News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[Jenny72]

I'm sure that's true, just as I'm sure there are GotG fans planning a trip to Epcot, and Avatar fans who have made or are making trips to AK, and (a small number of ) Ratatouille fans who will be making their plans.

I think though for at least many of the people who object to all of this stuff, the main issue is not whether there are X number of people who will be excited about a specific IP, even if that's what we end up arguing about. It's more about how it degrades the unique quality that the parks used to have, which was a sense of remove from the rat race (sorry, Mickey), a sense that you had entered a world of imagination and possibilities, and childlike wonder.

In my opinion, if Disney continued to create that feeling, they'd get plenty of people coming, with or without (outside generated) IP. But there's no room to experiment with this now, so we will presumably not ever know. All we will know for sure is that X number of people came to the parks and generated X amount of revenue.

 

[trainplane3]

All of this IP talk reminded me of the Space Restaurant. I'm looking forward to it (maybe more than GOTG) just because it's space, nothing else. No movie tied to it, no video game being used as a base, it's literally just a space restaurant. I can sit there and eat my burger/steak/lobster (whatever number of stars it'll be) and look out at the stars, maybe even have a X-2 buzz the "station". Sure they can have the Milano or a Tie fight pass by as a easter egg, but that's not it's purpose.

 

[DisneyDodo]

I'm sure that's true, just as I'm sure there are GotG fans planning a trip to Epcot, and Avatar fans who have made or are making trips to AK, and (a small number of ) Ratatouille fans who will be making their plans.

I think though for at least many of the people who object to all of this stuff, the main issue is not whether there are X number of people who will be excited about a specific IP, even if that's what we end up arguing about. It's more about how it degrades the unique quality that the parks used to have, which was a sense of remove from the rat race (sorry, Mickey), a sense that you had entered a world of imagination and possibilities, and childlike wonder.

In my opinion, if Disney continued to create that feeling, they'd get plenty of people coming, with or without (outside generated) IP. But there's no room to experiment with this now, so we will presumably not ever know. All we will know for sure is that X number of people came to the parks and generated X amount of revenue.

The claim that the presence of IPs “degrade the parks” is one that I have a hard time taking seriously. For people who are attached to a certain IP, its presence can certainly add to the excitement of an attraction. But for those who don’t care for the IP or haven’t heard of it, there is no reason they cannot enjoy the ride for what it is.

People are complaining about the quality of this GOTG ride 4 years before it even opens! I, for one, have never seen either GOTG movie and don’t have any immediate plans to, but that doesn’t mean I won’t enjoy the attraction. In fact, we have seen attractions’ popularities far outlive those of the movies they’re based on (e.g. Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride, Splash Mountain, Flight of Passage, etc). There’s no reason this GOTG ride can’t be viewed as outstanding for years after the franchise is dead.

Some other examples: POTC has been a popular attraction both with and without the presence of Jack Sparrow and ToT has been popular with and without the Twilight Zone tie-in. Setting aside the debate about its location, FEA is still a solid dark ride even if you’ve never heard of Frozen (i.e. you’re from Mars) due to its great animatronics, cool sets, and catchy music. If you have grown up admiring Anna, Elsa, and Olaf, that only makes the experience better. People complain that we’ll never see another BTMRR, but 7DMT is an extremely similar concept. You may find it to be too short or not thrilling enough, but it’s shortcomings have nothing to do with the presence of the seven dwarfs. A large percentage of the people who ride JII probably assume Figment is a character from some lesser-known Disney film, while a large percentage of the people who ride Splash probably assume Breer Rabbit was created specifically for the attraction.

The bottom line is people need to stop judging the quality of a ride by whether it contains an IP and instead by how good it actually is.

 

[Pixieish]

I'm sure that's true, just as I'm sure there are GotG fans planning a trip to Epcot, and Avatar fans who have made or are making trips to AK, and (a small number of ) Ratatouille fans who will be making their plans.

I think though for at least many of the people who object to all of this stuff, the main issue is not whether there are X number of people who will be excited about a specific IP, even if that's what we end up arguing about. It's more about how it degrades the unique quality that the parks used to have, which was a sense of remove from the rat race (sorry, Mickey), a sense that you had entered a world of imagination and possibilities, and childlike wonder.

In my opinion, if Disney continued to create that feeling, they'd get plenty of people coming, with or without (outside generated) IP. But there's no room to experiment with this now, so we will presumably not ever know. All we will know for sure is that X number of people came to the parks and generated X amount of revenue.

Oh, trust me, I miss the pre-modern IP days.

I can understand WHY they've resorted to so much IP use though. Part of problem is that coming up with original not-obviously-IP-based ideas in and of itself is expensive. You have to pay the people who come up with ideas, choose from among those, pay to develop it further, pay to build it, then hope it's a success. On top of all that, you have stockholders to keep happy, and have to validate the financial risk to them...and if the idea ends up a flop, you lose your investors. It's a mess. When Walt was alive, they had the benefit of not having to answer to anyone but him, and one of his talents was knowing what would really wow people. When Epcot was built, they had the ability to draw on talent that knew Walt and what would make him happy.

 

[Jenny72]

Does IP have to degrade the experience of the parks? Probably not. Will it *likely* degrade it? Yes, because of the way rides are currently done. Often there's no effort to integrate it into a full experience. You feel like you're missing out on something if you're not familiar with the IP (and you are missing something). It's true that there are certain IPs that are so general, and where the material is so well done, it doesn't make any difference (Splash Mountain). But there's really no comparison between the use of IP in Splash Mountain and the way GotG was brought into the ToT. If you don't know the IP, Splash Mountain is about animals and water and frogs and music. If you don't know the IP, the GotG ride in the ToT is unfamiliar and a little weird, even if it's fun. It's true we haven't seen it yet, but does anyone really think that the new GotG ride is going to be on the level of Splash Mountain, IP-wise? It's much more likely that they'll just have the characters making snarky comments, etc.

Then there's the issue of the overall feel of the parks, which are losing any coherent theme. Instead of walking into a world of fantasy and childhood, or of future and possibilities, you're walking into a world of various movies. To me, it feels like a world of advertisements. That's how it degrades the park.

 

[Incomudro]

1000X YES. My sons are 11 and 6, and they're both being hooked by SW. (My 6-year-old hasn't even watched the movies...they've just been background noise to him, but he was flying around a star destroyer and making shooting noises last night.)

It's incredible how it catches kids.
I was about 13 when Star Wars hit the theatre, and I was a bit of an odd one - I preferred JAWS, and when it came to space films - I like Close Encounters of the Third Kind way more than Star Wars.
Fast forward to the birth of my twin sons in 2002, and by about the age of three they liked Star Wars at first sight.
This got me to revisit Star Wars, and through them I learned to appreciate it.
So, you've got two generations there.
My sons have been to Hollywood Studios several times, and Star Tours and Star Wars weekends have been a highlight for the family.
At the age of 11, one of my sons even got to be in the Star Wars parade! (The other guy declined.)
So, here we are now where my sons are age 15 and we are all awaiting the opening of Star Wars Land.
It's quite obvious that if my sons have children that they will take their kids to WDW and Star Wars Land.

 

[Incomudro]

I'm sure that's true, just as I'm sure there are GotG fans planning a trip to Epcot, and Avatar fans who have made or are making trips to AK, and (a small number of ) Ratatouille fans who will be making their plans.

I think though for at least many of the people who object to all of this stuff, the main issue is not whether there are X number of people who will be excited about a specific IP, even if that's what we end up arguing about. It's more about how it degrades the unique quality that the parks used to have, which was a sense of remove from the rat race (sorry, Mickey), a sense that you had entered a world of imagination and possibilities, and childlike wonder.

In my opinion, if Disney continued to create that feeling, they'd get plenty of people coming, with or without (outside generated) IP. But there's no room to experiment with this now, so we will presumably not ever know. All we will know for sure is that X number of people came to the parks and generated X amount of revenue.

They create a sense of wonder by not exactly replicating the IP, but allowing the IP to take you on a journey.
I don't see how any of this differs from the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea ride.

 

[Jenny72]

I think there's a lot of reasons that GotG in Epcot is different than 20000 leagues under the sea in MK. But to avoid repeating a lot of previous arguments, I'll give one: when I went on 20000 Leagues as a kid, I didn't feel like I was being sold on a franchise. I didn't feel like it was part of an effort to get me to buy more Jules Verne books. The IP stuff in the parks is part of an overall change in the feeling of the experience. It's not really the cause so much as a symptom. The overall problem is: it's not speaking to universal experiences and universal themes anymore. The "magic" is seeping out and being replaced with a very different kind of philosophy, and you can feel it in everything, including the omnipresence of IPs.

 

[Pixieish]

It's incredible how it catches kids.
I was about 13 when Star Wars hit the theatre, and I was a bit of an odd one - I preferred JAWS, and when it came to space films - I like Close Encounters of the Third Kind way more than Star Wars.
Fast forward to the birth of my twin sons in 2002, and by about the age of three they liked Star Wars at first sight.
This got me to revisit Star Wars, and through them I learned to appreciate it.
So, you've got two generations there.
My sons have been to Hollywood Studios several times, and Star Tours and Star Wars weekends have been a highlight for the family.
At the age of 11, one of my sons even got to be in the Star Wars parade! (The other guy declined.)
So, here we are now where my sons are age 15 and we are all awaiting the opening of Star Wars Land.
It's quite obvious that if my sons have children that they will take their kids to WDW and Star Wars Land.

I saw Return of the Jedi in theaters with my dad when I was 11, and when the original trilogy made it to cable and being broadcast on TV, they were a never-miss for us. My boyfriend when I was 19 (now hubby...26 years later, lol.) got me to really appreciate the SW universe. By the time the prequels were announced, I was pretty psyched, but ended up disappointed. I LOVE the new movies, love that my boys are getting into the SW Universe (thanks, in part to Lego and the Lego video games and movies!), and we're ALL excited for Galaxies Edge.

 

[Incomudro]

I think there's a lot of reasons that GotG in Epcot is different than 20000 leagues under the sea in MK. But to avoid repeating a lot of previous arguments, I'll give one: when I went on 20000 Leagues as a kid, I didn't feel like I was being sold on a franchise. I didn't feel like it was part of an effort to get me to buy more Jules Verne books. The IP stuff in the parks is part of an overall change in the feeling of the experience. It's not really the cause so much as a symptom. The overall problem is: it's not speaking to universal experiences and universal themes anymore. The "magic" is seeping out and being replaced with a very different kind of philosophy, and you can feel it in everything, including the omnipresence of IPs.

I understand, but don't you think that some of your change of view is due to the fact that you and I are not kids anymore?

 

[Pixieish]

I think there's a lot of reasons that GotG in Epcot is different than 20000 leagues under the sea in MK. But to avoid repeating a lot of previous arguments, I'll give one: when I went on 20000 Leagues as a kid, I didn't feel like I was being sold on a franchise. I didn't feel like it was part of an effort to get me to buy more Jules Verne books. The IP stuff in the parks is part of an overall change in the feeling of the experience. It's not really the cause so much as a symptom. The overall problem is: it's not speaking to universal experiences and universal themes anymore. The "magic" is seeping out and being replaced with a very different kind of philosophy, and you can feel it in everything, including the omnipresence of IPs.

A big part of the difference is that the IPs they use now are new (or have newer media releases) - the ones they used originally weren't. Also, the marketing campaigns and product-tie-ins/placement at the parks was WAY different. Back then it didn't feel like you saw it everywhere, and the merchandise from store-to-store in the parks was different as opposed to all having mainly the same stuff. Some of the marketing/product differences are just from the fact that advertising is such a huge part of everything we do now.

 

[Incomudro]

A big part of the difference is that the IPs they use now are new (or have newer media releases) - the ones they used originally weren't. Also, the marketing campaigns and product-tie-ins/placement at the parks was WAY different. Back then it didn't feel like you saw it everywhere, and the merchandise from store-to-store in the parks was different as opposed to all having mainly the same stuff. Some of the marketing/product differences are just from the fact that advertising is such a huge part of everything we do now.

Excellent points.
I can't help but to imagine what it would have been like for some of the criticism and scrutiny of today to have been applied to some of the IP's of yesteryear:
Dumbo represented by a carnival ride.
Alice in Wonderland represented by a teacup spinner.
Mr. Toad represented by a carnival ride with wooden cutouts.

 

[Jenny72]

Yes, I get that as an adult I'm not as starry-eyed about Disney (especially as I'm the one shelling out the coin for tickets, etc.), but that's not all of it. My kids don't seem to get the "magic" the way I did as a kid. They see Disney as a super fun experience, and they get excited about going, but they don't really understand what makes it different than other theme parks. That's just my kids, of course, but the sense of Disney being "magical" is kind of waning.

 

[Incomudro]

Yes, I get that as an adult I'm not as starry-eyed about Disney (especially as I'm the one shelling out the coin for tickets, etc.), but that's not all of it. My kids don't seem to get the "magic" the way I did as a kid. They see Disney as a super fun experience, and they get excited about going, but they don't really understand what makes it different than other theme parks. That's just my kids, of course, but the sense of Disney being "magical" is kind of waning.

I think the sense of everything being magical is waning.
There is far less of a sense of wonder in the world.
That's partially due to the fact that almost anything can be created or depicted, and any of those things can be viewed at almost any time.

 

[marni1971]

All of this IP talk reminded me of the Space Restaurant. I'm looking forward to it (maybe more than GOTG) just because it's space, nothing else..

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[trainplane3]

Maybe. Maybe not.

Oh.



Oh no.

 

[Jenny72]

Maybe the fundamental difference for some of us on here, then, is a bit of a philosophical one, in addition to a business one. Should Disney try to make a niche for itself (continue its niche, really) by creating a truly unique product, a place where you feel like you're transported to a different world from the moment you enter? A place where the experience is self-contained?

The other option is to accept how the world is in 2017 and make the parks part of that. Focus on synergy and acquiring profitable franchises, and keep up with the competition in scope and type of rides. Attract fans of various franchises and use the momentum to sell more, which in turn could generate interest in the park.

They're both viable ways to run the park. People will come to both. It just seems to me that the second option is what you find pretty much everywhere else (or its equivalent). I'd rather see Disney occupy a niche that only it can, rather than giving up that potential. I can't protest current trends by taking my kids to a great non-IP theme park because there isn't one.

I'm going to pretend I didn't see that space restaurant comment, because....sigh.

 

[Pixieish]

Maybe the fundamental difference for some of us on here, then, is a bit of a philosophical one, in addition to a business one. Should Disney try to make a niche for itself (continue its niche, really) by creating a truly unique product, a place where you feel like you're transported to a different world from the moment you enter? A place where the experience is self-contained?

The other option is to accept how the world is in 2017 and make the parks part of that. Focus on synergy and acquiring profitable franchises, and keep up with the competition in scope and type of rides. Attract fans of various franchises and use the momentum to sell more, which in turn could generate interest in the park.

They're both viable ways to run the park. People will come to both. It just seems to me that the second option is what you find pretty much everywhere else (or its equivalent). I'd rather see Disney occupy a niche that only it can, rather than giving up that potential. I can't protest current trends by taking my kids to a great non-IP theme park because there isn't one.

I'm going to pretend I didn't see that space restaurant comment, because....sigh.

I agree with you 100%. I'd rather see a generic space ride in Epcot than GotG...but that isn't what's happening.

 

[Skipper Dan]

The claim that the presence of IPs “degrade the parks” is one that I have a hard time taking seriously. For people who are attached to a certain IP, its presence can certainly add to the excitement of an attraction. But for those who don’t care for the IP or haven’t heard of it, there is no reason they cannot enjoy the ride for what it is.

People are complaining about the quality of this GOTG ride 4 years before it even opens! I, for one, have never seen either GOTG movie and don’t have any immediate plans to, but that doesn’t mean I won’t enjoy the attraction. In fact, we have seen attractions’ popularities far outlive those of the movies they’re based on (e.g. Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride, Splash Mountain, Flight of Passage, etc). There’s no reason this GOTG ride can’t be viewed as outstanding for years after the franchise is dead.

Some other examples: POTC has been a popular attraction both with and without the presence of Jack Sparrow and ToT has been popular with and without the Twilight Zone tie-in. Setting aside the debate about its location, FEA is still a solid dark ride even if you’ve never heard of Frozen (i.e. you’re from Mars) due to its great animatronics, cool sets, and catchy music. If you have grown up admiring Anna, Elsa, and Olaf, that only makes the experience better. People complain that we’ll never see another BTMRR, but 7DMT is an extremely similar concept. You may find it to be too short or not thrilling enough, but it’s shortcomings have nothing to do with the presence of the seven dwarfs. A large percentage of the people who ride JII probably assume Figment is a character from some lesser-known Disney film, while a large percentage of the people who ride Splash probably assume Breer Rabbit was created specifically for the attraction.

The bottom line is people need to stop judging the quality of a ride by whether it contains an IP and instead by how good it actually is.

Wait... is that... a voice of reason? On... on the internet? Wait, what? Ooooh, I see. I must be dead. This is in no way possible, lol.

Seriously though, bravo good sir!

 

[Clamman73]