News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[MrPromey]

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.

And why shouldn't they?

The general public are not all designers, artists, or general contractors. Why should they be expected to understand the difference between concept art in advertising vs an accurate depiction of what is going to be coming in advertising?

Ever seen a trailer for a movie and been disappointed when a scene from the trailer (one of the things that made you want to pay to see the movie in the first place) ends up not even being in the movie because that scene ended up getting cut? Ever feel a little cheated by that?

You're right that we don't know if concept art is accurate to what they're planning or not which is why they should not be putting it out there and saying "THIS IS WHAT WE'RE PLANNING".

It isn't like the concept art is mysteriously getting leaked or anything - they're putting it out there to promote things.

I mean, we're talking about one of the biggest companies in the world, it's not like this is a first-time builder trying to get a Kickstarter going. I can't think of one other major company as guilty of showing clear illustrations of things to come and then producing something much more lackluster.

If you don't actually know what you're going to build, don't show people stuff you know there's a greater than 50% chance won't happen and tell them that's what you're building. Just talk about it and stick to glimpses of what you are building as it's happening* to create hype if you're going to spend half a decade on something.

Again, I don't think it's the public's repsonsobility to figure out what is and isn't real in Disney's marketing messages.

People who obsess over this to that level are creating their own disappointment- that’s not Disney (or any other operators) fault.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The concept art is still the most complete picture Disney themselves has released to the public about what this attraction entails and a lot of it's wrong.

People will still be planning trips based on what they see in that not knowing that poor Disney had to cut budgets and rework things.

Sorry but when a company promotes something, doesn't deliver on what they originally promoted and then just kind of keeps quiet about the discrepancy, I think they deserve all the negative attention such behavior earns them.

Maybe that makes me seem crazy to you but it's not like we can show up at the gate to get in and be like "Okay, I know tickets are $125 but my budget got in the way and I only have $90. I don't need to see all of Epcot but can I at least do that cool new Guardians ride with the animatronic Rocket and Groot?"


*I know they do this, too, but once they've pushed the concept art on the public, of course that's what people are expecting from the end product.

 

[donsullivan]

And why shouldn't they?

Ever seen a trailer for a movie and been disappointed when a scene from the trailer (one of the things that made you want to pay to see the movie in the first place) ends up not even being in the movie because that scene ended up getting cut? Ever feel a little cheated by that?

You're right that we don't know if concept art is accurate to what they're planning or not which is why they should not be putting it out there and saying "THIS IS WHAT WE'RE PLANNING".

I mean, we're talking about one of the biggest companies in the world, it's not like this is a first-time builder trying to get a Kickstarter going.

If you don't actually know what you're going to build, don't show people stuff you know there's a greater than 50% chance won't happen and tell them that's what you're building.

Again, I don't think it's the public's repsonsobility to figure out what is and isn't real in Disney's marketing messages.



I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The concept art is still the most complete picture Disney themselves has released to the public about what this attraction entails and a lot of it's wrong.

People will still be planning trips based on what they see in that not knowing that poor Disney had to cut budgets and rework things.

Sorry but when a company promotes something, doesn't deliver on what they originally promoted and then just kind of keeps quiet about the discrepancy, I think they deserve all the negative attention such behavior earns them.

Maybe that makes me seem crazy to you but it's not like we can show up at the gate to get in and be like "Okay, I know tickets are $125 but my budget got in the way and I only have $90. I don't need to see all of Epcot but can I at least do that cool new Guardians ride with the animatronic Rocket and Groot?"

You touched on an important thing here that gets muddled in these dialogs. More often than not, it’s not that the total budget for an attraction that gets cut as many a narrative would try and make you believe, it’s that components of the program end up costing more than they were projected to and need to be simplified or ‘value engineered’ (I hate that phrase) in order to keep the project on budget. If a show element was projected to cost $2M when the project was budgeted and then you send it out for bids and it comes back at $10M (trust me, that happens a lot) you have to do something to rework the scene to get back on budget. That is not a budget cut, it’s adjusting the design to fit within the budget which is a very, very different thing.

It’s a totally different dialog than the totally legitimate discussion that Imagineering costs too much and takes too long to do absolutely everything they do. It’s become ingrained culture that absolutely needs to be fixed and soon. Many believe that is one of the big drivers for the move to Lake Nona. It’s nearly impossible to fix a culture in place, the best way to do it is a major relocation and start over again building the new culture you want and need for the success of the organization.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The general public are not all designers, artists, or general contractors. Why should they be expected to understand the difference between concept art in advertising vs an accurate depiction of what is going to be coming in advertising?

This has become even more true as the distinctions have become blurred. For several years now Disney has released pieces of “concept art” that are the “blueprints”.

 

[MrPromey]

You touched on an important thing here that gets muddled in these dialogs. More often than not, it’s not that the total budget for an attraction that gets cut as many a narrative would try and make you believe, it’s that components of the program end up costing more than they were projected to and need to be simplified or ‘value engineered’ (I hate that phrase) in order to keep the project on budget. If a show element was projected to cost $2M when the project was budgeted and then you send it out for bids and it comes back at $10M (trust me, that happens a lot) you have to do something to rework the scene to get back on budget. That is not a budget cut, it’s adjusting the design to fit within the budget which is a very, very different thing.

That's reasonable and understandable.

It’s a totally different dialog than the totally legitimate discussion that Imagineering costs too much and takes too long to do absolutely everything they do. It’s become ingrained culture that absolutely needs to be fixed and soon. Many believe that is one of the big drivers for the move to Lake Nona. It’s nearly impossible to fix a culture in place, the best way to do it is a major relocation and start over again building the new culture you want and need for the success of the organization.

The thing I scratch my head about with this is with so much outsourced these days, why does it cost them so much and take them so long? I know Disney has a reputation for being a PITA for partners because they'll come in wanting certain things a certain way and be insistent on that. Back in the day that was to produce something like nothing you've ever seen before but with the current generation, it seems to be hubris that in a lot of cases is producing lackluster results.

At least, that's how it seems to me.


Also, as an aside, Disney loves to show off stuff such as a lifelike baby Groot android they're doing "research" on to really drive home the advanced stuff they're busy working on. Is it that unreasonable for people to expect something kind of like this to make an appearance in the only known attraction under development using the IP that character is from?

I mean, it's great they have that little guy in a lab somewhere collecting dust. Think we'll see that kind of tech showing up in the upcoming Princess and the Frog overlay?

 

[Bocabear]

Don't you think though by the time they release a piece of concept art to the public and start hyping it, that they have already gotten bids back and funded whatever project it is?.. I feel certain that when they release the marketing, they have already figured it out and have the final plans done... Then later they decide to value engineer what they have already been putting out there...

 

[lazyboy97o]

Don't you think though by the time they release a piece of concept art to the public and start hyping it, that they have already gotten bids back and funded whatever project it is?.. I feel certain that when they release the marketing, they have already figured it out and have the final plans done... Then later they decide to value engineer what they have already been putting out there...

No, Disney often makes their initial announcement and marketing rather early during the design process.

 

[mergatroid]

You'd think it would be easy enough to change concept art once they're aware that any original ideas were missing. I don't think Disney's the only company to not do so but for the sake of those who expect an exact replica of the original rendering, there'll always be disappointment if it's not done.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You'd think it would be easy enough to change concept art once they're aware that any original ideas were missing. I don't think Disney's the only company to not do so but for the sake of those who expect an exact replica of the original rendering, there'll always be disappointment if it's not done.

The complaint isn’t that it’s not an exact replica but big ideas being removed.

 

[mergatroid]

The complaint isn’t that it’s not an exact replica but big ideas being removed.

That's why I said

You'd think it would be easy enough to change concept art once they're aware that any original ideas were missing

 

[Casper Gutman]

Also, this isn’t a situation where we had a lot of concept art and a few elements here and there deviated from the final product. The piece of concept art being discussed was, as far as I know, THE single piece of artwork from the interior of the ride, used over and over in PR material during the many, many years the ride was under construction. And it’s easy to see why - however fun the coaster may be, the visuals inside the queue and preshow are decidedly uninteresting, uninspired, and unGuardians. This single piece of art was used to create a false impression long after the elements it depicted were cut.

Another component of the problem is that Disney announces rides YEARS in advance even of groundbreaking in an effort to milk every… last… bit… of PR excitement from every addition, stretching hype over six or seven years and deflecting criticism for not building more. Uni, on the other hand, tends not to announce rides until they are well into construction - indeed, not until everyone already knows what is buying built because they can see the physical evidence of it. That’s an approach that seems both more honest and less exploitative.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

Another component of the problem is that Disney announces rides YEARS in advance even of groundbreaking in an effort to milk every… last… bit… of PR excitement from every addition, stretching hype over six or seven years and deflecting criticism for not building more. Uni, on the other hand, tends not to announce rides until they are well into construction - indeed, not until everyone already knows what is buying built because they can see the physical evidence of it. That’s an approach that seems both more honest and less exploitative.

I mean... Comcast is known for its impeccable customer service. So, them being more honest and less exploitative is expected... How could Disney possibly compete...

 

[Vinnie Mac]

*I know they do this, too, but once they've pushed the concept art on the public, of course that's what people are expecting from the end product.

I think the point is that people need to learn to not do that and always take the concept art as an early vision of the project.

 

[Bocabear]

Well if it becomes general knowledge that the concept art really does not represent what they are marketing, it will stop people from listening or watching when they make a publicity announcement... Unfortunately though, sometimes the released art is pretty accurate...like the Riviera Resort is every bit as bland as it's concept art promised...

 

[lazyboy97o]

Well if it becomes general knowledge that the concept art really does not represent what they are marketing, it will stop people from listening or watching when they make a publicity announcement... Unfortunately though, sometimes the released art is pretty accurate...like the Riviera Resort is every bit as bland as it's concept art promised...

The Riviera “concept art” is an example of the actual “blueprints” being used for the art.

 

[Bocabear]

The Riviera “concept art” is an example of the actual “blueprints” being used for the art.

I know...but I remember many people defending it saying that it was just a dummy image and the actual hotel was going to be so much nicer...lol

 

[MrPromey]

I think the point is that people need to learn to not do that and always take the concept art as an early vision of the project.

Point taken - you apparently think Disney bears no responsibility for how they market things.

We'll agree to disagree here.

 

[MrPromey]

No, Disney often makes their initial announcement and marketing rather early during the design process.

Sort of like the Princess and the Frog overlay where it's become clear they basically had nothing finalized but the decision to make a change when they came forward with that one.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

Sort of like the Princess and the Frog overlay where it's become clear they basically had nothing finalized but the decision to make a change when they came forward with that one.

Or when Phineas and Ferb took over Imagination plaza..
Image from Theme Park Conection

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Or when Phineas and Ferb took over Imagination plaza..

Was this supposed to be a thing?

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

Was this supposed to be a thing?

At one point...But, it never happened..Unsure if It was to re-imagine the entire pavillion...I do however get a kick that the one woman is supposed to be the woman from the 80's section in SSE..Perhaps there was a plan to have a face character for her as well..