Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Energy Pavilion at Epcot

[yellowrocket]

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.

Them are fightin' words.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

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.

I have nothing to add here. Your post was absolutely brilliant. You may not be most constant poster in a thread, but whenever you do, they're always among the best in the thread.

 

[Lee]

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.

I disagree. Strongly.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

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.

Have you ridden the first Snow White?

 

[Lee]

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.

Reports vary. Hence my fear...

 

[doctornick]

Reports vary. Hence my fear...

Man, that would be dumb. Epcot certainly doesn't need "Groot and Rocket Racoon talk about Energy".

I love GotG as much as anyone and want to see them in WDW, but it is so sad that they don't just do the sensible thing and put them in an appropriate setting. If they want them introduced quickly, then replace Stitch or Laugh Floor in Tomorrowland. If they are willing to build a new ride (which it sounds like is more or less the case with Epcot) then just go any build it in DHS.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Reports vary. Hence my fear...

Man, that would be dumb. Epcot certainly doesn't need "Groot and Rocket Racoon talk about Energy".

I love GotG as much as anyone and want to see them in WDW, but it is so sad that they don't just do the sensible thing and put them in an appropriate setting. If they want them introduced quickly, then replace Stitch or Laugh Floor in Tomorrowland. If they are willing to build a new ride (which it sounds like is more or less the case with Epcot) then just go any build it in DHS.

I have to agree that on the surface, GotG does not fit. The problem is that no one seems to have a firm grasp on exactly what it is going to be, so it may very well fit in with the theme. We need more information before we can effectively judge.

 

[marni1971]

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.

Its easy. It was awesome. It fitted the IP- less Tomorrowland perfectly. And a Magic Kingdom at a time when the Pixie Dust was reserved for the right places.

SGE was the mistake. A knee jerk reaction to stupid guests that resulted in an attraction with a height limit that went against the target demographic.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Its easy. It was awesome. It fitted the IP- less Tomorrowland perfectly. And a Magic Kingdom at a time when the Pixie Dust was reserved for the right places.

SGE was the mistake. A knee jerk reaction to stupid guests that resulted in an attraction with a height limit that went against the target demographic.

I wish they'd bring back Mission to Mars. That was awesome compared to what has followed.

 

[Mike S]

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

I think he meant that the ride itself is actually pretty good despite its bad placement.

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.

Fully agree.

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.

Finding Dory gave them a pretty good starting point with the Marine Life Institute. Whether they go with it is a different story.

GotG doesn't offer as easy of an oppurtunity though. The ride may be great by itself but it will always feel off in 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.

We'd really be in Jeopardy then wouldn't we.

Reports vary. Hence my fear...

Oh no. After @marni1971's comments of "E Ticket" and "serious investment" I was hoping the ride itself would be good at least...

Man, that would be dumb. Epcot certainly doesn't need "Groot and Rocket Racoon talk about Energy".

I love GotG as much as anyone and want to see them in WDW, but it is so sad that they don't just do the sensible thing and put them in an appropriate setting. If they want them introduced quickly, then replace Stitch or Laugh Floor in Tomorrowland. If they are willing to build a new ride (which it sounds like is more or less the case with Epcot) then just go any build it in DHS.

Laugh Floor and the space behind it. Stitch is too small unless they gut the gift shops as well so good luck hoping for Disney to do that, lol. There's always the Speedway as well...

 

[michmousefan]

Yes. If it all happens is another matter.

@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?

 

[Lee]

I think he meant that the ride itself is actually pretty good despite its bad placement.

Irrelevant. No matter how good it is, which by its very nature is limited, it will forever be tainted by its location.

Oh no. After @marni1971's comments of "E Ticket" and "serious investment" I was hoping the ride itself would be good at least...

From what little I know about the proposed ride, there's no reason to think it won't be good.
[/QUOTE]
It just has no business in Epcot.

 

[BiffyClyro]

Is that why you have such a big opinion?

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.

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.

 

[FigmentForver96]

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.

Calling out your statement doesn't make him negative. You are on a message board, get ready to be disagreed with.

 

[asianway]

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.

You mean like Club 33? Oh

 

[SorcererMC]

Got a must watch right here from the 80s

'must watch' is right. John Hench talking about developing EPCOT, after Walt was gone, but not losing the momentum that he created....Ray Bradbury talking about both young people and old people looking for their future...Spaceship Earth as a "Schweitzer centrifuge" to set the example, to fill them w/ the ideas of the far past, immediate present, and far future, so that they will be galvanized to build that future.

Walt Disney's words:.... "that's what EPCOT is, an experimental prototype community of tomorrow that will always be in a state of becoming....it will never cease to be a living blueprint of the future"....and the blessing of WDW size, room to develop ideas.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

I disagree. Strongly.

And this is the mindset today's Disney LOVES! Why undergo a full operation to fix the problem at the core when we can just slap on a band aid, take some Motrin, and repeat the process in 4-6 hours?

Have you ridden the first Snow White?

Its easy. It was awesome. It fitted the IP- less Tomorrowland perfectly. And a Magic Kingdom at a time when the Pixie Dust was reserved for the right places.

SGE was the mistake. A knee jerk reaction to stupid guests that resulted in an attraction with a height limit that went against the target demographic.

let me just make a one thing perfectly clear. I'm not bashing anyone who enjoyed the original experience or doesn't like Stitch, but the defense for keeping it where it was. In response to @AJH219's reply, I totally agree that Stitch should've recieved a completely new experience entirely. Most of SGE's flaws come out of it using AE's inherently fear inducing bones to create a comedic experience. Hence older audiences find it gross and it unfortunately STILL ocasionally scares certain children out of its need for complete darkness. However, despite its failures, it scares nowhere near the amount of kids AE did. While I never experienced the original attraction myself, I have a cousin who did as a child. While she is in no way a fan of SGE, she has far more negative feelings towards the original experience. In response @The Empress Lilly's reply, SWA was remolded a couple of years before I was born so I only have video to go by. That being said, however, I can tell that A. It wasn't anywhere near as intense as AE was despite being much more eerie than the 2nd itteration, and B. It was changed for similar reasons as AE was right around the time AE was about to open. The fact is that AE was a massive PR disaster that Eisner should've seen coming. It stuck out like a giant sore thumb in an otherwise tame and family friendly park. 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.

 

[marni1971]

while I never experienced the original attraction myself

At least you're honest.

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.

Nope. Disagree.

 

[marni1971]

@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? Thoughts?

I've heard nothing. Not to say that would mean nothing is coming.

Or maybe there is a potential but nothing to talk about yet.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

At least you're honest.


Nope. Disagree.

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.