News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

No Name

No Name

Well-Known Member
Casper Gutman said:
The animatronic is very nice, but man - Disney continues to underwhelm at making theme park attractions based on the most successful IP in film history. It's genuinely worrying - Disney parks have gone all in on IPs AND have the greatest IP in the world to work with, yet have produced NOTHING innovative or spectacular. In fact, with Avengers Campus, they managed to turn that IP into perhaps the worst land Disney ever built. At some point, its not just a failure of management or corporate structure, its also a fundamental failure of Imagineering.

Universal's Spider-Man continues to shame anything Disney has done with the IP. That's made even worse by the fact that not only is the ride 23 years old, but when the attraction was designed and built Marvel WASN'T the most powerful IP in the history of pop culture, it was the publisher of an incredibly niche media that had been precipitously declining in popularity for years and was almost certainly about to disappear permanently into bankruptcy - yet Universal turned that ailing, almost extinct property into one of the greatest rides in theme park history.
Click to expand...
I think they’ve been particularly bad once Scot Drake took over as lead (same guy who led the Tron coaster design). They all seem to overlook details, lack a compelling story, and come off as cold. Not sure how much I should blame the person at the top but it’s hard to ignore the similar flaws a lot of these attractions have.

Scot is a cool name though. The second t is just redundant.
 
wdwmagic

wdwmagic

Administrator
Moderator
Premium Member
Original Poster

Dedication plaque added to the Wonders of Xandar Pavilion at EPCOT​

www.wdwmagic.com

Dedication plaque added to the Wonders of Xandar Pavilion at EPCOT

Finishing touches are still be added to EPCOT's Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind.
www.wdwmagic.com www.wdwmagic.com

Guardians-of-the-Galaxy_Full_47955.jpg
 
Last edited:
MrPromey

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
Casper Gutman said:
The animatronic is very nice, but man - Disney continues to underwhelm at making theme park attractions based on the most successful IP in film history. It's genuinely worrying - Disney parks have gone all in on IPs AND have the greatest IP in the world to work with, yet have produced NOTHING innovative or spectacular. In fact, with Avengers Campus, they managed to turn that IP into perhaps the worst land Disney ever built. At some point, its not just a failure of management or corporate structure, its also a fundamental failure of Imagineering.

Universal's Spider-Man continues to shame anything Disney has done with the IP. That's made even worse by the fact that not only is the ride 23 years old, but when the attraction was designed and built Marvel WASN'T the most powerful IP in the history of pop culture, it was the publisher of an incredibly niche media that had been precipitously declining in popularity for years and was almost certainly about to disappear permanently into bankruptcy - yet Universal turned that ailing, almost extinct property into one of the greatest rides in theme park history.
Click to expand...

I think they expect the IP to do the heavy lifting these days.

Works for Six Flags with DC, right?

Oh wait, Six Flags actually made a more complete attraction with Justice League than Disney managed to do with Spiderman.*



*Their animatronics aren't exactly top notch but at least they have 'em... along with actual physical sets and dimensionality on the ride.



_
 
Last edited:
donsullivan

donsullivan

Premium Member
Casper Gutman said:
But so were Groot and Rocket AAs and a much more elaborate preshow, so concept art is worth next to nothing, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Concept art is nothing more than than that- it’s just a concept of what they’re thinking of at the time the image was created. Then the reality of actually building something comes into the mix and you get quotes from fabricators and you realize the project budget can’t afford what was in the concept art so you go back to the drawing board to ‘simplify’ the design to keep it within the budget. It happens on every single park and attraction ever built by every single operator and fabricator in the industry. I’ll never understand why people get so fixated on every detail of ‘concept art’ and obsess about everything in the image that didn’t arrive in the final attraction. Projects have budgets, no matter who is building it.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
donsullivan said:
Concept art is nothing more than than that- it’s just a concept of what they’re thinking of at the time the image was created. Then the reality of actually building something comes into the mix and you get quotes from fabricators and you realize the project budget can’t afford what was in the concept art so you go back to the drawing board to ‘simplify’ the design to keep it within the budget. It happens on every single park and attraction ever built by every single operator and fabricator in the industry. I’ll never understand why people get so fixated on every detail of ‘concept art’ and obsess about everything in the image that didn’t arrive in the final attraction. Projects have budgets, no matter who is building it.
Click to expand...
Concept art is not just concept art. It is made through all phases of design, well beyond the actual concept design phase. The idea that a few animatronics were too much for the world’s most expensive attraction, especially when one had already been designed for a project with less than ¼ of the budget, is laughable. This project was the closest thing any team has ever had to there being no budget.
 
trainplane3

trainplane3

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
Concept art is not just concept art. It is made through all phases of design, well beyond the actual concept design phase. The idea that a few animatronics were too much for the world’s most expensive attraction, especially when one had already been designed for a project with less than ¼ of the budget, is laughable. This project was the closest thing any team has ever had to there being no budget.
Click to expand...
I really wonder where the money went. It's fun and neat but it doesn't make sense it's half billion. Preshow has the lifting walls, entrance has a pointy thing and projector, ride has screens everywhere. The warehouse wasn't that much for sure. Was it the price of demo and updating of the UoE building?

I'm just curious what the costs were.
 
MrPromey

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
donsullivan said:
Concept art is nothing more than than that- it’s just a concept of what they’re thinking of at the time the image was created. Then the reality of actually building something comes into the mix and you get quotes from fabricators and you realize the project budget can’t afford what was in the concept art so you go back to the drawing board to ‘simplify’ the design to keep it within the budget. It happens on every single park and attraction ever built by every single operator and fabricator in the industry. I’ll never understand why people get so fixated on every detail of ‘concept art’ and obsess about everything in the image that didn’t arrive in the final attraction. Projects have budgets, no matter who is building it.
Click to expand...

The problem comes into play when a company wants to use concept art for marketing purposes to build hype while they spend years building something, especially when they know full well during various stages of construction that things have changed and continue to lead the public to believe that what they're showing will be what people get to experience.

The general public doesn't understand the real purpose behind concept art or all of the steps that come after it, nor should they - that's not their job.

In most situations, the general public never sees the inaccurate concept art until maybe years later when it gets published in a book or ends up in a museum somewhere.

Disney's the only company I know of that shows it off the way they do. I guess they feel they have to since it takes them so long from initial announcement to actual opening of their modern attractions.
 
Cmdr_Crimson

Cmdr_Crimson

Well-Known Member
donsullivan said:
Concept art is nothing more than than that- it’s just a concept of what they’re thinking of at the time the image was created. Then the reality of actually building something comes into the mix and you get quotes from fabricators and you realize the project budget can’t afford what was in the concept art so you go back to the drawing board to ‘simplify’ the design to keep it within the budget. It happens on every single park and attraction ever built by every single operator and fabricator in the industry. I’ll never understand why people get so fixated on every detail of ‘concept art’ and obsess about everything in the image that didn’t arrive in the final attraction. Projects have budgets, no matter who is building it.
Click to expand...
lazyboy97o said:
Concept art is not just concept art. It is made through all phases of design, well beyond the actual concept design phase. The idea that a few animatronics were too much for the world’s most expensive attraction, especially when one had already been designed for a project with less than ¼ of the budget, is laughable. This project was the closest thing any team has ever had to there being no budget.
Click to expand...
Hyperion Wharf is a good example on that .
hqdefault.jpg
 
donsullivan

donsullivan

Premium Member
MrPromey said:
The problem comes into play when a company wants to use concept art for marketing purposes to build hype while they spend years building something, especially when they know full well during various stages of construction that things have changed and continue to lead the public to believe that what they're showing will be what people get to experience.

The general public doesn't understand the real purpose behind concept art or all of the steps that come after it, nor should they - that's not their job.

In most situations, the general public never sees the inaccurate concept art until maybe years later when it gets published in a book or ends up in a museum somewhere.

Disney's the only company I know of that shows it off the way they do. I guess they feel they have to since it takes them so long from initial announcement to actual opening of their modern attractions.
Click to expand...
The problem is introduced when the fanbase treats concept art as if it’s an architectural plan. Then they project forward and create a narrative all on their own and get disappointed when the product delivered doesn’t match their projection. Unless you were a part of the project you don’t know whether the ‘concept art’ was accurate to what they were planning at the time or not. It might have been what they had in mind but budgets got in the way and they had to rework things. People who obsess over this to that level are creating their own disappointment- that’s not Disney (or any other operators) fault.

And if we want to focus on ‘marketing message’ have you ever had a Wendy’s hamburger that looks like the one in the ads? I sure haven’t. That’s what marketing is all about- generating interest in your product, not providing detailed designs and plans of the product.
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom