• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Energy Pavilion at Epcot

Status
Not open for further replies.

HMF

Well-Known Member
i take test track over wom but I would also take horizons over mission space.
WoM vs. Test Track is complicated for me. I never rode WoM but from what I have seen, It looks great and was probably pretty cool in person. Test Track was less than a year old when I first visited. At the time I liked it and it didn't really feel out of place to me. but by the time of my fourth trip in 2008. It started to reek of the 1990s. TT 2.0 is without a doubt an improvement over the original. but if there was a way to keep WoM AND have Test Track that would have been great. Same with Space and Horizons.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
I could not disagree more. Quality has significantly declined in replacements. There is no argument there.

There is no argument that the replacements are much more popular. Perhaps you didn't experience the last year's of them but they were quickly losing their popularity and were seen as "boring" to increasing numbers. Eisner made one of his better decisions to go with revolutionary ride tech instead.
 

atighe42

Well-Known Member
There is no argument that the replacements are much more popular. Perhaps you didn't experience the last year's of them but they were quickly losing their popularity and were seen as "boring" to increasing numbers. Eisner made one of his better decisions to go with revolutionary ride tech instead.

I did experience them in their last years. And it seems to be wrongly theorized that because of their high capacity they were "unpopular". Yes, the park didn't pull huge numbers in the 90's, but the reasons behind removing them were almost entirely corporate, not a "this was unpopular". Off topic, but that's the gist.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Sometimes these things are actually set in motion and it takes a while for the information to shake out. @marni1971 isnt on the Chapek email chain... well maybe he is.

Star Wars is a good recent example. It managed to move plots and hugely shift timeframes (which certainly didn't happen overnight). It took insiders a good 3-6 months after the decision occurred for the information to start leaking its way down to their sources. But we can retrospectively see clues were there that the decision occurred well before they heard otherwise.

Hundreds of people know before they will and thousands of people know before they feel comfortable telling us.
I think people are getting way too worked up over this one permit. Even if the project to replace Ellen's Energy Adventure were completely dead, it does not make sense to halt this specific work. This permit does not need to be tied to something else, it can exist on its own just to increase buildable area. The engineering has been done, so why wait when you could just lose out on the engineering work you have already paid to have completed?
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
Looks like we might have the first permit for this project. A permit was filed with the South Florida Water Management District today to re-route the canal behind Energy and create two new retention ponds (POND-20 and POND-21). The permit provides the reason for this work as:

"The applicant wishes to reconfigure the existing canal to provide a more-contiguous area for possible future changes to parking capacity and back of house areas. A spur of the existing canal is proposed to be filled so that a more developable area is provided."

It also says:


"The possible future impervious areas were estimated based on manual take-offs of the input received by the applicant. The area where the construction laydown is to be located is assumed to have paved roadways into the area, a number of construction trailers as impervious, and the remainder of area to be gravel."



View attachment 205123
I can only assume that danlb_2000 is Tom Corless because this gets posted to WDWMagic on Monday and then BAM, 5 days later, Corless has a Breaking story on his site.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
I did experience them in their last years. And it seems to be wrongly theorized that because of their high capacity they were "unpopular". Yes, the park didn't pull huge numbers in the 90's, but the reasons behind removing them were almost entirely corporate, not a "this was unpopular". Off topic, but that's the gist.

Blaming "corporate" is all the rage these days it seems. How exactly was replacing two functional attractions with extremely expensive cutting edge attractions considered to be "corporate"?

Unless you acknowledge it was based on customer demand for a better product. Then it makes perfect sense.
 

danlb_2000

Well-Known Member
I can only assume that danlb_2000 is Tom Corless because this gets posted to WDWMagic on Monday and then BAM, 5 days later, Corless has a Breaking story on his site.

I had to correct one assumption he made in the article. The pavilion is not actually in the work are for this project, it was included because the water from that area currently drains into the area where the cannel is going to be modified. From the permit:

"“The “offsite” areas are simply areas beyond the proposed area of construction and whose treatment volumes are provided for in Pond-20.”
 

HauntedMansionFLA

Well-Known Member
I think people are getting way too worked up over this one permit. Even if the project to replace Ellen's Energy Adventure were completely dead, it does not make sense to halt this specific work. This permit does not need to be tied to something else, it can exist on its own just to increase buildable area. The engineering has been done, so why wait when you could just lose out on the engineering work you have already paid to have completed?
I think everyone got carried away with this permit after people figured out Disney was building a gondola transportation system. News on this project went quiet and then this permit comes out. It's natural for people to get excited, overanalyze it and then start asking questions. Thanks for bringing some level headed thinking :)
 

HMF

Well-Known Member
Ummm because two corporations paid for them? It's not rocket science.

One ended up being Eisners folly and was a corporate disappointment. The other was a PR disaster and cost Disneyland a sponsorship agreement.
I am assuming Test Track was the disappointment and Space was the PR disaster.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom