News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[Kman101]

I'm trying to track down this rumor that GotG will have cardboard cut outs, and I've traced it to your post here with a reference to 'painted flats'. But you're not quoting anyone. Where did you get the info that GotG will have painted flats?

Wasn't meaning to state it as a fact but did you miss the @marni1971 and @Mike S convo about the ride. It seemed to be implied that's what we're getting. I didn't just make it up lol

 

[MisterPenguin]

Wasn't meaning to state it as a fact but did you miss the @marni1971 and @Mike S convo about the ride. It seemed to be implied that's what we're getting. I didn't just make it up lol

I must've. Now I'll track that down. Or... <rubs magic lamp> O Great @marni1971! What dost thou say about flat cutouts in GotG?

 

[troy.]

From the TRON thread...

A combination dark ride/ coaster that didn't skimp on either element would be amazing. Is there any chance that GotG might fit this description?

Nope. It's a coaster. It'll have show, but dark ride is stretching it.

That's disappointing but not at all unexpected. Can you tell us if there will be inversions at least?

I can't say yet. You'd assume with the target demographic no.

So are we looking at something akin to Rock n' Roller as regards show elements? (I fully understand if you don't want to say)

It's looking possible.

So, painted flats?

You've got to be kidding.

The post load and launch area could be interesting.

I could care less that the attraction has cool queue, pre and post show elements. What people wait for is the ride itself. Everything else should be supplementary to the experience. Cardboard cutouts? 4 year construction time frame? Yikes. If I moved at that pace in my business it'd be a goner!

Edit: I'm talking about GotG

 

[marni1971]

Like I said, it should be interesting around the load to launch area. I can't go into specifics about inride visuals but I'm not overly excited.

It'll have a nice queue that's going to be the atypical fifteen miles long and well themed.

It's just in the wrong place.

 

[djkidkaz]

It's a coaster. There is only so much you can do that guests are going to be able to see in a fast paced coaster environment in the dark. People rave about space mountain which is basically pitch black with some lame disco ball star projections. No one complains about Aerosmith with its cardboard cutouts. Tron is raved about as this great attraction in Shanghai and it's basically an outdoor coaster with some very simple dark ride elements.

I would expect Guardians to be similar to Aerosmith in the sense it appears to have a launch into another building that is being built backstage, I would expect music onboard the trains and some light up effects inside for the coaster portion. I think it will differ in the sense that I am under the impression that it is using a different type of ride vehicle that positions you face down.

I guess we'll see when they tell us more.

 

[Casper Gutman]

It's a coaster. There is only so much you can do that guests are going to be able to see in a fast paced coaster environment in the dark. People rave about space mountain which is basically pitch black with some lame disco ball star projections. No one complains about Aerosmith with its cardboard cutouts. Tron is raved about as this great attraction in Shanghai and it's basically an outdoor coaster with some very simple dark ride elements.

I would expect Guardians to be similar to Aerosmith in the sense it appears to have a launch into another building that is being built backstage, I would expect music onboard the trains and some light up effects inside for the coaster portion. I think it will differ in the sense that I am under the impression that it is using a different type of ride vehicle that positions you face down.

I guess we'll see when they tell us more.

You can do a lot with a coaster if you want to. Imagine Gringotts with AAs and a wilder coaster portion - Mummy with more and longer show scenes - basically, a full dark ride and a full (but not too violent) coaster mash-up. Could you mix a coaster with a flight simulator - have the coaster move onto a simulator track? How about a combination coaster and free-fall? Busch Gardens Williamsburg has a ride that demonstrates one manifestation of that combo. There is NOTHING about the coaster format that prevents innovation. What is preventing innovation is Disney. And if they don't want to innovate with the coaster form, they shouldn't build them. WDW is relying on the truth that has maintained Six Flags for decades - a mildly thrilling coaster can mask the lack of imagination, innovation, clever show scenes, unique ride elements, etc.

As to the rides you listed - Space Mountain is a great ride, but much of the affection for it is based on nostalgia, the brilliance of its design, and its uniqueness. For a long time it was the only moderately thrilling coaster at WDW - no more, of course, since they're building 3 or 4 more, including a near duplicate next door. I love RnR but I don't LOVE RnR, and I think most people feel the same - when rides were threatened, a substantial majority were willing to give up RnR to save ToT or Ellen. I'd have given it up for GMR. or WoM, or Horizons, or Imagination, or Toad, or Snow White, or the Muppets, or... And I haven't heard that many raves about Tron, especially not compared to Shanghai's Pirates. I believe our insiders have said its the fifth most popular ride in the park.

Coasters are easy.

PS: It seems very likely that this flurry of coasters is predicated on WDW's recent move away from offering rides that can accommodate most body types.

 

[Coaster Lover]

Just a guess here... but I wouldn't be surprised to see the GotG ride incorporate a bunch of projection effects (not unlike Tron or Disneyland's HyperSpace Mountain)... possibly heavily relying on such effects allowing them to randomize the projections and possibly change the action slightly from ride to ride (not unlike DCA's Mission Breakout).

 

[Rescue Ranger]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but what would instantly make me more excited about this(not a big fan of the movies) would be if they used their original comic/animated counterparts instead of the actors who play them. Like how Spider-man is done in Universal.

Imagine if they used the live action counterparts for Spider-man? This way it would be forever lasting and be 'age-less'. Maybe popular now, but 10 years from now?

Adding in live-action versions work from time to time like with POTC, there will only ever be one Captain Jack. But with superheroes like Spidy, Xmen, Batman....that can get messy when actors change among other things.

 

[theGib95]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but what would instantly make me more excited about this(not a big fan of the movies) would be if they used their original comic/animated counterparts instead of the actors who play them. Like how Spider-man is done in Universal.

Imagine if they used the live action counterparts for Spider-man? This way it would be forever lasting and be 'age-less'. Maybe popular now, but 10 years from now?

Adding in live-action versions work from time to time like with POTC, there will only ever be one Captain Jack. But with superheroes like Spidy, Xmen, Batman....that can get messy when actors change among other things.

I think the point of the MCU is making the character's image important, the reaction when RDJr appears in a a movie, we know that is Iron Man.. etc... I think they want the look of the MCU Characters to leave a lasting impression, and at lease with Groot and Rocket the look doesn't have to change much... lol

 

[Mike S]

It's a coaster. There is only so much you can do that guests are going to be able to see in a fast paced coaster environment in the dark. People rave about space mountain which is basically pitch black with some lame disco ball star projections. No one complains about Aerosmith with its cardboard cutouts. Tron is raved about as this great attraction in Shanghai and it's basically an outdoor coaster with some very simple dark ride elements.

I would expect Guardians to be similar to Aerosmith in the sense it appears to have a launch into another building that is being built backstage, I would expect music onboard the trains and some light up effects inside for the coaster portion. I think it will differ in the sense that I am under the impression that it is using a different type of ride vehicle that positions you face down.

I guess we'll see when they tell us more.

RnRC is one of my least favorite rides and Space Mountain was built in 1975. The Mummy was built in 2004 and it looks like they're not even attempting to go to that level.

 

[Amidala]

You can do a lot with a coaster if you want to. Imagine Gringotts with AAs and a wilder coaster portion - Mummy with more and longer show scenes - basically, a full dark ride and a full (but not too violent) coaster mash-up. Could you mix a coaster with a flight simulator - have the coaster move onto a simulator track? How about a combination coaster and free-fall? Busch Gardens Williamsburg has a ride that demonstrates one manifestation of that combo. There is NOTHING about the coaster format that prevents innovation. What is preventing innovation is Disney. And if they don't want to innovate with the coaster form, they shouldn't build them. WDW is relying on the truth that has maintained Six Flags for decades - a mildly thrilling coaster can mask the lack of imagination, innovation, clever show scenes, unique ride elements, etc.

Really well said. This is basically where I'm at right now.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but what would instantly make me more excited about this(not a big fan of the movies) would be if they used their original comic/animated counterparts instead of the actors who play them. Like how Spider-man is done in Universal.

Imagine if they used the live action counterparts for Spider-man? This way it would be forever lasting and be 'age-less'. Maybe popular now, but 10 years from now?

Adding in live-action versions work from time to time like with POTC, there will only ever be one Captain Jack. But with superheroes like Spidy, Xmen, Batman....that can get messy when actors change among other things.

I'm also not a big fan of the movies and prefer the GOTG comic, but doing this just wouldn't be a lucrative decision for Disney. As it is, we're all well aware the Guardians have no place in Epcot–they're being shoehorned in (whether we like it or not) because TDO feel the recognizability of the MCU characters will be a huge draw for guests, and they're not wrong. The Marvel 616 GOTG wasn't popular w/ the casual fan, and none of them had even heard of Peter Quill & co. before the first movie dropped. Guests will be very disappointed if a ride is advertised as a GOTG coaster, and Chris Pratt doesn't show up in it.

Definitely agree that this theme might not have the same pull ten or twenty years from now (I think MCU GOTG is the exact opposite of a "timeless" franchise, but I know many would disagree w/ me there). But as people have said, a thrilling coaster is always going to attract huge lines, regardless of the IP attached–especially @ Epcot, where GOTG will be the first and only coaster.

There are just so many factors that make this disappointing. If the ride vehicle does position you face-down (like Superman at Six Flags), this would have been the perfect attraction for "flying" with Baymax–and BH6 is a movie that actually deserves representation at Epcot and fits the theming of FW perfectly. Even Iron Man is a character guests could have flown with who has a connection to futuristic technology & advancement, if TDO absolutely had to go w/ Marvel. And if the most pressing issue was the lack of a coaster at Epcot, original concepts (like the scrapped Mt. Fuji coaster in Epcot Japan, or the fan-proposed (?) rainforest/ecosystem coaster) would give Imagineers more room to play and experiment. I'm not against IPs as a rule, and I'm not even against IPs at Epcot (within reason) but this one stings. Aside from the fact that GOTG just doesn't fit, it also seems that in both cases (Mission: BREAKOUT and this upcoming GOTG coaster) Disney felt it didn't have to innovate or push boundaries w/ ride technology and immersion because the IP would do all the heavy lifting for them.

 

[Casper Gutman]

It will be very interesting to see how Uni's new Forbidden Forest Coaster compares to GotG - and the 2 or three other coasters WDW is building.

 

[Mike S]

It will be very interesting to see how Uni's new Forbidden Forest Coaster compares to GotG - and the 2 or three other coasters WDW is building.

Add in Donkey Kong for good measure to Universal's side.

 

[larryz]

they could do something really cool like Guardians of Energy, but wouldn't count on it.

More likely it's going to be "Guardians of the Executive Bonuses."

 

[Amidala]

Add in Donkey Kong for good measure to Universal's side.

Oh, wow...If this concept is legit, it'll really give Disney a run for its money. Between this and the rumored Mario Kart attraction, I can't wait to see what Nintendo World will look like (and how the castles in Hyrule and the Mushroom Kingdom will compare to existing Disney castles, if those rumors pan out). Hopefully Nintendo & the new HP coaster will take immersion in thrill rides to the next level and drive Disney to do the same. Although I wish Disney was already headed in this direction w/o prompting...it's a shame that competition will need to force their hand.

 

[Andrew C]

Although I wish Disney was already headed in this direction w/o prompting...it's a shame that competition will need to force their hand.

What are Pandora and SWL then? I guess you could argue they have already been prompted to head in "that direction" several years ago....

 

[Amidala]

What are Pandora and SWL then? I guess you could argue they have already been prompted several years ago....

Oh, I'm not saying Disney hasn't been innovative at all in recent years! I'm talking specifically about immersive coasters/thrill rides. The rumored Universal coasters seem to push boundaries (and simulate "immersion" in an environment) much more than the Disney coasters coming to WDW. I think Disney really dropped the ball on this; Universal obviously creates more thrilling, intense coasters, but Disney excels at telling a story...

Although I would say Pandora and SWL are a direct response to WWOHP @ Universal. Doesn't make these lands any less fantastic for what they are. Competition drives innovation and all that.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Oh, I'm not saying Disney hasn't been innovative at all in recent years! I'm talking specifically about immersive coasters/thrill rides. The rumored Universal coasters seem to push boundaries (and simulate "immersion" in an environment) much more than the Disney coasters coming to WDW. I think Disney really dropped the ball on this; Universal obviously creates more thrilling, intense coasters, but Disney excels at telling a story...

Although I would say Pandora and SWL are a direct response to WWOHP @ Universal. Doesn't make these lands any less fantastic for what they are. Competition drives innovation and all that.

But see...shouldn't now be the perfect time for Disney to step away from the IP driven, Universal model of themed attractions and do something totally original and innovative to not only prove that they're superior at quality than Uni, but can also come up with their own concepts without relying on franchises?

Sadly, we still have a CEO that only cares about money and franchise recognizability. But one can dream.

 

[Amidala]

But see...shouldn't now be the perfect time for Disney to step away from the IP driven, Universal model of themed attractions and do something totally original and innovative to not only prove that they're superior at quality than Uni, but can also come up with their own concepts without relying on franchises?

Sadly, we still have a CEO that only cares about money and franchise recognizability. But one can dream.

I don't think a unique, immersive attraction that merges thrills with story necessary needs to be tied to an IP? It obviously can be (Splash Mountain is a perfect example of this), but I'm talking about competition on the basis of ride technology, not theming. I think another important point to make here is that both Universal and Disney have made recent attempts at immersive thrill rides (7DMT, Expedition Everest in A-Mode and Journey to the Center of the Earth from Disney, Gringotts over at Universal), this isn't a concept exclusive to Universal. And I think if Disney were to really embrace adding multiple dark-ride scenes to a coaster, it could easily outperform Gringotts, and maybe even Revenge of the Mummy, in a way that's unique, inventive and true to the spirit of Disney. Very few ideas are 100% unique, it's all in the execution.

That aside, I still fall somewhere in the middle on IPs. Obviously I agree that Iger has leaned on IPs to a ridiculous extent, but I don't think IP-based rides are inherently uncreative, or that these kinds of efforts should be abandoned completely! I think there's a place for IP-based lands at the parks. Universal may have started the trend, but Disney has put its own spin on this & will continue to. I'd love to see more original rides (especially dark-rides) going forward, but don't begrudge the addition of IP-based rides like MMRR that promise to push the envelope and bring something new to the table. GOTG...is another story.

 

[*Q*]

I mean no disrespect with my below commentary because I consider myself kind of in the middle of this argument, but I don't see the original purpose of the park as ever being effective in the long term. From all I understand about the design and purpose attempting to be a permanent worlds fair, I think the fact that the last worlds fair to be hosted in the United States (1984) ended in bankruptcy should show even on the short term (2 months) that this is not viable long term venture.
Part of how the Fair's even remained viable were the fact that goverments pushed money into private corporations as a lure to promote demonstrations in progress in different fields. Without this, they never would have gotten involved in the first place. The last even marginally successful worlds fair also benefited greatly from the fact that television was in its infancy, with advertising being a premium. From the 1990's on the business community largely left, leaving Disney as a creative force without the people creating the new technologies actually being involved. Disney is good at telling stories, they are not good however at understanding and explaining complex subject matter without it kind of being done for them.
I work in the energy industry directly, and can with zero prejudice that the attraction that was in that building did as much to represent the field of engineering and energy production as would an episode of the Smurfs. It was an Exxon ad with some leftover dinosaur robots that did little but perpetuate a long ago disproven myth that our oil supply was created by the the dinosaurs.
I do agree there is a place for all of this stuff somewhere, but looking around as a basic citizen observer, I don't see a population that is longing to understand the physical universe. I need to do little more than turn on my television to see that. For better or worse, that is the demographics that people which create tourist destinations are forced to work with.

I very much appreciate a post like this rather than one that basically amounts to "GET OVER IT NERD EPCOT IS DEAD 5EVER!"

There is every chance you are right about the viability of a permanent World's Fair-style park. EPCOT Center was certainly very successful for the first ten years or so, but then the park suffered the simultaneous double whammy of losing sponsors and Disney/Eisner losing the will to drop big bucks on the parks (not to mention Eisner not really seeming to "get" EPCOT to begin with). So, unfortunately, there's no real telling how well the park might be doing now had they adhered to the parks vision and a reasonable amount of investment. As for the inquisitiveness of the general population, I'm a bit more optimistic in that regard. I think we tend to get kind of an exaggeration of the overall stupidity of people through the news and Twitter and Facebook and all that stuff. you never hear about when someone makes it to work okay without incident, but you hear about it all the time whenever someone follows their GPS into a lake or something. You hear about that kind of stuff enough and the masses tend to get compressed down into one-dimensional stereotypes.

You're absolutely correct about the influence of corporations on the subject matter of some of the pavilions, although I would argue that it was only severely detrimental with Energy, marginally detrimental with World of Motion and The Land, and negligible on everything else. But even with the Universe of Energy, the problem was always with the content and not necessarily so much the format. If Disney was willing to spend their own money on updating it themselves every few years, figure out something just as immersive and epic to replace the dinosaur diorama with, add some cool effects (instead of taking them away like Ellen's Energy Adventure did), and barely breathe a word about fossil fuels beyond that we need to ween ourselves off of them, they could have really had something special on their hands.