Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Energy Pavilion at Epcot

Status
Not open for further replies.

JDL30

Well-Known Member
I'm not anti IP's in Epcot (I realise that makes me unpopular amongst some Disney fans), the theme park industry is heading towards IP only attractions and I'm not sure it's a tide that will be turned easily.

I still think there can be a happy medium where a good IP can entertain and educate - and if done well I'm sure there's a great ride on the future/energy based on the Guardians. What worries me is that Disney so far hasn't ever achieved such a thing - Nemo (the ride part at least) doesn't integrate the film with any learning about marine life, and Frozen Ever After certainly tells me nothing about Norway (apart from some small design details). Surely it can't be that difficult to achieve a balance? Perhaps with the hinted overhaul of Epcot we'll get it - but I can understand why so many people are so worried.
 

IowaHawks7

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Alright I haven't been on the boards here for a while, since I just started my new job. However, as a millennial, most of my generation does not have a connection to the original EPCOT Center. However, we have grown accustomed to shoe horned IPs into original ride concepts and for most of the last decade and a half- a pretty empty EPCOT in terms of rides. Now dont get me wrong, EPCOT is my second favorite park (behind DAK), but any new development for EPCOT is great imo. We were all bashing Frozen for going into Norway, and that seems to have turned out pretty great. If GotG is truly coming to UoE, then I welcome it. Epcot does not have the same vision as it did when it opened. But this is better than having a rotting UoE ride that barely anyone goes to. This could even begin a new age for Epcot, one that uses Disney IPs to promote Discovery, Innovation, and Exploration. At least Disney is doing something with Epcot instead of letting it rot away.
 

Lee

Adventurer
We were all bashing Frozen for going into Norway, and that seems to have turned out pretty great.
I don't think it did. I think that, like Nemo at the Seas, it has done great harm to its pavilion.
At least Disney is doing something with Epcot instead of letting it rot away.
But, here's the thing...it shouldn't be an either/or. IPs or left to rot.

It is completely possible to create great, compelling, original attractions, ones that fit both the theme of Epcot and the individual pavilions, without shoehorning in IPs just to interest the kids. That's playing to the lowest common denominator.
 

asianway

Well-Known Member
I don't think it did. I think that, like Nemo at the Seas, it has done great harm to its pavilion.

But, here's the thing...it shouldn't be an either/or. IPs or left to rot.

It is completely possible to create great, compelling, original attractions, ones that fit both the theme of Epcot and the individual pavilions, without shoehorning in IPs just to interest the kids. That's playing to the lowest common denominator.
New marketing campaign: Epcot: Millennials love it
 

Diznyfan

Member
It's nice to see that they are looking at Epcot for updates and I agree that Universe of Energy and future world could use some upgrading. I hope that Guardians of the Galaxy will be well done instead of just gutting the ride an putting something in there for the sake of a new attraction.

I do miss the originality when rides used to be designed (Horizons, World of Motion) and I hope they do the same with Guardians. I guess time will tell...
 

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
I don't think it did. I think that, like Nemo at the Seas, it has done great harm to its pavilion.

But, here's the thing...it shouldn't be an either/or. IPs or left to rot.

It is completely possible to create great, compelling, original attractions, ones that fit both the theme of Epcot and the individual pavilions, without shoehorning in IPs just to interest the kids. That's playing to the lowest common denominator.
"Adults are interested if you don't play down to the little 2 or 3 year olds or talk down. I don't believe in talking down to children. I don't believe in talking down to any certain segment. I like to kind of just talk in a general way to the audience. Children are always reaching."
-Walt Disney
 

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
If WDW were to update energy correctly it couldn't be politically correct. In the current version it's impossible for the US to become enery independent. We are running out of oil and there is no solution using natural gas. Now in 2016 we have cut out polution because of fracking natural gas causing the use of coal to plummet and the reduction of polution and carbon footprint. This is not what the politically correct green movement want. Fracking is bad. Natural gas and oil are bad. Exxon, Mobile, Chevron and other energy companies are bad. Being polilically correct means the Energy Pavilion can no longer exist because the truth is fracking natural gas is what is saving the country prividing the ability to bring back manufacturing and other industries to the USA.

Disney should update the Energy Pavilion and give the real energy story just like Walt would have wanted and would have done.

I'm waiting for the 'Climate Change Warriors' to declare solar panels contribute to global warming because they decrease the albedo of areas where they are installed because they absorb energy from the sun instead of reflect it...
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
I don't think it did. I think that, like Nemo at the Seas, it has done great harm to its pavilion.

But, here's the thing...it shouldn't be an either/or. IPs or left to rot.

It is completely possible to create great, compelling, original attractions, ones that fit both the theme of Epcot and the individual pavilions, without shoehorning in IPs just to interest the kids. That's playing to the lowest common denominator.
I think you're conflating two different ideas that don't really have anything to do with one another. "Shoehorning IPs" and doing things "just to interest the kids" aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Star Wars, for example, will be the most concentrated and pronounced solo-IP land since WWoHP, and wouldn't call the target audience "the kids." Likewise, Guardians of the Galaxy is IP where it probably doesn't belong, but I don't think the target audience is "the kids."

The problem with Nemo in The Living Seas isn't that it's IP. On the contrary, using Nemo IP to "lure" kids into an educational pavilion where they learn about different kinds of sea life should be a slam dunk. The problem with Nemo is that the ride sucks.

All that to say, Nemo is poorly executed IP, but not shoehorned. It should work where it is. Guardians will likely be the opposite. It doesn't really make sense where they're putting it, but I'm optimistic that they'll do a good job.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I'd argue that the only reason they love it is because its becoming MK 2.0.
It's not even becoming that. Magic Kingdom still has some sense of coherence and also was not intended as a synergy franchise park. When there is no larger connective experience and just a collection of isolated attractions then all you really have is an expensive, more ornate amusement park.
 

montyz81

Well-Known Member
If you think Epcot is a half a day park then clearly you haven't even begun to explore Epcot.

Everyone agrees that Epcot needs to be refreshed, but there's a difference between throwing random **** together and making a nice, cohesive THEME park THEME. :facepalm:
Could easily take a day just to walk around World Showcase (now two days because you got to weave your way through the crowds in Norway)
 

Lee

Adventurer
I think you're conflating two different ideas that don't really have anything to do with one another. "Shoehorning IPs" and doing things "just to interest the kids" aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Star Wars, for example, will be the most concentrated and pronounced solo-IP land since WWoHP, and wouldn't call the target audience "the kids." Likewise, Guardians of the Galaxy is IP where it probably doesn't belong, but I don't think the target audience is "the kids."

The problem with Nemo in The Living Seas isn't that it's IP. On the contrary, using Nemo IP to "lure" kids into an educational pavilion where they learn about different kinds of sea life should be a slam dunk. The problem with Nemo is that the ride sucks.

All that to say, Nemo is poorly executed IP, but not shoehorned. It should work where it is. Guardians will likely be the opposite. It doesn't really make sense where they're putting it, but I'm optimistic that they'll do a good job.
Granted, the strict definition of "shoehorn" doesn't apply to each situation.

IP is fine when it is properly placed, like Star Wars.
It's even ok at Epcot if it can be done properly. Nemo, in theory, fits the Seas, but the execution resulted in a pavilion I have no interest in going into. It was clearly aimed at a "kids" demographic.

GotG into Energy? Doesn't fit. Unnecessary. Further...dilutes Epcot.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
IP is fine when it is properly placed, like Star Wars.
Agreed.

It's even ok at Epcot if it can be done properly. Nemo, in theory, fits the Seas, but the execution resulted in a pavilion I have no interest in going into. It was clearly aimed at a "kids" demographic.
I think you're selling The Seas pavilion short. On my last trip, we watched trainers use a series of projections and audio cues to train dolphins to identify various objects submerged in their environment. Who cares if the kiddies are occupied by Turtle Talk downstairs in the meantime?

GotG into Energy? Doesn't fit. Unnecessary. Further...dilutes Epcot.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it won't be Energy anymore, correct? I agree that GotG doesn't fit in Epcot, but it's not like it will be "Star Lord's Energy Adventure," which would be far worse.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
Too many people cant see past their own desire for instant gratification that they continue to miss the point that more intelligent people make in regards to not having 2 Magic Kingdoms and that some people dont settle for, "its fun and its Disney"...unless your a 6 year old. Probly time to change your diaper.

I'd argue that the only reason they love it is because its becoming MK 2.0.

I'll say this again: decisions like this are not making Epcot more similar to the Magic Kingdom. In fact, they are making it less like the MK -- and that's the problem.

MK by and large does a great job of having well executed themed lands. Yes, there is the occasional attraction or design that is not ideal, but even the outliers have some tenuous relationship to where they are located. In fact, the most recent change at MK (the Fantasyland expansion) actually helped to strengthen the theming at that area of the park.

We all (I think) want the theme parks to have, well, solid theming. That's kinda the point. The problem with Epcot is not "they are using IP" -- though I know some folks don't like they using established IP at all -- but really that the said IP doesn't fit the established themes. Ramming in an IP that doesn't make sense to the environment creates the discontinuity that is in issue.

It's okay for the parks to have a similar setup in concept as long as the theming is distinct between parks to given them each their own character. In a bit of irony, perhaps, the resort which has a second park most like a MK-style castle park is highly praised Tokyo -- Tokyo DisneySea is has a layout and structure very similar to a castle park just with (1) an overall tie to "bodies of water" and (2) different land concepts than that used in its neighbor park. As a result, TDS compliments TDL despite the similarities. Nonetheless, TDS is full of IP and that doesn't cause folks to dismiss it as "TDL 2.0". The issue is in execution, not the basic level of content.

What does that mean for Epcot? While there are those who are hardcore against any pre-established "toons" marring the park, I suspect the vast majority of fans would be okay with established IPs being used when they fit the theming. If there was a robotics exhibit that featured Baymax but actually educated the guests about robotics, perhaps in their use with medicine, then that would make sense for Epcot. But how in the world does GotG fit the "mission statement" for Epcot? They don't in any way.

The thing is that what really makes Epcot distinct from MK is not the lack of characters but the premise of the park -- it being an examination of the real world (perhaps an idealized version, but real nonetheless) and being an inspiration for the future. Whereas MK is more based on fantasy. You can use IPs and still have a grounded, real, inspirational and educational Epcot. My point is that you can still have an Epcot that is distinct in character to MK even if more IPs are added. It's not the use of IPs that is the issue so much as how they are used -- using the proper IPs in the proper way could work. But you can't just force something into place because you want them to have a park presence.

As an aside, wouldn't it be interesting if Royal Sommerhus was set up as a home belonging to Queen Sonja or Princess Märtha Louise (y'know, the actual royalty of Norway) which is being used by Princesses Anna and Elsa as their guests? That would IMHO be a cool way to properly integrate the M&G into the pavilion.
 

Mat Cauthon

Well-Known Member
I'm waiting for the 'Climate Change Warriors' to declare solar panels contribute to global warming because they decrease the albedo of areas where they are installed because they absorb energy from the sun instead of reflect it...
I read this as libido at first and thought how the heck could that contribute to global warming?! Everyone needs to do their part and increase their libido to save the planet!!
 

JDL30

Well-Known Member
I think you're conflating two different ideas that don't really have anything to do with one another. "Shoehorning IPs" and doing things "just to interest the kids" aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Star Wars, for example, will be the most concentrated and pronounced solo-IP land since WWoHP, and wouldn't call the target audience "the kids." Likewise, Guardians of the Galaxy is IP where it probably doesn't belong, but I don't think the target audience is "the kids."

The problem with Nemo in The Living Seas isn't that it's IP. On the contrary, using Nemo IP to "lure" kids into an educational pavilion where they learn about different kinds of sea life should be a slam dunk. The problem with Nemo is that the ride sucks.

All that to say, Nemo is poorly executed IP, but not shoehorned. It should work where it is. Guardians will likely be the opposite. It doesn't really make sense where they're putting it, but I'm optimistic that they'll do a good job.

Couldn't agree more with this. Also it sounds like a refresh of The Seas is on the cards as part of the overall update of EPCOT - hopefully they'll right a few wrongs and make the whole experience more education/IP balanced.
 

Donaldfan1934

Well-Known Member
but but but the original Alien Encounter ride was sooo much better. The Stitch overlay is so meh. :cry:
I don't see how people continue to forcefully defend Alien Encounter. Sure, it may have been entertaining in a vacuum, but it was crertainly a terrible tonal fit for the Magic Kingdom. It was easily one of the worst decisions in MK history. Say what you will about SGE, you have to give the Imagineers credit for making the best of a bad situation. The result may not have been successful, but a band aid fix is still better than nothing.
 

wdisney9000

Well-Known Member
Is it just me, or is there an overwhelming amount of, "lets hope they do it right", "lets wait and see", "if done well", "hope for the best", "if they dont cheap out", "hopefully they use the IP to tell a story", "it doesnt make sense, but..", "better than nothing", etc, etc, type of comments in every thread dealing with new attractions and shows?

A WDW fan needs many grains of salt in this day and age.
 

seascape

Well-Known Member
I'm waiting for the 'Climate Change Warriors' to declare solar panels contribute to global warming because they decrease the albedo of areas where they are installed because they absorb energy from the sun instead of reflect it...
You don't have to wait any longer. They did in New Jersey. The Six Flags Solar project has been protested because of the trees Six Flags is removing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom