News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
You can see plenty of the sides and backsides of FW buildings from World Showcase. Every time someone complains about the fully architecturally designed Swan and Dolphin being seen from WS, I tell them to turn around and look at the big ol' slab of TestTrack building hulking over Mexico.
Every FW pavilion except Space was designed to be seen from any angle.
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
Yes. The Eiffel Tower in France is one area of WDW where the forced perspective never worked for me. I'm not sure if it is the Swan, though since it happens from other directions as well. Instead of looking like the Eiffel tower in the distance, it just looks like a small Eiffel tower on top of the buildings to me.
The Eiffel Tower never worked all that well, even back when there was nothing on the horizon behind it but jungle. The design doesn't really pull of the intended effect.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Yes. The Eiffel Tower in France is one area of WDW where the forced perspective never worked for me. I'm not sure if it is the Swan, though since it happens from other directions as well. Instead of looking like the Eiffel tower in the distance, it just looks like a small Eiffel tower on top of the buildings to me.
The Eiffel Tower never worked all that well, even back when there was nothing on the horizon behind it but jungle. The design doesn't really pull of the intended effect.
I think part of the problem is that, in order to fully convey what you are seeing, you see too much of the tower. The main pavilion would have to be much smaller than it is in order to see that much of the tower so far away. It will be interesting to see if anything is done to make the illusion more successful with people walking along the back side of the pavilion.
 

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
I think part of the problem is that, in order to fully convey what you are seeing, you see too much of the tower. The main pavilion would have to be much smaller than it is in order to see that much of the tower so far away. It will be interesting to see if anything is done to make the illusion more successful with people walking along the back side of the pavilion.
It doesn't matter how you do it; trying to simulate a 1000-foot tall structure is quite challenging. But how do you build a France pavilion without the Eiffel Tower? The Arc de Triomphe would have been easier to pull off but less recognizable.
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
I think part of the problem is that, in order to fully convey what you are seeing, you see too much of the tower. The main pavilion would have to be much smaller than it is in order to see that much of the tower so far away. It will be interesting to see if anything is done to make the illusion more successful with people walking along the back side of the pavilion.
I think the designers did that on purpose. The visitor can't very well see just the top of the tower, he won't be able to recognise it, nor would even be aware of its presence. Smaller buildings leave too little to work with and are ill-fitting to a Parisian scale. Perhaps they settled on the best solution to an insolvable issue then.

For me, another problem is one of detail, and possibly paint scheme. There isn't enough detail on the tower, it looks like an antenna. With miniaturised detail and more theatrical paint perhaps an illusion of distance and scale can be achieved.

The two issues are related: how to convey an illusion of a large tower in the distance with a small tower up close?

Dreamflight incidentally had a great alternative solution, although one that may not have been feasible in WS.

The backside will be interesting indeed.
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter how you do it; trying to simulate a 1000-foot tall structure is quite challenging. But how do you build a France pavilion without the Eiffel Tower? The Arc de Triomphe would have been easier to pull off but less recognizable.
But if you can not pull something off, then you could reconsider building it.

The Eiffel Tower would surely rank as the world's most recognisable icon. It would be a prime choice for a France pavilion, and its presence and execution have never bothered me. But there are countless other ways to build a France pavilion. There is no Big Ben in the UK, and no Eiffel in DLP's Ratworld either. No Great Wall, Colosseum, Empire State Building, Neuschwanstein.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
You can see plenty of the sides and backsides of FW buildings from World Showcase. Every time someone complains about the fully architecturally designed Swan and Dolphin being seen from WS, I tell them to turn around and look at the big ol' slab of TestTrack building hulking over Mexico.

Every FW pavilion except Space was designed to be seen from any angle.

So the design was a big silvery block from all angles?

upload_2017-10-5_11-13-47.png
 

sedati

Well-Known Member
Every FW pavilion except Space was designed to be seen from any angle.
I'd group Space, Land, Imagination, and Wonders of Life together as beautiful facades tacked onto simple, functional buildings. Most of what we can't see of Imagination is nothing but a big blue box.
Also, not sure if it was hurricane related, but I did notice that the Test Track building was looking rough when seen from World Showcase last month.
 
Last edited:

brb1006

Well-Known Member
Dang. How tall is the existing UOE building?

Maybe this will be an awesome rollercoaster, and I'll keep an open mind, but I am highly skeptical of being "wowed" by a rollercoaster with basically no show scenes in Epcot. Maybe this is something I'll have to get over, but no matter how great the ride is, I don't think I'll get off it saying "I was wrong, I am glad they put this in Epcot!".
I'm having a feeling this might have to do with Universal's future themed roller coaster located in Islands Of Adventure after the closure of Dragon Challenge and this might be Disney's answer.
 

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
What architectural elements are different or lesser in that view than the entry side? The form and finishes are the same. How is it not “fully architecturally designed”?

I guess in the future I'll have to clarify: "We can see the side of TestTrack from World Showcase just like the Swolphin, only in the case of Test Track, its designed goal of being fully architecturally designed when viewed from anywhere in the park is a giant fail design-wise considering the design is just a slab of silvery circular building."
 

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

Back
Top Bottom