ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
A new build at DHS would have been the most-logical option. That park needs all the capacity it can get. MK is already full enough--it needs refurbishments of existing facilities above all else.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Guardians of the Galaxy coming to Energy Pavilion at Epcot
- Thread starter davis_unoxx
- Start date
- Status
True, but Magic Kingdom already has way more than enough visitors. Even if you increase overall park capacity by adding an attraction behind Monsters, Inc., I really wonder if the infrastructure could take another major attraction. At times, MK is already wall to wall people for the parades, castle show and fireworks, and lines are hugely long at the busses, monorails, and boats at closing times. If there's one park that doesn't need a new attraction, it's MK. Guardians definitely won't fit in Animal Kingdom, and Studios will probably be popular again once Star Wars and Pixar open. That leaves Epcot.
I agree that having it in Future World is an unwelcome IP invasion, but I am very very hopeful that they will at least use Peter Quill and Groot as tools to make a more enlightening statement than a simple rehash of the movie ala Nemo and Little Mermaid. If somehow they could fit it in with tech themes, or environmentalism, or something else sciency and uplifting, that would be far preferable. Again, too many IPs would leave many of us feeling as though our Disney vacation was a steady diet of cotton candy. A dose of substance beyond Livin' With the Land and Spaceship Earth would be appreciated.
My idea if you're going to IP it anyway: Have Quill and his friends host a trip to a black hole. You go and see it in all it's swirling gravitational glory, and then come back to Future World, only to find that it is now thirty years later. A moving panorama would be shown of Epcot with futuristic fashionable people walking around and a few new attractions mixed in with the old. Perhaps a planted guest could go along, one twin rides the ride with you while the other stays behind. And there's the other twin, looking old and forlorn on a bench upon your return--waiting for the twin brother or sister to come back. Oh no! Now you have to get back to the "present", and an adventure of some sort could get you back somehow. Personally, I'd love to see Dr. Who come in to save the day, but that might be an odd mixture of IPs. Maybe even Meet the Robinsons. Yeah, it'll be an IP, but you could now be teaching a bit more about space travel, the Theory of Relativity, and probably space propulsion. Perhaps even space elevators as seen by Arthur C. Clarke could be worked in.
Uplifting science and adventure using an IP as a tool, not a cheap rehash of the movie that most guests already have seen. C'mon Disney, if you're going to go the IP route, plus it, especially in the park that defined innovation.
Earl Sweatpants
Well-Known Member
This is a good point. If they insist on injecting IP's every which way, the LEAST they could do is utilize them in such a way that they're part of the edutainment instead of turning the attraction into the cliff notes of the movie/franchise. If the GotG characters were going to help teach people about energy use (much in the same way Disney used Bill and Ellen) that would be much better than a straight "movie-based" attraction.
Kamikaze
Well-Known Member
How do you know its not going to be like that? We know ZERO about the attraction.
It doesn't have to be 'energy'. It could be anything about 'Future' and still fit in Future World.
Earl Sweatpants
Well-Known Member
Obviously we don't know what it will be like...all I was saying is that since they seem so keen on IP overlays, the least they could do is make the IP fit the attraction rather than making the attraction fit the IP.
Incomudro
Well-Known Member
And no one really believes we will have space colonies, or sea colonies in the future.
This was a future as imagined in the 50's, 60's, 70's...
RobidaFlats
Well-Known Member
Is this sarcasm?
Incomudro
Well-Known Member
No.
Things are different today, and visions of the future are different today.
We really did believe that there would be undersea colonies and space colonies in existence by this point in time.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
Agreed. I would like to see them use GotG in an "edutainment" way if possible. But even in that case, they should not in any way feel compelled to have an "energy" theme if it doesn't work; there are plenty of other "future" concept that could be used and be in synch with more classic Epcot concepts.
That said, I'm skeptical it will be anything educational. I hope at the very least it is high quality, whatever we get.
RobidaFlats
Well-Known Member
While the timeline was obviously off, there is active work to colonize to space and the concept of undersea research facilities is not without merit. I would submit that such visions are not relegated to the past.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
While it's true that they are not relegated to the past, they have been moved way ahead of the foreseeable future, to far to be anything other then science fiction at this point.
Clamman73
Well-Known Member
For me as a teenager in the 80s, I absolutely 100% thought there would be those rotating space stations in 2010...was thinking how this period of time was so far away into the future and all that Horizons stuff was right there within reach...so maybe that hasn't happened, but then again, the 21st century isn't over yet...
Mike S
Well-Known Member
If I'm not mistaken Future World was all about the 21st century. Last I checked we're only 16 years into it.
This could be happening in only two years time.
http://www.space.com/32719-spacex-red-dragon-mars-missions-2018.html
That leaves 82 more years if we don't destroy ourselves first.
Oh yeah, these actually exist too.
Horizons78
Grade "A" Funny...
I think that really depends on whether the discussion is addressing the technological capability, or the desire of the general human population to get the job done.
Our technology is astounding compared to even 50 years ago, and the rate of invention and discovery continues to accelerate. While we haven't come up with a solution for launches other that liquid and chemical rocketry, that's not an inherent show stopper. We went to the moon that way, and the refinement of that craft has only increased in quality since then. In addition, the baton has been passed in many ways from NASA to independent companies who are addressing space flight from a capitalistic viewpoint - one that historically gets things done. No bucks, no Buck Rogers and so forth. I really do think we will be sneaking up on the ability quite rapidly at this point.
In regard to the general desire of the species to accomplish these tasks? Yikes! We truly, by majority, don't have the motivation required. There's a reason that necessity is the mother of invention. Those that live in parts of the world that would be considered stable and economically sound are exposed to a higher level of comfort and distraction than at any other point in history. To wit, here I am on an Internet message board discussing topics connected to a company that provides leisure and recreation. That's a bit crazy if you take the time to think about it, but I don't recommend it. Those that live in destabilized parts of the world often have more urgent necessities such as survival to worry about. Of what value is space exploration to anyone when framed in that scenario? Ultimately, in both cases, it's hard to attract or justify the needed consensus of will to move forward.
So then, technology? Check! Rapidly closing in on our goals. Our global society? Ehhh....needs some work, we'll get back to you on that one.
Sorry for the thread drift...Native Floridian space junky and proudly so!
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Space Junky... well, in a way, so am I. I am a strong believer that it was the space program that lit the fire of most of the advanced technology that we have today and without the space program we would still be asking the operator for a long distance call. I think it is a major mistake to not continue the efforts of NASA fully.I think that really depends on whether the discussion is addressing the technological capability, or the desire of the general human population to get the job done.
Our technology is astounding compared to even 50 years ago, and the rate of invention and discovery continues to accelerate. While we haven't come up with a solution for launches other that liquid and chemical rocketry, that's not an inherent show stopper. We went to the moon that way, and the refinement of that craft has only increased in quality since then. In addition, the baton has been passed in many ways from NASA to independent companies who are addressing space flight from a capitalistic viewpoint - one that historically gets things done. No bucks, no Buck Rogers and so forth. I really do think we will be sneaking up on the ability quite rapidly at this point.
In regard to the general desire of the species to accomplish these tasks? Yikes! We truly, by majority, don't have the motivation required. There's a reason that necessity is the mother of invention. Those that live in parts of the world that would be considered stable and economically sound are exposed to a higher level of comfort and distraction than at any other point in history. To wit, here I am on an Internet message board discussing topics connected to a company that provides leisure and recreation. That's a bit crazy if you take the time to think about it, but I don't recommend it. Those that live in destabilized parts of the world often have more urgent necessities such as survival to worry about. Of what value is space exploration to anyone when framed in that scenario? Ultimately, in both cases, it's hard to attract or justify the needed consensus of will to move forward.
So then, technology? Check! Rapidly closing in on our goals. Our global society? Ehhh....needs some work, we'll get back to you on that one.
Sorry for the thread drift...Native Floridian space junky and proudly so!
Horizons78
Grade "A" Funny...
Wish I could like your post more than once. Couldn't agree with you more.
Watching Dr. Tyson describe NASA's budget as represented as a sliver of an actual dollar bill was painful.
A world where NASA was fully funded -AND- private companies were battling it out? Well, I guess we really would have a great big beautiful tomorrow.
Matt_Black
Well-Known Member
You would think the way all the politicians tout the need for strong defense for America, NASA would get lots more money. After all, they're the ones who would blow up the meteors and asteroids. Also, aliens, maybe.
Andrew_Ryan
Well-Known Member
If only there was some way we could inspire this motivation within the very escapism those with means so often distract themselves with. Maybe some sort of...vacation spot or something...that combines recreation with education in an entertaining, engaging way...
....nah.
Horizons78
Grade "A" Funny...
Matt_Black
Well-Known Member
Fun fact- that movie is loosely based on the story of Liver-Eatin' Johnson, a man who once survived a winter practically naked while being hunted by Native Americans, armed with only a brave's severed leg, which served as both a weapon and food rations.
- Status