Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Energy Pavilion at Epcot

[flynnibus]

You mean like Club 33? Oh

That requires even more appreciation for the touch and setting than the vast majority of customers today can comprehend. Can you please try something easier... Like adding limbo games to a water park and spending the multimedia advertising budget to promote them?

 

[marni1971]

The point you made about SGE not having a proper height requirement for its audience speaks volumes.

I think you misunderstood. The height requirement partly - and rightly - eliminated younger guests experiencing AE. Conversely, it also meant children - Stitch fans - were excluded from seeing an attraction that was designed for them. Even when the rule was slightly relaxed.

Magic Kingdom is meant to cater for all ages. And have attractions for all ages. You wouldn't take a kid on Space Mountain who's scared of the dark. AE had enough written warnings and CM sweeps. You can't cater for stupid guests who insist little Timmy will love it. No matter what.

 

[Brian Swan]

Thank you. But the new one will be far far better in both quality and content

SERIOUSLY looking forward to it! Would love to see a multi-camera full ride-through of the ORIGINAL version with enhanced video and source audio. I know, not asking for much...

 

[wdwfan22]

Let's just all agree that an experience like AE would be much more at home at a resort that celebrates Halloween Horror Nights rather than Mickey's Not So Scary Halloween Party.

Sorry I disagree with that statement. Alien Encounter was a perfect fit for Tomorrowland. It however wasn't an attraction designed for small children. It's target age range was teens to adults. The attraction was far from terrifying and should have been allowed to stay.

 

[marni1971]

SERIOUSLY looking forward to it! Would love to see a multi-camera full ride-through of the ORIGINAL version with enhanced video and source audio. I know, not asking for much...

I can't promise full source audio but...

 

[odmichael]

Alien encounter was decent. It actually scared me my first time on it as I was only like 9 years old. Stitch is an absolute mess.

That whole attraction should be gutted and something new should go there. Same for Monsters Laugh Floor

 

[JohnD]

SERIOUSLY looking forward to it! Would love to see a multi-camera full ride-through of the ORIGINAL version with enhanced video and source audio. I know, not asking for much...

Which attraction are you referring to?

 

[Donaldfan1934]

I think you misunderstood. The height requirement partly - and rightly - eliminated younger guests experiencing AE. Conversely, it also meant children - Stitch fans - were excluded from seeing an attraction that was designed for them. Even when the rule was slightly relaxed.

Magic Kingdom is meant to cater for all ages. And have attractions for all ages. You wouldn't take a kid on Space Mountain who's scared of the dark. AE had enough written warnings and CM sweeps. You can't cater for stupid guests who insist little Timmy will love it. No matter what.

But the fact is the height limit didn't keep all who weren't age appropriate out. I agree with you that MK should appeal to all ages, but comparing it to a kid being afraid of the dark on SM or other dark experience in MK is a stretch because those attractions weren't intended to incite intense fear and AE definitely was trying to do that in almost every aspect. While I agree with you that the parks shouldn't be dumbed down for no good reason, AE's removal was one of the few necessary cases because it was not an experience the average parent would expect anything like that to be in MK regardless of any warning signs they ignored. It was less about dumbing down and more about trying to appeal to a much broader portion of MK's demographic.

 

[marni1971]

But the fact is the height limit didn't keep all who weren't age appropriate out..

And that's where the warnings came in. Stupid guests who ignored them got what they deserved.

And sadly the greater masses had an awesome attraction removed due to them.

Should they also think hot water in the bathrooms won't actually burn them in the Magic Kingdom?

Regarding Space Mountain, it was too scary for some who ignored the warning. The dummy car on a track at a crazy angle was actually added as an additional warning. They didn't just turn on the lights.

If you'd have tried it yourself you would have seen how good a fit it was and how difficult it was to have ignored all the warnings.

It's a moot point now though. The idiots won.

 

[asianway]

I think you misunderstood. The height requirement partly - and rightly - eliminated younger guests experiencing AE. Conversely, it also meant children - Stitch fans - were excluded from seeing an attraction that was designed for them. Even when the rule was slightly relaxed.

Magic Kingdom is meant to cater for all ages. And have attractions for all ages. You wouldn't take a kid on Space Mountain who's scared of the dark. AE had enough written warnings and CM sweeps. You can't cater for stupid guests who insist little Timmy will love it. No matter what.

Martin, this entire country caters to Little Timmy

 

[Donaldfan1934]

Sorry I disagree with that statement. Alien Encounter was a perfect fit for Tomorrowland. It however wasn't an attraction designed for small children. It's target age range was teens to adults. The attraction was far from terrifying and should have been allowed to stay.

By the logic of narrowing down the demographic, you could literally justify a peep show in MK.

 

[wdwfan22]

But the fact is the height limit didn't keep all who weren't age appropriate out. I agree with you that MK should appeal to all ages, but comparing it to a kid being afraid of the dark on SM or other dark experience in MK is a stretch because those attractions weren't intended to incite intense fear and AE definitely was trying to do that in almost every aspect. While I agree with you that the parks shouldn't be dumbed down for no good reason, AE's removal was one of the few necessary cases because it was not an experience the average parent would expect anything like that to be in MK regardless of any warning signs they ignored. It was less about dumbing down and more about trying to appeal to a much broader portion of MK's demographic.

Then the average parent is an idiot if they can't read the warning signs. The fact is the attraction was dumbed down for the ignorant Magic Kingdom Guests that cant read warning signs.

 

[asianway]

By the logic of narrowing down the demographic, you could literally justify a peep show in MK.

Im ok with that. We have the booze now, lets go all in

 

[jrogue]

the fact that you can't take anyone disagreeing with you or not being negative about absolutely everything is laughable and says a lot about your maturity. Get off the Internet and go outside. So angry, ha.

Dude, don't get your panties in a bunch. You're the one who currently isn't able to take anyone disagreeing with them. But Epcot being a half day park simply isn't true. To do every single attraction in Future World wouldn't just take half a day, it would take probably a whole day. Then WS is another day, or maybe 3/4 of a day at least. I agree that Future World needs something new, but I can't really see Guardians being that "something new" unless it really downplays on the IP aspect of it and focuses it mostly on something relating to Epcot's original values. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good.

 

[rd805]

Dude, don't get your panties in a bunch. You're the one who currently isn't able to take anyone disagreeing with them. But Epcot being a half day park simply isn't true. To do every single attraction in Future World wouldn't just take half a day, it would take probably a whole day. Then WS is another day, or maybe 3/4 of a day at least. I agree that Future World needs something new, but I can't really see Guardians being that "something new" unless it really downplays on the IP aspect of it and focuses it mostly on something relating to Epcot's original values. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good.

In the grand scheme of things -- Mission Space, UOE, Imagination, whatever is the 3D movie of choice, the Seas, Grand Fiesta Tour, can all be skipped. Leaving you with: Test Track, Soarin', Frozen, and Spaceship Earth. Sprinkle in a meal and some drinks and IMO it is TOTALLY a half day park.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

And that's where the warnings came in. Stupid guests who ignored them got what they deserved.

And sadly the greater masses had an awesome attraction removed due to them.

Should they also think hot water in the bathrooms won't actually burn them in the Magic Kingdom?

Regarding Space Mountain, it was too scary for some who ignored the warning. The dummy car on a track at a crazy angle was actually added as an additional warning. They didn't just turn on the lights.

If you'd have tried it yourself you would have seen how good a fit it was and how difficult it was to have ignored all the warnings.

It's a moot point now though. The idiots won.

Signs or not, guests weren't going to take them seriously considering the relative tamness of most everything else. My point about Space Mountain was that it was intended to thrill not to scare and while some may have a personal fear of thrills, the ride intented affects still appeal to a broad portion of MK's demographic. So while its true that every ride isn't going to appeal to every person, AE's demographic was only a relative sliver of the MK demographic. Like I said, the general Universal demographic would've been much more welcoming to the idea and the likelihood of fans enjoying it today there would be much better than MK's were.

 

[jrogue]

In the grand scheme of things -- Mission Space, UOE, Imagination, whatever is the 3D movie of choice, the Seas, Grand Fiesta Tour, can all be skipped. Leaving you with: Test Track, Soarin', Frozen, and Spaceship Earth. Sprinkle in a meal and some drinks and IMO it is TOTALLY a half day park.

If you are only doing select attractions then anything can be a half day park, even the Magic Kingdom. But if you do all there is to offer, then you'll definitely be there at least a day.

 

[odmichael]

But the fact is the height limit didn't keep all who weren't age appropriate out. I agree with you that MK should appeal to all ages, but comparing it to a kid being afraid of the dark on SM or other dark experience in MK is a stretch because those attractions weren't intended to incite intense fear and AE definitely was trying to do that in almost every aspect.

He gave a poor example. You are correct. But at the same time, it's hard to argue that there are consequences to knowingly placing your child on a scary ride, just like there maybe physical consequences to knowingly putting your child on Mission Space.

While I agree with you that the parks shouldn't be dumbed down for no good reason, AE's removal was one of the few necessary cases because it was not an experience the average parent would expect anything like that to be in MK regardless of any warning signs they ignored. It was less about dumbing down and more about trying to appeal to a much broader portion of MK's demographic.

The problem is it doesn't appeal to a larger demographic. Just a different one. Adults hate it and young kids, due to the physical restraints of the ride, are unable to go on it. People go on it because it is there, not because of the quality of the attraction. To be fair, I think it's demographic range is intended to be 10-14. But the maturity level of some of the jokes made on the ride is really in the 6-10 range.

 

[odmichael]

In the grand scheme of things -- Mission Space, UOE, Imagination, whatever is the 3D movie of choice, the Seas, Grand Fiesta Tour, can all be skipped. Leaving you with: Test Track, Soarin', Frozen, and Spaceship Earth. Sprinkle in a meal and some drinks and IMO it is TOTALLY a half day park.

That's like calling Magic Kingdom a half day park and saying you would only go on the 3 mountain rides and maybe pirates and haunted mansion and skip over the rest. Your post is completely opinionated. The fact is that doing everything in the park takes a full day or more. If you choose to skip over parts that's your decision. But don't go on a Disney forum and say that you can skip essentially half of Epcot. That's not how it works here.

 

[Figments Friend]

A few words...actually, more then a few.....that I felt motivated to say here.



It's today leaders at the Disney Company, and their corresponding underlings, that determine what gets placed within the Theme Parks as far as Attractions goes.
Along with requests from Park Ops regarding perceived 'needs', it is Burbank that has the final say on what gets built and what does not.

Over the past decade or so the Company has pushed building IP based additions heavily.
This is partly because it's in line with their valued 'synergy' based marketing system, and partly because it is a low risk endeavor.
It's also seen as a quick, 'good return on investment' because of the marketing potential for said new Attraction since there is already a perceived built-in audience for the related IP.
No need to 'waste time' developing and marketing something nobody knows about yet ( a original Attraction ) when a previously existing 'world' from a IP already exists and has already proven itself to be successful.



Which brings us to the main reason such projects are encouraged -
They are already proven successes, with little to no risks involved.



WDI only gets to build what Burbank will 'allow' them to these days.
Most projects need to have some kind of IP attached to them now to get funding.
There are exceptions of course, and in a few rare cases we see 'original' ideas developed, but sadly those are few and far between now.
Imagineers can think up the most spectacular things that would make fans literally self implode but without jumping through the hoops set up by the Marketeers and Burbank's official stamp of approval those awesome ideas sadly just get shelved.

So much excellent potential is truly wasted thanks to the narrow minded vision of some of the executive decision makers within the Company.
So many truly innovative and outright awesome things are just left sitting on the shelf within Imagineering in Glendale when they could be used in a Park.
It is frustrating....but even more so when you are in a position to actually see that happening.




Blame should not fall entirely on WDI's shoulders for all the unessesary IP overlays and marketing driven Attractions.
Burbank and Marketing need to share in that blame, too.

If anything, i think if certain departments within WDI were let free off of the tight lease those two Company divisions hold them to, we would see some amazing additions to the Parks.
I'm sure there are some fantastic ideas that were never even given a chance simply because they did not fall in line with the Company's current 'synergy' plan or have a currently popular IP attached to it.



It is 'original' ideas and Attractions that made Disney Theme Parks great.
Not nessesarily it's 'tie-ins'.
Today's corporate culture needs to re-examine that.
IPs have a place, but in their proper places.
'Placemaking' is such a valued and important element of good themed design.




-