Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Energy Pavilion at Epcot

[Cesar R M]

Sorry but Guardians don't belong in epcot.

do you think Chapek cares?
Pretty sure he's only counting on ways to get money for his bonus.

 

[RoysCabin]

Even beyond the fall of "edutainment", I think a huge problem is the potential for sheer loss of consistency in the park, itself.

What's still the centerpiece of EPCOT, the attraction more people ride and go through than any other? Obviously, Spaceship Earth. Even today, with the slightly dumbed down script, SSE is a corporately sponsored ride that seeks to act as a thesis statement for the entire park, looking back to the communication of the past in order to project forward to a positive future. You can argue that Cinderella Castle is the "thesis statement" of MK, the fairy tale castle that sits at the end of an idealized real world early 1900s Main Street, the thesis being "welcome to a world of nostalgia and fantasy"; Great Movie Ride kind of served a similar role at Studios, the whole "taking you inside the movies" angle.

Ok, cool, you've got your thesis statement right there...yet recent additions to EPCOT do nothing to further said thesis. I could live without as much "edutainment" if we were at least getting more inspiration, but sadly things like just re-telling Finding Nemo in at the Seas pavilion doesn't accomplish that, nor does adding a random GotG ride, and frankly neither does Frozen. Each contribute nothing (or will contribute nothing, in GotG's case) to the overall thesis of EPCOT as stated by SSE, making the whole experience more muddled and less cohesive. People have said it before, but if they had used Nemo to highlight what's so inspirational and fascinating about the oceans, that'd be one thing, but instead they decided to subject parents whose kids watch the blu ray on repeat to sit through yet another retelling of the plot (I'm not innocent on that front: I nearly wore out my VHS of Sword in the Stone back in the late 80s). At least it still has the aquarium, but the point stands.

EPCOT must have cohesion in order to work as a park; it's built in full on modernist style, going full postmodern with it while still using the modernist skeleton won't lead to anything positive (and hell, I think there's a place for postmodern, but it just doesn't fit there). You have your thesis attraction, why aren't you building off of it?

 

[dgp602]

so.. RIP Epcot? I mean, its getting more and more things that are not related to the original function of EPCOT itself.
Or are the guardians going to teach you about space and other things?

Change the words EPCOT and replace with DHS and this statement pretty much holds true. Complete transformation to both parks with regards to what their original intent was and to the direction both are heading....

 

[RoysCabin]

Change the words EPCOT and replace with DHS and this statement pretty much holds true. Complete transformation to both parks with regards to what their original intent was and to the direction both are heading....

In fairness, I think the Disney-MGM concept was kind of doomed from the get-go. The guys at the Retro Disney World podcast (where I got this username from) have an episode on the opening day of MGM, and it's pretty clear that Disney realized pretty early on that the "fully functional studio" aspect of the park was never going to take off the way they had originally hoped it would, back in the late 80s when tons of people were convinced that Florida was about to become "Hollywood East" in terms of film and TV production. There were art students in Florida back then being told to prepare for animation jobs that would undoubtedly open up down there circa 1990, only to find out things weren't exactly going to go that way.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy the park (it opened when I was 4, so you'd best believe I developed some strong nostalgic ties there), but I do think that of the four FL parks it's the one most open to change, when you consider how much of its original purpose was quickly rendered obsolete.

That doesn't mean all the changes will be done well, mind you, as we've seen over the years at EPCOT...

 

[Princess Leia]

Change the words EPCOT and replace with DHS and this statement pretty much holds true. Complete transformation to both parks with regards to what their original intent was and to the direction both are heading....

Or... permanently connect Epcot and DHS to create 'Worlds of Adventure', an incredibly large park with IPs and original ideas galore.

 

[Ralphlaw]

I think the downfall started when 3 birds took over Mexico. I have no problem with character meet & greets with appropriate clothing all over Epcot. You get the feeling that the characters are there to enjoy the themed attractions just like the rest of us. But transforming an enlightening and immersive cultural or scientific experience into another movie or character themed ad just wears you out. If I wanted Donald and friends playing guitars, put them in Magic Kingdom where they belong. Or let them stand outside for photos. Just don't ruin a mysterious and unique boat ride of time through Mexico with inane avian ramblings.

And why can't Nemo and friends instead host something other than a rehash of the movie? Why is the new Arial ride an amazing bunch of effects with a "Been there, seen that" story line? Because that's oh so "safe". Instead, ask: Why can't Guardians truly immerse us in science and technology?

It comes down to a simple choice: Uplift or Rehash?

Too often lately it has been Rehash. With the sound and fury of these boards, perhaps the days of simple rehash will become obsolete. Maybe a little more time in Imagineering will bring us a Guardian themed attraction that fulfills the true goal of Epcot to be an uplifting experience. I won't mind Peter Quill and Groot being around if they help inspire and teach us. I do mind Peter Quill and Groot simply standing around like glorified Elephants on the Dumbo attraction.

Indeed, Donald Duck in MatheMagic Land was an inspired bit of edutainment that showed Disney at its best. It's dated a bit now, but that notion of entertainment and uplift was pushed by Walt himself. He also brought orchestral animations and settings from around the world. The outer space animations are considered classics, and they helped inspire success in the Space Race. Epcot should aspire to that high plateau, not bow to the simple and easy retelling of movies that we all saw or could see many times over already. Face it, it doesn't take much to look through the comic book archives to come up with weird artifacts for a collector, new villains for every super hero, and (especially) a slightly new way to tell the same story that hit the theaters years ago. But that's lazy lazy lazy. Given the brains and salaries at Imagineering, they should do better. Bring in the IP if you want, but have those IPs do something meaty that you can take with you and think about when you're drifting off to sleep.

In short: Plus it with uplift. Don't dumb it with rehash.

 

[RobbinsDad]

Even beyond the fall of "edutainment", I think a huge problem is the potential for sheer loss of consistency in the park, itself.

What's still the centerpiece of EPCOT, the attraction more people ride and go through than any other? Obviously, Spaceship Earth. Even today, with the slightly dumbed down script, SSE is a corporately sponsored ride that seeks to act as a thesis statement for the entire park, looking back to the communication of the past in order to project forward to a positive future. You can argue that Cinderella Castle is the "thesis statement" of MK, the fairy tale castle that sits at the end of an idealized real world early 1900s Main Street, the thesis being "welcome to a world of nostalgia and fantasy"; Great Movie Ride kind of served a similar role at Studios, the whole "taking you inside the movies" angle.

Ok, cool, you've got your thesis statement right there...yet recent additions to EPCOT do nothing to further said thesis. I could live without as much "edutainment" if we were at least getting more inspiration, but sadly things like just re-telling Finding Nemo in at the Seas pavilion doesn't accomplish that, nor does adding a random GotG ride, and frankly neither does Frozen. Each contribute nothing (or will contribute nothing, in GotG's case) to the overall thesis of EPCOT as stated by SSE, making the whole experience more muddled and less cohesive. People have said it before, but if they had used Nemo to highlight what's so inspirational and fascinating about the oceans, that'd be one thing, but instead they decided to subject parents whose kids watch the blu ray on repeat to sit through yet another retelling of the plot (I'm not innocent on that front: I nearly wore out my VHS of Sword in the Stone back in the late 80s). At least it still has the aquarium, but the point stands.

EPCOT must have cohesion in order to work as a park; it's built in full on modernist style, going full postmodern with it while still using the modernist skeleton won't lead to anything positive (and hell, I think there's a place for postmodern, but it just doesn't fit there). You have your thesis attraction, why aren't you building off of it?

Because the truth is TWDC wants to build 4 Magic Kingdoms at WDW where the "thesis" is fantasy, and each theme park is slowly evolving into one.

 

[RoysCabin]

Because the truth is TWDC wants to build 4 Magic Kingdoms at WDW where the "thesis" is fantasy, and each theme park is slowly evolving into one.

It does feel that way, doesn't it?

Question is, why are they pursuing this course? Anyone who's even taken a cursory glance at basic investment strategies would tell you that diversification is good, so why are all the eggs being put into the "girls like princesses, boys like sci fi" baskets? It's amazing to look back at original advertisements and promotions of the "Vacation Kingdom of the World" era and see how much of it was aimed at young adults, and how they seem to be resigning themselves nowadays to a "kids or bust" concept...this is not to say in the least that kids shouldn't be considered, since we're talking family entertainment here, but it's kind of remarkable.

I worry that this is going to have a long term negative effect on the resort; people will bring their kids to meet Mickey, sure, but if you insist on no longer offering anything to your visitors who are above the age of 15 (outside of some restaurants and bars in the resort areas and what have you), you're going to have a hard time hooking the kids when they're young, then having them come back as guests any time before they have kids of their own. Basically, the concept of "lifelong fans" may wind up getting severely curtailed if the current strategies go to their logical ends.

 

[wdwfan4ver]

Change the words EPCOT and replace with DHS and this statement pretty much holds true. Complete transformation to both parks with regards to what their original intent was and to the direction both are heading....

I have to disagree with you here about DHS. The reason is Eisner miscalculated with the park from the beginning besides filming stuff in Florida. Yes, Disney did use the park in the 1990's and early 2000's for filming and for animated movies

Disney didn't expect Disney MGM studios to be such a success as a theme park that they needed to take parts the filming area for attractions based on what I read online. That shows right there that there was poor planning for the theme park besides expecting the filming element to be more popular in Florida than it actually was.

The real problem with DHS besides the poor planning is Disney did a poor job of gradually taking the working studios elements of the park from an attraction standpoint after they scrapped the working studio production of the park from an Animated and live filming standpoint.

 

[Ralphlaw]

Perhaps the problem is that the Simba movie in The Land Pavilion is exactly what we're kind of asking for: An edutaining experience with an IP in tow. The problem of course is that very few people actually care to see it.

Meanwhile, the new Frozen attraction, 3 Cabelleros in Mexico, and Nemo are very popular. Yeah, annoying for many of us, but far more popular than Simba's little movie about conservation, and far more popular than Maestrom, El rio De tiempo, and whatever used to be in The Living Seas. Dumbing down works, butts-in-the-seatwise, and thus more dumbing down makes it past the drawing boards.

 

[Matt_Black]

It does feel that way, doesn't it?

Question is, why are they pursuing this course? Anyone who's even taken a cursory glance at basic investment strategies would tell you that diversification is good, so why are all the eggs being put into the "girls like princesses, boys like sci fi" baskets?

That's only if you believe either of those statements. Boys like girly things, judging by the success of Frozen and My Little Pony, and girls like sci-fi- the Marvel films have done very well with female audiences, as did Big Hero 6.

 

[RoysCabin]

Perhaps the problem is that the Simba movie in The Land Pavilion is exactly what we're kind of asking for: An edutaining experience with an IP in tow. The problem of course is that very few people actually care to see it.

Meanwhile, the new Frozen attraction, 3 Cabelleros in Mexico, and Nemo are very popular. Yeah, annoying for many of us, but far more popular than Simba's little movie about conservation, and far more popular than Maestrom, El rio De tiempo, and whatever used to be in The Living Seas. Dumbing down works, butts-in-the-seatwise, and thus more dumbing down makes it past the drawing boards.

Eh, I wouldn't say Three Caballeros and Nemo are particularly popular, although perhaps that's a product of me visiting my last couple of trips during August. The line at Caballeros is rarely more than a couple of minutes that I've seen, and I'm not lying when I say that we got on Nemo with literally nobody in front of us the one time we went on in the middle of the day. Maybe I'm misremembering and there was one family on line when we got to the ride vehicles, but the queue was flat-out empty.

That's what got me thinking a lot harder about the overuse of IPs, and why it's likely not the panacea Disney seems to think it'll be. People will line up for a new ride (largely aided by advertising blitzes by Disney), but the allure wears off quickly, especially when these rides stick out like sore thumbs in a park that's clearly not built for them. Were I a parent of young children, why would I bring them to EPCOT for an entire day to see Nemo, Donald, and Frozen (though Frozen being the popular commodity it is right now will have some legs for a little while, to be sure) when we could just spend most of the day over in Fantasyland in MK? Or what if GotG goes in there...if I had a couple of kids closer to 10-12 years old, why wouldn't I, upon its completion, just take them to the Studios for Star Wars Land? EPCOT cannot survive with half-measures, it's simply not built for it, and diminishing lines at attractions like Caballeros and Nemo show it. Meanwhile, go figure, the most popular attractions in Future World are Test Track and Soarin', neither of which are based on preexisting properties.

Beyond that, I do think we should also be aware that, in their own times, Maelstrom, El Rio del Tiempo, and other rides at EPCOT Center were very popular for awhile. Problem was, they were left to sit there and age, rather than receiving some TLC from time to time. Of course new rides are going to look a bunch more popular in comparison, especially after some of these rides spent a decade or more getting mothballed.

 

[RoysCabin]

That's only if you believe either of those statements. Boys like girly things, judging by the success of Frozen and My Little Pony, and girls like sci-fi- the Marvel films have done very well with female audiences, as did Big Hero 6.

I fully agree with you.

I'm saying it more with regards to how Disney seems to be angling its marketing.

 

[RobidaFlats]

Disney didn't expect Disney MGM studios to be such a success as a theme park that they needed to take parts the filming area for attractions based on what I read online. That shows right there that there was poor planning for the theme park besides expecting the filming element to be more popular in Florida than it actually was.

I'm not sure of your source, but I don't buy this at all. Most of the "backstage" stuff like the sound studios sat empty for long periods of time. They were not reclaimed because they needed the space for other things, that is just an attempt at spin. They found other things to put in those spaces because the production stopped happening.

 

[Speedy71]

Watch the whole video.

 

[marni1971]

Rightly so there is a thought that this IP is wrong for Epcot. However, if it did go elsewhere that leaves the problem that UoE needs major help. Yes, it should stay true to the original intent. Yes, it could be as dramatic and awe inspiring as it was in 1982 using the pavilion to its full potential again, but with a script for today's audience.

But GotG would solve all these problems in one go. For better or for worse.

 

[Next Big Thing]

Rightly so there is a thought that this IP is wrong for Epcot. However, if it did go elsewhere that leaves the problem that UoE needs major help. Yes, it should stay true to the original intent. Yes, it could be as dramatic and awe inspiring as it was in 1982 using the pavilion to its full potential again, but with a script for today's audience.

But GotG would solve all these problems in one go. For better or for worse.

So the GotG to Epcot plan is now looking a little more bleak is what your getting at?

 

[RoysCabin]

Sounds like some internal debate over it, particularly with ToT still being considered an alternative landing spot for GotG (meanwhile, RnRC waves pleadingly and says "hey, I'm right here, use me!"). They've painted themselves into a nice little corner, here, by neglecting attractions for so long, so while UoE needs the update badly, they're also stuck with the reality that Studios is going to need more attractions and advertising headlines, so I'm guessing it's hard to figure where it'll all wind up.

Like I said, if they said tomorrow "we're keeping Energy, but we're tearing out the theaters and making it an Omnimover", I'd consider it a huge win. I'd also love a six figure check in my mailbox from a billionaire trying to give all their money away, but I guess some things just aren't in the cards.

 

[Bocabear]

Perhaps the problem is that the Simba movie in The Land Pavilion is exactly what we're kind of asking for: An edutaining experience with an IP in tow. The problem of course is that very few people actually care to see it.

Meanwhile, the new Frozen attraction, 3 Cabelleros in Mexico, and Nemo are very popular. Yeah, annoying for many of us, but far more popular than Simba's little movie about conservation, and far more popular than Maestrom, El rio De tiempo, and whatever used to be in The Living Seas. Dumbing down works, butts-in-the-seatwise, and thus more dumbing down makes it past the drawing boards.

That is not really a fair comparison...now if Simba had an actual ride that taught you about conservation with beautiful sets and animatronics, i think it WOULD be as popular as Frozenstrum... but to just put together a film with characters and say , see Edutainment doesn't work, is not really accurate...

 

[Lee]

Rightly so there is a thought that this IP is wrong for Epcot. However, if it did go elsewhere that leaves the problem that UoE needs major help. Yes, it should stay true to the original intent. Yes, it could be as dramatic and awe inspiring as it was in 1982 using the pavilion to its full potential again, but with a script for today's audience.

But GotG would solve all these problems in one go. For better or for worse.

Mostly worse...