Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Energy Pavilion at Epcot

[stretchsje]

@marni1971, in @lentesta's most recent podcast, Jim Hill was offering strong hints that an attraction (of some kind, no elaboration) might be coming to the Mexico pavilion next year themed to Pixar's Coco, which arrives in November 2017. Anything you have heard about this? I know the current management logic would seem to point to an overlay/redo of Gran Fiesta Tour — and also might explain why they finally installed those AA's at the ride end, so they could get *some* use out of them for a couple of years — but a new, additional attraction for Mexico would be nice. Thoughts?

I was surprised to hear this given the AA's were just installed, but they need to do something to draw crowds away (create alternate fastpass opportunities) from Frozen. I personally anticipated this would be Ratatouille in Paris, but I think Jim Hill was alluding to that coming later for the 50th Anniversary (or is something else coming in 2021?). For sure his reference to a 2017 Pixar property coming to "near Norway" has to be Coco coming to Mexico. I'm making some assumptions here, but...

What's scary about that is:
- It's another low-capacity ride. No lessons learned from Frozen.
- The only other ride in the Showcase going down for refurb will make Frozen lines that much worse in the near term.

What's good:
- The Three Caballeros don't add to The Grand Fiesta Tour; Coco should actually be a pretty good fit based on what little has been released about the story.
- The day it opens, maybe lines for Frozen Ever After will be tolerable?

I also can't see Disney throwing money at an IP that hasn't yet established itself. So the short timeline given (ready in 2017, really!?) combined with the unproven IP makes me think the retheming of the ride will take place mostly on its video screens with a new AA scene at the end. Or... this whole rumor is bunk.

That said, Jim Hill correctly predicted those AA's coming to the Mexican pavilion waaaay in advance of it happening so he has at least one good source for that area. Plans are always changing though, and I'm in favor of Mexico getting an update.

 

[odmichael]

I was surprised to hear this given the AA's were just installed, but they need to do something to draw crowds away (create alternate fastpass opportunities) from Frozen. I personally anticipated this would be Ratatouille in Paris, but I think Jim Hill was alluding to that coming later for the 50th Anniversary (or is something else coming in 2021?). For sure his reference to a 2017 Pixar property coming to "near Norway" has to be Coco coming to Mexico. I'm making some assumptions here, but...

What's scary about that is:
- It's another low-capacity ride. No lessons learned from Frozen.
- The only other ride in the Showcase going down for refurb will make Frozen lines that much worse in the near term.

What's good:
- The Three Caballeros don't add to The Grand Fiesta Tour; Coco should actually be a pretty good fit based on what little has been released about the story.
- The day it opens, maybe lines for Frozen Ever After will be tolerable?

I also can't see Disney throwing money at an IP that hasn't yet established itself. So the short timeline given (ready in 2017, really!?) combined with the unproven IP makes me think the retheming of the ride will take place mostly on its video screens with a new AA scene at the end. Or... this whole rumor is bunk.

That said, Jim Hill correctly predicted those AA's coming to the Mexican pavilion waaaay in advance of it happening so he has at least one good source for that area. Plans are always changing though, and I'm in favor of Mexico getting an update.

Did he confirm it was another revamp of the ride or a new part of the pavilion all together? There's a big and good difference between those two things.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

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.

Again, I would focus on the intentions of SGE rather than the actual execution of it. It may just be a different demographic overall, but said demographic was definitley intended for a larger portion of MK's attendees. And while I would agree that an approximate 10-14 demgraphic is still somewhat limiting, it had to be done since it was created in a time where Disney was putting minimal investment into their new attractions. Basically, both attractions we're doomed to fail from the start. AE failed because its sheer concept was never going to appeal to the general audience it was being thrusted upon and SGE failed because it had to use that attraction's bones. That's all that needs to be said.

 

[ChrisFL]

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.




-

It's also largely the same formula that hollywood is using these days. What do we see constantly in theaters? Sequels, prequels, remakes and TV shows turned into movies. It's all about ROI potential, no question marks, no "let's see if this works", only "sure things" and "slam dunks"

 

[stretchsje]

Did he confirm it was another revamp of the ride or a new part of the pavilion all together? There's a big and good difference between those two things.

I'd have to listen again, but the context was something is coming in 2017 to alleviate lines for Frozen Ever After.

 

[Bocabear]

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

That is just ridiculous. ..and as you say, you never experienced it yourself. Alien Encounter was a well written, beautifully designed show and attraction...every part a little more menacing than the section before... there were warnings, there were plenty of points in which you could escape before the final "encounter" theater. It was brilliantly done,and aimed at a tween to adult demographic that was and still is needed in the MK. There should be experiences in the park that are not always the dumbed down version for toddlers...there is plenty for them to do too...but not everything has to be geared towards the youngest of children... It was great fun to have something that would make an adult man scream (and many did) and then laugh... it was a lot of fun and a beautifully done attractiuon...so honestly if you have never experienced it, don't judge it...

 

[doctornick]

I have a lot of respect for you, but what is your defense really? Sure they tied into the then new Tomorrowland well, but what else. The point you made about SGE not having a proper height requirement for its audience speaks volumes as to why AE was a bad idea for MK. On the other hand, AE would've played perfectly to a huge chunk of Universal's demographic and may have still been here today if it was their idea instead of Disney's.

I have to disagree with you as well. There certainly was a lot of complaining from folks about AE -- that's because they were apparently too dumb or ignorant to read the tons of warning signs and the actual description of the ride. It was pretty clear that this was a very scary attraction and there were signage and announcements that it was in total darkness, frightening and not appropriate for young children.

If children rode anyway and got scared, that falls on the parents. and the proper response would have been "well, we aren't riding that again until you are way older" not "Disney needs to change this".

Not every attraction has to be suitable for everyone. And I say this as someone who feels that having most rides at WDW accessible to everyone is a good and important thing. But some scarier and intense experience are fine as long as they are appropriated indicated (and AE was).

 

[Donaldfan1934]

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.

I have to disagree with you as well. There certainly was a lot of complaining from folks about AE -- that's because they were apparently too dumb or ignorant to read the tons of warning signs and the actual description of the ride. It was pretty clear that this was a very scary attraction and there were signage and announcements that it was in total darkness, frightening and not appropriate for young children.

If children rode anyway and got scared, that falls on the parents. and the proper response would have been "well, we aren't riding that again until you are way older" not "Disney needs to change this".

Not every attraction has to be suitable for everyone. And I say this as someone who feels that having most rides at WDW accessible to everyone is a good and important thing. But some scarier and intense experience are fine as long as they are appropriated indicated (and AE was).

I agree that parents should always read signs, but the reality of this case is that people have peconcived notions of what appropriateness to expect from Disney. As life will tell you, one's personal experiences tend to trump caution. Its not necessarily the right way to do things, but that's how our society works. you wouldn't expect a PG-13 attraction in a park that's barely PG.

 

[Bocabear]

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.

Alien Encounter also had some of the longest lines in the park...it was massively popular when itm opened and for several years... maybe the story you have heard is that it opened people complained and they closed it right away, but it had a nice run and was very well loved...just not by parents of toddlers. it ran for 8 years... you make it seem like they shut it right down because it was a bad idea...lol

 

[doctornick]

I agree that parents should always read signs, but the reality of this case is that people have peconcived notions of what appropriateness to expect from Disney. As life will tell you, one's personal experiences tend to trump caution. Its not necessarily the right way to do things, but that's how our society works. you shouldn't expect a PG-13 attraction in a park that's barely PG.

I totally understand what you are saying about people's expectations, but the point with AE is that people's expectations should have changed as they experienced the ride and it became more widely known that the ride was frightening and not appropriate for young children. The idea that everything at MK (or any Disney park) is assumed to be appropriate for everything should not be the case. By getting rid of AE, Disney actually did a great disservice by reinforcing this expectation.

Again, the ride was clearly marked. The darn name had TERROR in capital letters. The proper reaction from parents should have been "I made a mistake in ignoring the signs and will not do so again" as opposed to "Disney is wrong". Personal responsibility and all that.

 

[Bocabear]

Again, I would focus on the intentions of SGE than the actual execution of it. It may be just a different demographic overall, but said demographic was definitley intended for a larger portion of MK's attendees. An while I would agree that an approximate 10-14 demgraphic is still somewhat limiting, it had to be done since it was created in a time where Disney was putting minimal investment into there new attractions. Basically, both attractions we're doomed to fail from the start. AE failed because its sheer concept was never going to appeal to the general audience it was being thrusted upon and SGE failed because it had to use that attraction's bones. That's all that needs to be said.

SGE failed because it was a knee-jerk reaction that was poorly conceived and aimed far too low... which to me was an even bigger offender.

 

[Mike S]

Martin, this entire country caters to Little Timmy

Little Timmy needs to fall down a well.

 

[SorcererMC]

@MikeS @AJH219 Wow...hilarious...but wow.

Little Timmy is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

That is just ridiculous. ..and as you say, you never experienced it yourself. Alien Encounter was a well written, beautifully designed show and attraction...every part a little more menacing than the section before... there were warnings, there were plenty of points in which you could escape before the final "encounter" theater. It was brilliantly done,and aimed at a tween to adult demographic that was and still is needed in the MK. There should be experiences in the park that are not always the dumbed down version for toddlers...there is plenty for them to do too...but not everything has to be geared towards the youngest of children... It was great fun to have something that would make an adult man scream (and many did) and then laugh... it was a lot of fun and a beautifully done attractiuon...so honestly if you have never experienced it, don't judge it...

I wasn't arguing quality, I was arguing placement, a common topic in this thread. I believe that a theme park should have a set standard of what kind of experiences it should provide in both tone and appropriateness so everthing feels cohesive. While the imagineers definitely did a good job of tying AE into the story of new Tomorrowland, it didn't synch with other experiences in the park. No matter what the ride, the Magic Kingdom provides experiences that can individually appeal to many different ages and having one that's so niche relatively speaking takes away from the intentions of that park. That's what my point is here and I hope I don't have to clarify it anymore.

 

[MOXOMUMD]

As long as gravy and cheese curds get on those fries...

You read my mind.

 

[Fantasmicguy]

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.

Of course it's a HALF day park if you choose to only do HALF of the attractions!

 

[Donaldfan1934]

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.




-

Beautifully stated. I think its odd how Iger brags about mostly stepping aside and letting creatives do what they do when it comes to movies, but does the exact opposite when it comes to theme parks. It just shows that he doesn't really care about creativity in any way and runs things with reckless hypocrisy.

 

[216bruce]

It's not like there's a better pavilion to put Taco Bell in. Canada is definitely the best place for it. If you don't agree you hate change.

Look, it's simple...
Taco Bell goes into Mexico
McDonalds goes to 'Murica
Tim Hortons goes to Canada
Arthur Treachers Original Fish and Chips (it still barely exists) goes to the UK
Sakkio (or any mall clone) goes to Japan
Sbarro goes into Italy
Panda Buffet to China
Germany just gets a beer garden (it's all people really want anyway)
Morocco gets nothing (and likes it) 'cause no one eats that stuff anyway
Norway has Frozen, so no one notices if it has food and no one eats that stuff...
France...I dunno, maybe a fries stand.
That's what I call an Epcot to be proud of!

 

[Donaldfan1934]

Alien Encounter also had some of the longest lines in the park...it was massively popular when itm opened and for several years... maybe the story you have heard is that it opened people complained and they closed it right away, but it had a nice run and was very well loved...just not by parents of toddlers. it ran for 8 years... you make it seem like they shut it right down because it was a bad idea...lol

Almost every ride is popular when they first open, but capacity may have played into that too. I'm sorry, but less than 10 years isn't a good run when you compare it to the true hits of the park.

 

[Lee]

I have a lot of respect for you, but what is your defense really? Sure they tied into the then new Tomorrowland well, but what else. The point you made about SGE not having a proper height requirement for its audience speaks volumes as to why AE was a bad idea for MK. On the other hand, AE would've played perfectly to a huge chunk of Universal's demographic and may have still been here today if it was their idea instead of Disney's.

Here is all the defense necessary:
Something for everyone, not everything for everyone.
There is no reason or expectation that every attraction at MK be child friendly. Space isn't for everybody. Neither is BTMRR.

Removing Alien Encounter was a misguided, bone-headed, knee-jerk reaction to the complaints of some parents. Parents who should have read the signs and not put easily frightened little kids on it, just like they wouldn't put a 3yr old on Space Mountain.

Perfect example of dumbing down.
Thus began the ruin of Tomorrwland.