News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[Vegas Disney Fan]

That's already established at Universal, though. No one expects their parks to have hidden rides for the most part because they've had huge, unhidden coasters for a long time and have generally not been into fully theming areas from top to bottom. I think some people would complain if there was a huge coaster overhead at Diagon Alley, because that's a heavily themed area and the coaster would detract from the theming.

I personally think Velocicoaster is a bit of a disaster -- the JP area was probably the second best in the park outside of the two HP ones and Velocicoaster really detracts from it.

People have different expectations for Disney than they do for Universal. Of course there are people who couldn't care less (or would even welcome) Disney building huge, unhidden coasters, but there are also a lot more people who would be upset about it than there are at Universal.

I just think Disney is held to an impossibly high standard. People complain they are being left behind by Universal but they can’t simply toss up a giant coaster like universal without being crucified for it. They are damned either way.

People love pointing to Harry Potter as how to do theming but it consists of great theming in front and a massive blue box that’s visible from everywhere else in the park. Why is that praised at uni and condemned at Disney?

I’d love for every inch of Disney to be themed like Pandora or Galaxy’s edge but I also want new rides, if every new ride at Disney has to cost several billion dollars we aren’t going to get many new rides.

 

[UNCgolf]

I’d love for every inch of Disney to be themed like Pandora or Galaxy’s edge but I also want new rides, if every new ride at Disney has to cost several billion dollars we aren’t going to get many new rides.

The problem is Disney is spending that much money even without the theming. I think Guardians is going to cost about 50% of what Galaxy's Edge cost, even though it has a mostly unthemed exterior and Galaxy's Edge has two rides, stores, and more.

I don't think you can really blame theming for their insane costs when it's happening even when they don't bother to theme things.

 

[October82]

The problem is Disney is spending that much money even without the theming. I think Guardians is going to cost about 50% of what Galaxy's Edge cost, even though it has a mostly unthemed exterior and Galaxy's Edge has two rides, stores, and more.

I don't think you can really blame theming for their insane costs when it's happening even when they don't bother to theme things.

Lands like Galaxy's Edge or Pandora are expensive, in part, because you have large buildings covered in extensive rock work that is labor intensive to design and install. Theming GotG's gravity building would not have had that problem. Epcot has always had very large and well designed show buildings - the gravity building is an obvious and indefensible break from that.

 

[Incomudro]

If you don’t think the “average guest” can’t figure out what’s in the big blue box, you must think they are idiots. It’s not as if you only see that thing inside the park. Coming into Epcot from the north it’s blatantly obvious it’s there, and anyone with half a brain cell will figure out quickly, “Oh, that’s that new Marvel ride”.

Most people don't think about where the ride occurs.
A good portion of park goers don't think of the structures or mechanics behind the facades.
They're not walking up to the Guardians entrance and thinking; "I bet this coaster starts in this building here, but continues into that buildind in the background."

 

[UNCgolf]

By the way, I think I'm actually glad the Guardians gravity building isn't themed.

That's not to say that I'm happy it's there -- they should have built a different ride that didn't require a 14 story box.

But since they went with the lazy coaster route, actually theming that 14 story building would probably be worse than leaving it as is. It would be that much more noticeable while towering over the rest of EPCOT and completely diminish Spaceship Earth more than it does now.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I just think Disney is held to an impossibly high standard. People complain they are being left behind by Universal but they can’t simply toss up a giant coaster like universal without being crucified for it. They are damned either way.

People love pointing to Harry Potter as how to do theming but it consists of great theming in front and a massive blue box that’s visible from everywhere else in the park. Why is that praised at uni and condemned at Disney?

I’d love for every inch of Disney to be themed like Pandora or Galaxy’s edge but I also want new rides, if every new ride at Disney has to cost several billion dollars we aren’t going to get many new rides.

The “massive blue box” of Potter is really only an issue at the entrance to JP, directly next to the structure, where the trees don’t mask it. It is more comparable to the backside of Everest then to GotG. I actually disagree with UNC over Veloc - I think the rock work and cage theming adds interest to what had been a bland JP area (but I’ve never loved the JP IP). I also think the swooping lines of a well-situated outdoor coaster, especially when integrated into the landscape with heavy theming, is more appealing then big bland warehouses (or giant floating tacos).

But the fact is that Disney is held to a different standard that they established themselves. Splash, Space, BTM - all are long thrill rides with meticulously themed buildings. The fact that no one believes modern WDW could build anything like those is a (probably accurate) indictment of modern Disney. The idea that such theming would be prohibitively expensive is a reflection of WDWs catastrophic inability to reasonably control costs - what did Splash cost, adjusted for inflation, compared to GotG? And the idea that we need to accept second-rate attractions or WDW just won’t build anything at all is the biggest indictment of the post-2000 WDW.

 

[Incomudro]

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.

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.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Most people don't think about where the ride occurs.
A good portion of park goers don't think of the structures or mechanics behind the facades.
They're not walking up to the Guardians entrance and thinking; "I bet this coaster starts in this building here, but continues into that buildind in the background."

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.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Once they decided to build a 14-story gravity building, painting it "go-away-blue" was the best option. There's just no way to theme a building that big without totally overshadowing Spaceship Earth.

The decision to build a 14-story gravity building may have been a bad one. But once that decision was made, Disney's best worst option was to make it as invisible as possible.

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.

The only other building that’s comparable to this in scale is RnRs show building, and it’s not exactly hidden either. Tron is a smaller building and they still have complaints about the big ugly box.

Disney really only has three choices… 1) don’t build big coasters, 2) give up the indoor aspect and make something visible like Velocicoaster, or 3) build big ugly boxes and try to make them disappear with blue paint. No matter which they pick people will be unhappy.

Fourth choice as mentioned- Build that excellently themed building. Make it a beautiful and iconic piece of architecture.
THEN, the ride or experience inside it becomes a standard for Disney parks. See Space Mountain and the variety of castles for proof.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

On a lighter note...I got to ride the Velocicoaster last week and it is one hell of a ride. It is themed as well as it can be, but nowhere near what I would expect if Disney had done it. (of course, it would have cost 10 times as much and taken 27 years to build, but I digress )

Now Hagrid's on the other hand is an incredibly fun coaster and seriously well-themed. I doubt Disney could do better.

Both those rides ROCK! Hagrid's may be one of my favorites at Universal- and Velocicoaster scared the crap out of me. Just about everything they did with Harry Potter was 100% on par with the best of Disney Imagineering! My eyes were opened.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

The only other building that’s comparable to this in scale is RnRs show building, and it’s not exactly hidden either. Tron is a smaller building and they still have complaints about the big ugly box.

Disney really only has three choices… 1) don’t build big coasters, 2) give up the indoor aspect and make something visible like Velocicoaster, or 3) build big ugly boxes and try to make them disappear with blue paint. No matter which they pick people will be unhappy.

People really talk as if this isn't the same company that built Space Mountain . . .

 

[October82]

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.

Yes? Who on earth wouldn't?

 

[October82]

The “massive blue box” of Potter is really only an issue at the entrance to JP, directly next to the structure, where the trees don’t mask it. It is more comparable to the backside of Everest then to GotG. I actually disagree with UNC over Veloc - I think the rock work and cage theming adds interest to what had been a bland JP area (but I’ve never loved the JP IP). I also think the swooping lines of a well-situated outdoor coaster, especially when integrated into the landscape with heavy theming, is more appealing then big bland warehouses (or giant floating tacos).

But the fact is that Disney is held to a different standard that they established themselves. Splash, Space, BTM - all are long thrill rides with meticulously themed buildings. The fact that no one believes modern WDW could build anything like those is a (probably accurate) indictment of modern Disney. The idea that such theming would be prohibitively expensive is a reflection of WDWs catastrophic inability to reasonably control costs - what did Splash cost, adjusted for inflation, compared to GotG? And the idea that we need to accept second-rate attractions or WDW just won’t build anything at all is the biggest indictment of the post-2000 WDW.

Major companies pay for statement architectural design all of the time. Even when they're primarily or exclusively motivated by cost. Epcot didn't need acres of custom rock work to obscure the gravity building, largely contemporary architectural detailing/design work would have fit with Epcot and been a "significant improvement" blue paint.

 

[Master Yoda]

Both those rides ROCK! Hagrid's may be one of my favorites at Universal- and Velocicoaster scared the crap out of me. Just about everything they did with Harry Potter was 100% on par with the best of Disney Imagineering! My eyes were opened.

Same here. That long dive after the highest point is all air time and I was sure I was going to come out of the cart and go headfirst into the lake.

 

[October82]

By the way, I think I'm actually glad the Guardians gravity building isn't themed.

That's not to say that I'm happy it's there -- they should have built a different ride that didn't require a 14 story box.

But since they went with the lazy coaster route, actually theming that 14 story building would probably be worse than leaving it as is. It would be that much more noticeable while towering over the rest of EPCOT and completely diminish Spaceship Earth more than it does now.

A decorated building would have detracted from Epcot. A themed building would not. No more than Motion, The Land, or Imagination have for decades.

The big blue box is a missed opportunity for (re)defining Epcot's architecture. The route they chose instead is telling.

 

[UNCgolf]

A decorated building would have detracted from Epcot. A themed building would not. No more than Motion, The Land, or Imagination have for decades.

The big blue box is a missed opportunity for (re)defining Epcot's architecture. The route they chose instead is telling.

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

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. A building that size could have potentially worked if it wasn't right next to Spaceship Earth, though -- if it was out where Imagination or Test Track are, for example.

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

 

[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.