News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[marni1971]

But what about bringing them to the parks?.

It seemed to work quite well without every new addition being IP based for quite a few decades.

 

[AEfx]

It seemed to work quite well without every new addition being IP based for quite a few decades.

That's when the parks themselves were a novelty, like I said above.

Not only that, but there much more competition for their entertainment dollar (and not just Universal).

They need more to bring draw people to WDW these days.

 

[sedati]

For example, can you imagine a pavilion in Epcot based on robotics where kids could learn about robotics and design their own, possibly sponsored by MIT?

I think Boston Dynamics would be the way to go- they have a robot that can do backflips:


But the field of robotics like most technologies are fast advancing. You need a company willing to not only publicly share it's innovations, but willing to pay to update and refresh regularly. It's expensive and as many have pointed out, will reach far fewer people than a simple, inexpensive youtube video.

 

[Pixieish]

Well, with Epcot in particular - that's kind of the rub.

If kids want to experiment with and build their own robotics, they can do that at home now, with a Disney product no less (though there are many others). The second one, is something that any regional science museum can do. Especially with how we share information today, and how quickly it changes, Epcot would have a very difficult time doing anything more than bland generic stuff in the "edutainment" field.

Not to mention, how controversial things are today. There just isn't a topic they can cover that isn't somewhat controversial in some circles, or at least has something dynamic about it that could out date an attraction really quickly. It just doesn't make a lot of sense in today's world, unfortunately.

I was thinking more like virtual robot designing...we personally don't buy those kinds of "build-a-robot" toys because the limitations always lead to it being a one-and-done kind of experience, but you get the general idea.

But yes, they'd require very frequent updating, which is what I was trying to imply with "cost prohibitive".

As much as I adore the Museum of Science and Children's Museum, they really don't do much in the way of cutting edge stuff that isn't just a live presentation. The "experimentation" areas they offer are small scale (around 15-20 minutes or so of fun) and more along the lines of the kind of thing the kids can do in school or at indoor play areas. The main things we see pushed/advertised around here for the MoS are the traveling exhibits, IMAX films, 4D films, and Planetarium. Oh - they DO have a "design-a-thrill-ride" simulator. And we avoid the Children's Museum like the plague both because the offerings are small-scale and because if you think the crowds at WDW are bad...you haven't seen the Children's Museum on a no-school day...it's a mob scene. And they both have the same issues that Epcot would run into in the way that they have to design the "activities"/attractions in a way that having the carp beat out of them by several hundred kids run-amok a day isn't going to cause permanent damage.

The way Epcot used to beat the museums hands-down is that they did it on such a grand scale and made it much more immersive.

 

[lazyboy97o]

See, that's the basis that I just disagree with, because it doesn't make business sense. I know that is the "online park fan" view, but they aren't spending half a billion dollars on an attraction people are going to spend thousands of dollars to visit so they will go home and spend $10 on a movie ticket or $15 on a Blu-ray. Its not really good promotional investment when only 10-20 million people visit a park in a year, when they can get they can get that many eyes on an ad at the appropriate time for 1% of the cost.

The focus on franchises has been discussed openly.

 

[djkidkaz]

I think its just the company learning what brings in the dollars. I think using a non-IP created space land vs. Star Wars argument is perfect. I think Disney realizes that if they create a generic space themed land using the same amount of money they are using for Star Wars Land they will not attract anywhere near the same amount of guests. So just basic common sense and math would tell you, if your going to spend half a billion dollars creating a space land, just make it Star Wars and you'll double / triple your attendance. No matter how cool it is, Disneys Generic Space Land isn't going to get people who had no intentions of coming to Disney to book a trip, but Star Wars Land sure will. There is probably a HUGE base of Star Wars fans that are not theme park fans that will now be turned on to Disney parks, thus potentially becoming new repeat visitors.

 

[marni1971]

They need more to bring draw people to WDW these days.

I don’t think they do.

What they do want is P&R to be the primary cash generator for the whole company. The recent restructuring is just the start. They think adding just IP to the parks will help this. I think they’re wrong going 100% IP but what do I know.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I think its just the company learning what brings in the dollars. I think using a non-IP created space land vs. Star Wars argument is perfect. I think Disney realizes that if they create a generic space themed land using the same amount of money they are using for Star Wars Land they will not attract anywhere near the same amount of guests. So just basic common sense and math would tell you, if your going to spend half a billion dollars creating a space land, just make it Star Wars and you'll double / triple your attendance. No matter how cool it is, Disneys Generic Space Land isn't going to get people who had no intentions of coming to Disney to book a trip, but Star Wars Land sure will. There is probably a HUGE base of Star Wars fans that are not theme park fans that will now be turned on to Disney parks, thus potentially becoming new repeat visitors.

Kinda funny Disney will do this kind of thing for Iger's IP purchases but not for home-grown blockbusters like Frozen. Where's the land for that? Instead we get Star Wars and freakin' Pandora. What idiots.

 

[sedati]

The way Epcot used to beat the museums hands-down is that they did it on such a grand scale and made it much more immersive.

Epcot beat museums hands-down by being the newest. Then, it wasn't. Other museums came about and outshined it, maybe not in scope or scale, but in innovation. Then they didn't. On and on- it's a cycle. Most museums become embarrassingly out of date before they (hopefully) get a bump back up on top for a brief shining moment. Like you mentioned, it's really those traveling, temporary exhibits and films that keep most of these types of facilities at all relevant.

 

[sedati]

Kinda funny Disney will do this kind of thing for Iger's IP purchases but not for home-grown blockbusters like Frozen. Where's the land for that? Instead we get Star Wars and freakin' Pandora. What idiots.

Possibly for all it's success, the company still sees Frozen's appeal as somewhat limited in its generation appeal. For full investment, it has to be seen as serving all four quadrants. Just my opinion though.

 

[Incomudro]

That's when the parks themselves were a novelty, like I said above.

Not only that, but there much more competition for their entertainment dollar (and not just Universal).

They need more to bring draw people to WDW these days.

Very good point about the parks themselves being a novelty back in the day.
As you indicated, the parks themselves were able to create characters unique to the parks like those we see on Pirates, Jungle Cruise, and HM.
I don't believe that in today's world there is much of a market for that.
Or more correctly, I believe it's increasingly not worth the risk of creating large attractions that are not connected to an IP.
Honestly, I wasn't even aware that there was a faction that is resistant to IP's before I joined these boards.
I went to the Magic Kingdom the year it opened, and it looked heavily IP'd back then. (Of course, I wouldn't have known the term back then.)
Cinderella's Castle dominated, Bedknobs and Broomsticks were on Main Street, Swiss Family Robinson's Tree House was in Adventureland, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea was in Fantasyland...

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think its just the company learning what brings in the dollars. I think using a non-IP created space land vs. Star Wars argument is perfect. I think Disney realizes that if they create a generic space themed land using the same amount of money they are using for Star Wars Land they will not attract anywhere near the same amount of guests. So just basic common sense and math would tell you, if your going to spend half a billion dollars creating a space land, just make it Star Wars and you'll double / triple your attendance. No matter how cool it is, Disneys Generic Space Land isn't going to get people who had no intentions of coming to Disney to book a trip, but Star Wars Land sure will. There is probably a HUGE base of Star Wars fans that are not theme park fans that will now be turned on to Disney parks, thus potentially becoming new repeat visitors.

The costs are a huge part of the problem. Disney’s costs are out of control. An attraction shouldn’t cost nearly half a billion dollars. That’s just obscene. The expectations for these attractions is only going to go from unrealistic to near impossible.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Possibly for all it's success, the company still sees Frozen's appeal as somewhat limited in its generation appeal. For full investment, it has to be seen as serving all four quadrants. Just my opinion though.

Well, if that's the case, Disney sure overestimated Avatar's appeal IMO.

 

[Incomudro]

Epcot beat museums hands-down by being the newest. Then, it wasn't. Other museums came about and outshined it, maybe not in scope or scale, but in innovation. Then they didn't. On and on- it's a cycle. Most museums become embarrassingly out of date before they (hopefully) get a bump back up on top for a brief shining moment. Like you mentioned, it's really those traveling, temporary exhibits and films that keep most of these type of facilities at all relevant.

I also believe that due to the extreme crowding that is often found in the parks today, that edutainment exhibits would be tough to even get access to.

 

[Pixieish]

Kinda funny Disney will do this kind of thing for Iger's IP purchases but not for home-grown blockbusters like Frozen. Where's the land for that? Instead we get Star Wars and freakin' Pandora. What idiots.

I think a lot of parents might boycott if a Frozen land were built. I personally can't name a single parent who isn't feeling totally Frozened out.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Frozen has 5 main characters from 1 film and a few shorts. Star Wars has WAAAAAY more well-known characters than that, not to mention 8 movies that have already been released, books, cartoon series, etc. etc. As far as Pandora goes, it's underlying theme (preservation of native people/species) fits perfectly within AK and the land itself a beautiful addition (even without counting the attractions).

 

[Incomudro]

I think a lot of parents might boycott if a Frozen land were built. I personally can't name a single parent who isn't feeling totally Frozened out.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Frozen has 5 main characters from 1 film and a few shorts. Star Wars has WAAAAAY more well-known characters than that, not to mention 8 movies that have already been released, books, cartoon series, etc. etc. As far as Pandora goes, it's underlying theme (preservation of native people/species) fits perfectly within AK and the land itself a beautiful addition (even without counting the attractions).

Not to mention that Star Wars has a track record of some 40 years no signs of slowing down.
It has worked for and continues to work for generation after generation.

 

[Jenny72]

Well, this is kind of why it's frustrating when people say, "IP in the parks is a draw! Look at Star Wars!" Star Wars is an outlier of IP. Not a good justification for building a GotG ride.

 

[Pixieish]

Not to mention that Star Wars has a track record of some 40 years no signs of slowing down.
It has worked for and continues to work for generation after generation.

1000X YES. My sons are 11 and 6, and they're both being hooked by SW. (My 6-year-old hasn't even watched the movies...they've just been background noise to him, but he was flying around a star destroyer and making shooting noises last night.)

 

[Pixieish]

Well, this is kind of why it's frustrating when people say, "IP in the parks is a draw! Look at Star Wars!" Star Wars is an outlier of IP. Not a good justification for building a GotG ride.

What GotG has going for it is that it's an immensely popular comic book IP that can actually be placed in the parks on both coasts. Don't forget that most of the well-known Marvel characters can't have a park presence east of the Mississippi.

 

[Pixieish]

Not to mention that Star Wars has a track record of some 40 years no signs of slowing down.
It has worked for and continues to work for generation after generation.

And to boot, I just had to see why it sounded like someone was jackhammering through my livingroom floor - turns out my 11-year-old is watching Force Awakens and they were at the part when Rey and Finn steal the Falcon. He was jumping up and down like a lunatic with excitement.