I think putting the GotG coaster in epcot is fine. Not a fan of the giant box but im still cool with it. Epcot needed some major attractions and this coaster def qualifies as one. hopefully the coaster is a hit and they build another one with a star wars theme and put it in DHS
-
The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More -
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
EPCOT Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Nope. Epcot has a VP who mainly nods and says yes.
DHS is where GotG should have gone in the first place.
I get why people think that, but to me thinking long term, they will certainly build another coaster like this and if they had alrady built GotG in DHS then theres no way we would get a star wars coaster in the same park (this is all hypothetical that we even will get a sw coaster) So, by building this coaster at Epcot, they can build a star wars version at DHS.
EPCOTCenterLover
Well-Known Member
I’m not sure there’s anyone left in the company leadership that truly loves and appreciates the artistry and vision of the parks and is committed to remaining true to that.
M:SpilotISTC12
Well-Known Member
So in this USA Today article it didn't give a year for completion. Is it safe to assume for late 2021? Or are we looking at late 2022 for Epcot 40?
Going by what I recall reading from someone I trust - Go with the latter.
Has there been any significant capital project in WDW history that was championed from the parks VP level? With a few possible exceptions, the execs in those positions largely see them as stepping stones to elsewhere in executive leadership and don’t make waves. It’s just what the position has become.
I consider myself a much more ‘corporate aware’ Disney fan then most, and I honestly couldn’t name the current VPs of all 4 WDW parks without looking them up.
Not sure about WDW, but the park spending/cap ex for DL’s 50th was all Ouimet/Emmer. Not that he had much of a choice, after Pressler, but still... Sadly, beyond that, I can’t think of any but it’s late and I’m tired and there’s 50 years of history and projects to dissect.
DreamfinderGuy
Well-Known Member
She's a very nice person who pulls off a good image of caring about the park at the bare minimum. I don't think it's very fair to pin much blame on her considering all the final decisions are made by people in positions above her.
Absolutely no blame should go to her.
t3techcom18
Well-Known Member
As Martin said, she's not to blame for the very big decisions, but is she a nice person? Yeahhhh no. I can't say whether she truly cares about the park or not, but she pulls off the image.
rreading
Well-Known Member
So who would be making these decisions? President of WDW? Chairman of the Parks? CEO of the company?
I would expect that ideas are created at the imagineering level and then passed up. Perhaps the VP of Epcot is there to manage ops rather than blue sky planning, but someone has to be thinking about the park itself.
Magic Feather
Well-Known Member
This. This is effectively the role of all parks VPs. Sometimes they can advocate for changes, or even changes in certain areas, but what those changes are (if a change of substance and not an ops change) aren’t usually up to them.
rreading
Well-Known Member
Is there a division of imagineering which is blue sky about what direction the parks should go then?
I would have to imagine that way back, there was an analysis that something needed to be done with WoM and Horizons. That there must have been poor guest feedback that reported they needed to be updating or changing the attractions. Someone analyzed the situation and decided that they really weren't amenable to updating so they would have to expand the park or replace the attractions. I would definitely have preferred TT to be in addition to WoM.
So do we blame Eisner for the demise of WoM and Horizons or the president of WDW?
I would have to imagine that way back, there was an analysis that something needed to be done with WoM and Horizons. That there must have been poor guest feedback that reported they needed to be updating or changing the attractions. Someone analyzed the situation and decided that they really weren't amenable to updating so they would have to expand the park or replace the attractions. I would definitely have preferred TT to be in addition to WoM.
So do we blame Eisner for the demise of WoM and Horizons or the president of WDW?
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure both WoM and Horizons weren't related to guest feedback or anything like that -- they were both mainly due to the corporate sponsors. They were the ones paying for the rides, and they wanted something new/different.
Obviously someone like @marni1971 knows far more than I ever will, but I'm relatively confident that's the case.
Back in the day it seemed Eisner held the leash for the final say - or even making suggestions - with WDI either making it possible if it was possible, and also showcasing their latest to him hoping for approval.
Now though the current spine project for example was pitched to Iger level as a competition, with each radically different pitch hoping their deign would win.
Now though the current spine project for example was pitched to Iger level as a competition, with each radically different pitch hoping their deign would win.
Last edited:
DreamfinderGuy
Well-Known Member
I believe she cares about the park. Whether that's genuine or just a very good image is your own debate to go over, but I truly believe she does. From my personal experiences with her I can say she's been very kind to me, so that's where a majority of my opinion on her comes from.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
It's also worth noting that she could care deeply about the park but have different opinions than Epcot purists (for lack of a better term) about the what the park should be. Not that I have any idea about her feelings on the matter.
rreading
Well-Known Member
Crazy. I can't imagine that they saved any money by tearing down WoM. I can understand the sponsors wanting something new, but addition by subtraction makes so little sense. Were they needing money to modernize WoM, then maybe I would understand, but...