News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[PizzaPlanet]

Any angle from inside the park. You can't see those angles from inside.

Yes. Though you're being pedantic with aerial shots. Want me to rephrase it "any angle from the ground"?

I don't think you can see the back of Mission: Space from the ground either. That's the point I was trying to make from those shots. I could be remembering incorrectly though, you obviously know more than me!

 

[marni1971]

Then why the issue specifically with Mission Space? I didn't go out of my way looking for bad views, but what do we see of its unimaginative backside?

Space is a standard warehouse with no finishings behind the facade. It was the first new build in Futureworld not to adhere to the original rule.

Every other building was designed to be seen from front, side and back from ground level or monorail level.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Space is a standard warehouse with no finishings behind the facade. It was the first new build in Futureworld not to adhere to the original rule.

Every other building was designed to be seen from front, side and back from ground level or monorail level.

Uhh....

 

[marni1971]

Uhh....

View attachment 236048

View attachment 236049

View attachment 236050

And?

You like Google Earth don't you? I'm sure I could use it to find a bad angle of Buckingham Palace. Or the Taj Mahal.

 

[ABQ]

Oh come on, Monsieur Penguin, were those not backstage views? I don't think @marni1971 was implying backstage as well as on stage ground level. and if you're going to poke around behind the WoL, try to find the infamous monorail footing.

 

[MisterPenguin]

And?

You like Google Earth don't you? I'm sure I could use it to find a bad angle of Buckingham Palace. Or the Taj Mahal.

And I just used Google Earth earlier to show how the gravity building won't be an eyesore from the park. I'm not using that tool to hammer an anti-WDW agenda.

However, you're the one doubling down on "designed to be seen from front, side and back from ground level or monorail level." And that's clearly not the case, at least, not now.

If those buildings originally had a clean backstage exterior, then you'd be correct, and over time, backstage necessities added un-designed boxy trailers and utilities, destroying that original intent. Although, I might argue that if they didn't anticipate those utilitarian backstage necessities, then that was a failure in the original design as well as not following through on that original intent.

 

[shortstop]

And I just used Google Earth earlier to show how the gravity building won't be an eyesore from the park. I'm not using that tool to hammer an anti-WDW agenda.

However, you're the one doubling down on "designed to be seen from front, side and back from ground level or monorail level." And that's clearly not the case, at least, not now.

If those buildings originally had a clean backstage exterior, then you'd be correct, and over time, backstage necessities added un-designed boxy trailers and utilities, destroying that original intent. Although, I might argue that if they didn't anticipate those utilitarian backstage necessities, then that was a failure in the original design as well as not following through on that original intent.

I think he means meant to be seen from any angle inside the park that a guest may see.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

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.

Good man, simple, functional buildings!?

Look beyond the mess of modern layers, for there lies EPCOT Center, the most divine place ever built by the hand of man!

Here are my personal holiday pictures. A few of 'nothing but a big blue box' Imagination, by no means the most accomplished pavilion, but still of great beauty. Even though I'm the world's worst photographer, these are actually part of my current desktop wallpaper set ^_^ :

Bonus, Energy. While we can:

 

[lazyboy97o]

Then why the issue specifically with Mission Space? I didn't go out of my way looking for bad views, but what do we see of its unimaginative backside?

Mission: SPACE is very much a single plane. It’s really only intended to be viewed from directly in front. Even at a technical level, the orbs and sphere are a separate building.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Mission: Space's architecture reflects the attraction: in itself it is good, very good even. But it has no relationship with its surroundings, or with EPCOT Center.

 

[sedati]

Here are my personal holiday pictures. A few of 'nothing but a big blue box' Imagination, by no means the most accomplished pavilion, but still of great beauty.

Very nice photographs of a lovely pavilion (though that glass looks filthy.) But I think you may have misread what you actually quoted me on saying as can and not can’t. This has been a discussion on the claim that certain buildings were designed to be themed or at least attractive all the way around, and the part of imagination most of us can’t see is little more than a big blue box as was illustrated clearly above.
Spaceship Earth, Universe of Energy, World of Motion, The Living Seas, Communicore, and Horizons all certainly seem to have been designed to the level Martin has been talking about. I disagree about the others, but I’m also not even claiming that’s a bad thing. Especially in a themepark, what I don’t see hardly bothers me.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I think he means meant to be seen from any angle inside the park that a guest may see.

He said from the back also. Except for Spaceship Earth and Innoventions, which of the classic 'pavilions' of FW do the guests ever see the back of? Except, for all the times they can, what with the tours, marathons, and the short lived park-to-park shuttle?

 

[shortstop]

He said from the back also. Except for Spaceship Earth and Innoventions, which of the classic 'pavilions' of FW do the guests ever see the back of? Except, for all the times they can, what with the tours, marathons, and the short lived park-to-park shuttle?

Again, I think when he says the "back" he means when viewed from anywhere other than directly in front of i.e. seeing imagination from WS.

 

[sedati]

Mission: Space's architecture reflects the attraction: in itself it is good, very good even. But it has no relationship with its surroundings, or with EPCOT Center.

I like it fine, but it is a departure in execution from how the EPCOT Center pavilions were conceived (which it was never meant to be a part of as it was born into Epcot.) While at the park just recently, I tried to imagine how this would have fit (photo from retrowdw):

Difficult to imagine.

 

[FerretAfros]

At risk of drifting too far into architectural theory, there are two basic approaches to themed structures that can be used to describe the differing approaches we're finding in Future World: the "duck building" and the "decorated shed".

Decorated shed: essentially just a plain structure with signage or a façade on one side that announces what's inside. Once you get past the initial front view, there's really not much to these buildings; the sides and rear are often shielded from public view. The interiors of the building are divided in any number of ways, typically with no relation to the building's overall shape. Think of your standard big-box stores, the false fronts on old west buildings, WDW's Value hotels, or Disney attractions like the Haunted Mansion or Small World.

Duck building: named after a roadside stand shaped like a duck that sold ducks and duck eggs, it's a type of building whose purpose is reflected in the form of the building. These buildings can be seen from more-or-less any angle and still reflect that purpose; they were designed to be seen and interacted with from all angles and are completely themed buildings. The spaces within the buildings often reflect the outer shape of the building, with domes, atriums, and other features that reinforce the overall form. Think of old-timey roadside attractions, traditional churches and cathedrals, the Contemporary A-frame, or Disney attractions like Space Mountain or Cinderella Castle

Disney attractions tend to follow the "decorated shed" approach to design: their park-facing sides are intricately detailed, but quickly fade to plain warehouses once out of view. This approach can be found in every park, including most of the attraction spaces in World Showcase; "decorated sheds" aren't inherently bad, but need to be used mindfully to create a themed environment and surrounded by smaller "duck buildings" to fill out the area.

The original Future World pavilions took the "duck building" approach (eschewing the smaller buildings in the process), with a holistic design where the shape of the building informs the form of the space inside it (or conversely, the need for certain spaces within dictate the overall form of the building), and reflects its intended purpose to passersby; this was a pretty dramatic shift from Disney's previous efforts, and makes FW somewhat unique among theme parks. Mission:Space and the new GOTG add-on building will follow Disney's typical "decorated shed" approach, stepping away from FW's original design ethos, and heading in the direction of making it just another themed area that could be found in any park

 

[lazyboy97o]

At risk of drifting too far into architectural theory, there are two basic approaches to themed structures that can be used to describe the differing approaches we're finding in Future World: the "duck building" and the "decorated shed".

Decorated shed: essentially just a plain structure with signage or a façade on one side that announces what's inside. Once you get past the initial front view, there's really not much to these buildings; the sides and rear are often shielded from public view. The interiors of the building are divided in any number of ways, typically with no relation to the building's overall shape. Think of your standard big-box stores, the false fronts on old west buildings, WDW's Value hotels, or Disney attractions like the Haunted Mansion or Small World.

Duck building: named after a roadside stand shaped like a duck that sold ducks and duck eggs, it's a type of building whose purpose is reflected in the form of the building. These buildings can be seen from more-or-less any angle and still reflect that purpose; they were designed to be seen and interacted with from all angles and are completely themed buildings. The spaces within the buildings often reflect the outer shape of the building, with domes, atriums, and other features that reinforce the overall form. Think of old-timey roadside attractions, traditional churches and cathedrals, the Contemporary A-frame, or Disney attractions like Space Mountain or Cinderella Castle

Disney attractions tend to follow the "decorated shed" approach to design: their park-facing sides are intricately detailed, but quickly fade to plain warehouses once out of view. This approach can be found in every park, including most of the attraction spaces in World Showcase; "decorated sheds" aren't inherently bad, but need to be used mindfully to create a themed environment and surrounded by smaller "duck buildings" to fill out the area.

The original Future World pavilions took the "duck building" approach (eschewing the smaller buildings in the process), with a holistic design where the shape of the building informs the form of the space inside it (or conversely, the need for certain spaces within dictate the overall form of the building), and reflects its intended purpose to passersby; this was a pretty dramatic shift from Disney's previous efforts, and makes FW somewhat unique among theme parks. Mission:Space and the new GOTG add-on building will follow Disney's typical "decorated shed" approach, stepping away from FW's original design ethos, and heading in the direction of making it just another themed area that could be found in any park

Learning from Las Vegas is definitely a good read for those interested in themed entertainment design theory.

 

[marni1971]

And that's clearly not the case, at least, not now..

It certainly isn't. Which is why I said as designed. Not as they looked yesterday. Or on Sunday.

And I just used Google Earth earlier to show how the gravity building won't be an eyesore from the park. .

I'm afraid you're out with your positioning and scale in that graphic.

 

[marni1971]

He said from the back also. Except for Spaceship Earth and Innoventions, which of the classic 'pavilions' of FW do the guests ever see the back of? Except, for all the times they can, what with the tours, marathons, and the short lived park-to-park shuttle?

Energy, Horizons, Motion, Imag, Land, SSE, CCore and Seas were designed to be seen from all onstage angles.

Remember the planned monorail routes as well as what was built?

 

[The Empress Lilly]

At risk of drifting too far into architectural theory, there are two basic approaches to themed structures that can be used to describe the differing approaches we're finding in Future World: the "duck building" and the "decorated shed".

Decorated shed: essentially just a plain structure with signage or a façade on one side that announces what's inside. Once you get past the initial front view, there's really not much to these buildings; the sides and rear are often shielded from public view. The interiors of the building are divided in any number of ways, typically with no relation to the building's overall shape. Think of your standard big-box stores, the false fronts on old west buildings, WDW's Value hotels, or Disney attractions like the Haunted Mansion or Small World.

Duck building: named after a roadside stand shaped like a duck that sold ducks and duck eggs, it's a type of building whose purpose is reflected in the form of the building. These buildings can be seen from more-or-less any angle and still reflect that purpose; they were designed to be seen and interacted with from all angles and are completely themed buildings. The spaces within the buildings often reflect the outer shape of the building, with domes, atriums, and other features that reinforce the overall form. Think of old-timey roadside attractions, traditional churches and cathedrals, the Contemporary A-frame, or Disney attractions like Space Mountain or Cinderella Castle

Disney attractions tend to follow the "decorated shed" approach to design: their park-facing sides are intricately detailed, but quickly fade to plain warehouses once out of view. This approach can be found in every park, including most of the attraction spaces in World Showcase; "decorated sheds" aren't inherently bad, but need to be used mindfully to create a themed environment and surrounded by smaller "duck buildings" to fill out the area.

The original Future World pavilions took the "duck building" approach (eschewing the smaller buildings in the process), with a holistic design where the shape of the building informs the form of the space inside it (or conversely, the need for certain spaces within dictate the overall form of the building), and reflects its intended purpose to passersby; this was a pretty dramatic shift from Disney's previous efforts, and makes FW somewhat unique among theme parks. Mission:Space and the new GOTG add-on building will follow Disney's typical "decorated shed" approach, stepping away from FW's original design ethos, and heading in the direction of making it just another themed area that could be found in any park

Ah, brilliant.

In that light, I would like to propose that WoM into TT transformed the structure from a duck into a shed.

WOM's form expressed its function, the content. TT added a front, a backlot. The awning obscures the continuing curved line. The racetrack obscures the show building. In that light, it becomes understandable how TT can become perceived to be a show building, a shed, that is unsuccessfully hidden from view except from the front. Whereas duck WoM is meant to be seen as much as SSE is.

 

[P_Radden]

Energy, Horizons, Motion, Imag, Land, SSE, CCore and Seas were designed to be seen from all onstage angles.

Remember the planned monorail routes as well as what was built?

Something like this?