it's just concept art), it appears as if the ship is basically only being supported by the very tip of the fin. Now, I could be looking at the construction photos wrong and that fin may completely hide the structure and if so...that's exactly what I was asking about. I don't think any part of this structure (based on the art) is designed to be seen....because if it was, they would make it look decorative like a base that a statue sits on.

You say you understand that it’s just concept art, but then you have me convinced you don’t understand that. The art just doesn’t show the damn stand.

 

[WDWFREAK53]

You say you understand that it’s just concept art, but then you have me convinced you don’t understand that. The art just doesn’t show the damn stand.

Let’s just wait and see what it looks like when it’s complete. I will be shocked and disappointed if that structure is that prominent. It looks completely unfinished and very “un-Disney.”

My hunch is that the structure will be an additional fin and won’t be seen like it is here…as a “damn stand” that the concept art just omitted. So yes, I completely understand that it’s concept art and things will obviously not be exactly as shown but the focal point of the art is not going to be that much different where they omit a structure of exposed tube steel.

 

[UNCgolf]

Let’s just wait and see what it looks like when it’s complete. I will be shocked and disappointed if that structure is that prominent. It looks completely unfinished and very “un-Disney.”

My hunch is that the structure will be an additional fin and won’t be seen like it is here…as a “damn stand” that the concept art just omitted. So yes, I completely understand that it’s concept art and things will obviously not be exactly as shown but the focal point of the art is not going to be that much different where they omit a structure of exposed tube steel.

It wouldn't make much sense to have another fin there when they already built a fin directly behind it.