Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Energy Pavilion at Epcot

[odmichael]

Why Star Wars? How would that be a good fit?

Honestly, Not really a good fit. But was anything there before it better?

It's just a good theater for a show and I figured a short film set in the sequel trilogy era would be fun there. It's something everyone could enjoy because it doesnt sound like everyone will be able to participate in every single ride in Star Wars land.

 

[PhotoDave219]

At least the PTB have recognized they have let Epcot rely far too long on food and beverage festivals.

I believe youre correct.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

Honestly, Not really a good fit. But was anything there before it better?

It's just a good theater for a show and I figured a short film set in the sequel trilogy era would be fun there. It's something everyone could enjoy because it doesnt sound like everyone will be able to participate in every single ride in Star Wars land.

Right, anything looks good compared to its history. To be honest though, I think its best if Star Wars is contained within DHS. No need for a resort wide takeover if you ask me.

 

[MOXOMUMD]

Oui. Well, today's "Ze Plan."

 

[Jones14]

Something I've noticed (and I'm sure others have too) is that Disney fans seem to have different levels of tolerance based on specific areas, lands, and parks, which in turn makes its way up corporate and operations. Animal Kingdom, Adventureland (DL version) and Fantasyland seem to be the only sacred areas. I mean, take Avatar, which focuses on conservation, heavily features animals, and replaces a filler land with an attraction that didn't really fit there, and it was (and sometimes still is) ripped apart mercilessly because there can be the slightest of arguments made that it might not fit absolutely perfectly

Move on over to places like World Showcase, Tomorrowland, Sunset Boulevard, and Frontierland, where theme is upheld for the most part, but is occasionally bent to shoehorn an attraction or two in. We complain about this, but if the Imagineers come up with a good enough ride and a story to cover their butts, we grumble in line and enjoy it, because at least one person in the project usually works to make the best of the bad situation.

And then there's Future World, Epcot as a whole, and Hollywood Studios. Equal parts starved for worthwhile activity and filled to the brim with mediocrity, these places are so barren that we get so excited to experience something that is new and might actually be good that we fail to express the disdain we would if these areas had been held to the same standard as those in the first two categories. We know it doesn't fit, and neither do they, but nobody cares enough to do anything about it.

Disney created this mentality by allowing themes to be stretched in the first place, and the fans fostered it by prioritizing the areas that we cared about most. It's okay that Splash Mountainwent in Frontierland, because I like Adventureland better anyway and I think it's more cohesive anyway, and so on. It's okay that Frozen Ever After went into World Showcase, because there's nothing worthwhile for children under 40 inches to ride anyways over there. It's okay that Guardians goes into Epcot, because they're at least acknowledging that Future World exists now.

Is Guardians a good fit for Future World? Of course not. But fans and Disney are jointly to blame for letting the parks get to where they are, and for allowing quality to become subjective rather than objective, and that is why we're seeing Guardians in Future World and no one is grabbing a pitchfork. Sure, people are upset, but at the end of the day, we're so desperate for quality in any form (and have separated location from quality) that we'll let them slide in a lot of cases.

 

[V_L_Raptor]

This just feels inevitable.

Frozen opened the floodgates, it's been hard to escape the feeling for a while that the only way Epcot was going to get the investment and improvements its long needed was through bringing more film-based attrctions.

I don't like this but I've accepted that the original concept of the Epcot that I was introduced to and loved is gone. There's a lot I still love about the park but it's going to move further away from what it was created to be. I'm not a Marvel fan, I liked Guardians of the Galaxy but I can't say I'm interested in or enthusastic about an attraction based on it; I'll wait to see what they have planned for Imagination, I loved that attraction once and hate what it's become.

I've been a spectator for years, because my employment and wages were of a condition that precluded me from buying admission to WDW parks. Now that I've reached a point where I could conceivably buy something like an AP, I don't want to be anywhere near the place, and I won't spend a single, solitary dime on WDW. The IP-jamming is ludicrous. I'd rather pay less for an AP to Uni and APs/memberships to Orlando Science Center and KSC.

Kiss my grits, Disney. Feel free to cram a Na'vi tree, sideways, but not on my ticket receipt.

 

[zooey]

Your comment is a testament to the power of Disney salesmanship and their public persuasion.

The photo voltaic cells on the UoE were very expensive and only contributed a maximum of 15% of the power needed to run the vehicles (about 77 kilowatts of direct current under perfect conditions) inside the pavilion. In reality the solar panels provided just a tiny bit of power to the vehicles.

Concerning the Astuter Computer Review (later changed to "Backstage Magic") they used an Atari 800 computer to demonstrate how computers worked. They gave the impression that a huge computer bank ran most of the operations in WDW. In reality, computers at WDW at that time were largely reeds and switches (technology from the 1930's).

It's very interesting to me how people are manipulated by clever salesmen to believe things that are not true. I think this sort of thing happens a lot when people recall the previous attractions at EPCOT and the other parks. Their memories are clear and concise but they fail to realize that their memories are based upon faulty information that they were fed by the sales staff.

So?

 

[ThemeParkJunkee]

One problem I have noticed among those of us concerned about thematic cohesiveness is that the Epcot we remember was not appearing on our social media. You couldn't rate it on trip advisor or comment on a message board or Facebook or Twitter. There was no such thing as "social media". Instant opinions were not possible. It was face to face, a written letter and for those fortunate enough to own a home computer, email that required a paid subscription.

To plan, you bought a guidebook or got one from the library. You asked friends and relatives who had been there what to see. Social media has changed WDW because social media has changed everything. When businesses ignore the long term fans and only attend to the once in a lifetime crowd, they lose a large advocacy group. When they fail to deliver an advertised benefit, they look bad. When what used to be free costs money because we guarantee you a seat and include food (and it is done on short notice) it looks like penny pinching. When you have to hire cadre of social media personnel to run interference for the negativity on social media, you should listen to what they tell you.

 

[MOXOMUMD]

Stupid guardians stupid galaxy. Where else am i going to see jamie lee curtis, alex trebic, ellen and bill nye in one place!

I'm disappointed this is what they went with, but the building has been languishing for a while. In the main theater you csn hear the dinosaurs bleeding in, curtains don't work and some audio animatronics are missing. I inly hope the dinasours somehow get reused they are epcot opening classic figures.

Youtube.

 

[marni1971]

I feel like this is a longshot like that Incredibles ride that was all set to bulldoze Carousel of Progress and the TL Theater back in the mid 2000s.

There's a difference between unsubstantiated rumour (which that was) and this. I don't shout unless there's a reason. It doesn't really
matter if you believe it or not. No skin off my nose.

 

[marni1971]

Is Disney trying to make the parks redundant with each other? I'd rather pay 110 or whatever it is to go to MK than 440.

That will a problem. You'd never expect the UoE to be in the MK. This, possibly.

 

[ThemeParkJunkee]

@marni1971 do you ever sleep? Just askin. Anyway, I appreciate everything you contribute here.

 

[marni1971]

@marni1971 do you ever sleep? Just askin. Anyway, I appreciate everything you contribute here.

Time zones and all that...

 

[Matthew]

I really dislike what you said to @marni1971. He's one of the more well respected members on this site.

I'm sure you will get over it.

 

[Matthew]

Which is internet forum brand-defender code for "your criticism of the brand carries no weight because you're in the minority."




No, Disney brand marketing and branded-lifestyle habituation are alive and well in the masses.




We can and do believe anything when we are children. The low-threshhold test of pleasing children is why Walt said, "You're dead if you aim only for kids." Sadly, that's exactly what the risk-averse, Wall Street-facing, creatively bankrupt marketeers of Disney management are doing in the kiddiefication of EPCOT.

Your argument attempts to justify Disney management's status quo: a business model of charging more and delivering less. Which from a business standpoint is not unreasonable -- as long as one ignores the decades-long heritage of innovation, creativity and risk-taking that built the Disney Parks brand in the first place. It's that heritage that is being squandered with every quick grab at the low-hanging fruit of the next quarter's profits by the clueless class of revolving-door marketeers to whom Iger keeps handing the Keys to Disney's Magic Kingdoms.

The reality is that if the first generation of Disneyland management had been as visionless and risk-averse as Disney Parks' current management, we would not be having this conversation. Disneyland would have faded into oblivion, along with the generic amusement parks of its era that it would have imitated, after trying for a quick grab of easy profits -- and there would have been no WDW.

And that is why some of us choke on the claim that the "Disney Spirit is alive and well" at Disney's domestic parks. You're talking about a make-believe status quo that pretends the heritage of Disney's past is alive and well in the present. We're talking about the hard reality of what Disney management is (and more pointedly, isn't) doing today that will affect the future of its domestic parks brand.

Each to their own opinion... Having experienced the parks in the 80's and 90's and then not visiting between 1998 and 2015 I can say that in MY OPINION there felt like plenty of Disney Spirit around.

 

[Matthew]

I feel that an Australia area would fit better at AK.

Nah... World showcase... Just an added bonus for drinking around the world lol

 

[**Stacy**]

The point of my post is... regardless of how much power the solar panels provided, it was still something that "wowed" your average family visiting the parks in the 1980's. As far as whatever computer was running the parks....the average 1980's family was still debating between VHS and Beta Max and were still about 10 years away from their first desktop computer, dial-up and AOL account. New and exciting happens at a much faster pace today, future world can't really exist like it did 30 some odd years ago, it cannot continually showcase the next great thing, the next great thing happens continuously, Disney should just hang monitors on the walls and make Google suggestions to guests. FW needs to change in some way, I think we have all known this for a long time. I am not sure what way it should change though. I am willing to wait and see what Disney is considering. For the record I am having a hard time with Avatar in the AK, Muppets hanging out of windows in Liberty Square and Star Wars taking over DHS..feels forced and lazy..but I maybe I will like them once I see them in person.

Your comment is a testament to the power of Disney salesmanship and their public persuasion.

The photo voltaic cells on the UoE were very expensive and only contributed a maximum of 15% of the power needed to run the vehicles (about 77 kilowatts of direct current under perfect conditions) inside the pavilion. In reality the solar panels provided just a tiny bit of power to the vehicles.

Concerning the Astuter Computer Review (later changed to "Backstage Magic") they used an Atari 800 computer to demonstrate how computers worked. They gave the impression that a huge computer bank ran most of the operations in WDW. In reality, computers at WDW at that time were largely reeds and switches (technology from the 1930's).

It's very interesting to me how people are manipulated by clever salesmen to believe things that are not true. I think this sort of thing happens a lot when people recall the previous attractions at EPCOT and the other parks. Their memories are clear and concise but they fail to realize that their memories are based upon faulty information that they were fed by the sales staff.

 

[Matthew]

Marine person? I'm sure most of use are familiar outside of the WDWMagic forum with him as "Martin" best known for his Walt Disney World Tribute/Ultimate Tribute videos (My favorite being his history videos for Journey Into Imagination and Wonders Of Life).

Never heard of his videos...

To me he's marnie71 from Manchester who likes rugby, hates football, can see old Trafford from work and is quite knowledgable about Disney.

And I'm sure he's a big enough boy that he can fight his own battles.

 

[Phantom Mickey]

You know when EPCOT was cool? When solar panels powered the UoE ride..back when solar panels were not mainstream sources of energy. When you took an escalator in one of the Communicore buildings and they showed you how computers controlled everything in the parks...long before most families had 3-5 computers in their homes and 9 year olds walked around with smart phones in their pockets. At this point, I think it is darn near impossible for Disney to stay ahead of technology in future world. By time they finished an attraction it could very well be obsolete...which I believe has been EPCOT's problem all along. I am just happy they are not wedging an Apple store in next to Starbucks. My favorite part of future world? The fiber optic walkways, as long as they keep those I am happy.

I agree with almost everything you said. I don't drink coffee so I can take or leave Starbucks. Yes, talking about the solar panels and how they were charging the ride cars was part of the show. And this was not only at UOE but throughout EPCOT Center. They've gotten a bit quiet on that subject, haven't they...
... Technology is flying, isn't it? It is hard to keep up. What Dizzy seems to do is they will develop an attraction with the latest technology, well if they need it. Then the attraction is built and they run it as long as it attracts guests. It isn't really a matter of becoming obsolete as it never changes unless Dizzy sees a need to upgrade. Otherwise, the attraction will run as is until it is replaced. At that time they will use the best hi-technology hardware they can find, depending on need and the cycle starts all over.
... I feel strongly that obsolesance is not the total cuprit at the parks. The first thing to look for is sponsership. If the sponser leaves, which with Dizzy, this is NEVER a good sign, the attraction is immediately on the chopping block.
If the Sponser is happy and stays, the next thing to look for is if the ride is running well. It is rumored that the reason JOURNEY INTO YOUR IMAGINATION was FINALLY changed the first time, was a problem with the table that spun around in the first scene with Dreamfinder, Figment and the flying machine... the attraction ride cars are supposed to sync by joining to the table on the first scene with Dreamfinder. It was a constant problem and would shut down the ride. When the big table that turned dreamfinder and his wonderful flying machine around, was demolished ( in an effort to fix the ride shut down problem ) ended up with The loss of Dream finder and the fact that they shortened the track about 1/3, virtually ruining the attraction.
... OR guests just don't like an attraction. If it does not pull the numbers, they will close it.
EPCOTs problem is not obsolesance. It is probably more a matter of different times, different generations of people, people wanting to see different things. And probably a big dose of bad planning, such as the Journey attraction.
... I hate to say it but all attractions have a max life in a park. Some will extend that life by being very popular and an extra effort will be given to extend the operating life of that attraction. Dizzy takes into account the attractions operation life, if it breaks down, if it is popular (draws in the numbers of guests) and if it remains a safe operation. I am sure Dizzy has a few more points to throw in there but any one of them can cause a shut down and eventual replacement.
... What starts to really look strange would be like in the case of DizzyMGM Studios. I can only recall one time that I was there and there was nothing shut down. After that there was always at least 1 to 3 attractions either shutdown or abandoned. And how does it get to the mess that it is today?

Ok lets take feelings out of this...
... DIZZY MGM worked together and built a working studio. It ran, successfully for years. there were other sponsers to enhance the movie/show atmosphere. In time, sponsers left. I don't know why MGM was cut out but that seems to be when things started to come apart. The town facade didn't have anyone filming and then Dizzy brought in the Christmas light guy. Every town like New York has Christmas lights all over the city, don't they??? Then the Studios stopped working. Animation was stopped. DizzyStudios pretty much died.
... Somewhere in there they built the Tower of Terror and the screaming roller coaster and Star Tours, Indiana Jones. These and prob a few others, are the only thing keeping the doors open. They must be barely running the park with a profit margin.

OK back to feelings... So what are they doing????? The tours are shut down, back lot is shut down, sound stage gone, lolol...
... The problem with guests is, we like what we like and we don't really like changes. Right? In the end, our favorite attraction will come to its end of life and Dizzy shuts it down as a matter of normal business preparing to create a new attraction.
But we, as guests, see this as abandonment and Dizzy turning their back on the guest... LOL It's just business, that's all.

Sorry for the long speil, I'll do better.

 

[bakntime]

Here's the funny thing. Everyone who says that Guardians doesn't fit in Epcot is 100% right....

If you're talking about EPCOT Center 1982.

Here's the problem with the "EPCOT should stay true to its original vision": It doesn't fly in 2016. The idea of a permanent World's Fair, a showcase for new ideas, frontiers in education and technology and all that fabulous stuff--it's not why people go to theme parks any more. The cerebral edutainment concept of Epcot is no longer relevant. I loved it, you loved it, but we're a minority. I know that's hard to accept, but people like us who loved Horizons, World of Motion, the original Journey into Imagination, the original Universe of Energy are too small a segment of theme-park tourists.

As much as it pains my heart to accept that reality, it's been evident for years--not at Epcot, not at Disney, but around the world. The original EPCOT mentality doesn't draw crowds. Expositions like the 1964/65 NY World's Fair are a relic, a memory that's far more intriguing for its history and legacy than it is for it relevance. The world has changed. The internet, cell phones, tablets, and television have facilitated an "information-on-demand" style of life that has made educational theme park attractions irrelevant. There are dozens of science and technology channels on TV these days, where people can watch breathtaking documentaries on 50 inch 4K screens. There are a myriad of informational and educational mediums that children and adults alike are too familiar with, not to mention educational games and toys that blow 80s and 90s edutainment out of the water. People don't want to go to a theme park to be reminded that we need to conserve energy or to see a whimsical look at how technology might change our lives. Thinly veiled lectures aren't fun anymore. The media world shoves "lessons" and "knowledge" down our throats in every possible way, shape, and form you can think of.

Yes, Epcot is dying, you're right. But it's not Disney™ that's killing it with popular attractions like Soarin and Test Track, and it's not even Frozen that's doing it. It's people that made this happen. It's everyone. Not me, not you, but everyone else had lost interest in EPCOT Center.

So what has to happen? Evolution. Evolve or die. It's as relevant in the theme park industry as it is anywhere else. Epcot isn't a museum. It can still be a showcase of science, technology, and wonder, but of a very different kind. As much as some people here would like to convince everyone that the EPCOT 1982 concept could still succeed in 2016, they're not looking at the modern world through an objective lens. That old EPCOT concept would wildly succeed ... for you, for me, and for all the hardcore fans of everything that EPCOT once stood for. But there are too few of us. That Epcot would be a theme park doomed to irrelevance in the modern world.

And as crazy as it may sound, Guardians of the Galaxy had an underlying message that's not too different from what Epcot once stood for, and that's the idea that we're all part of something bigger than ourselves. It's only together that we can preserve the good that's out there. The movie was a light-hearted romp, but the core theme was self-sacrifice for the greater good, giving up personal property and ambition to protect your home. If it's what Epcot needs to do to be more than an adult-oriented place that's only popular among adults for its food, wine, and beer, then I'm all for it. Might as well get the butts in the door with something that's more relevant, more fun, and less sleep-inducing.