EvilChameleon
Well-Known Member
In awe at the size of this lad.
Absolute unit.
Absolute unit.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
deeevo
Well-Known Member
FerretAfros
Well-Known Member
Although Tron may not be one of Disney's strongest franchises, that doesn't mean it's a poor choice for a theme park attraction. Contrary to Disney's oft-repeated talking points, themed entertainment is not a great medium to tell a linear story with defined characters and plot points. The strongest attractions have always favored a more atmospheric approach, picking a general setting and premise, but letting guests fill in the story for themselves. This is true of the best original attractions (Pirates of the Caribbean, Haunted Mansion) as well as the best IP-based attractions (Indiana Jones Adventure, Tower of Terror).
On the flipside, the most disappointing attractions are the ones that try too hard to insert a linear storyline in a way that just doesn't work for the medium of a themed environment. This can be seen both with IP-based attractions (Dinosaur, Little Mermaid) as well as original storylines (Journey Into Your Imagination with Figment, Superstar Limo). They're not necessarily terrible concepts, but the end result always fails to live up to expectations. Unfortunately, by their very nature these types of attractions tend to be IP-based, serving to highlight the square-peg/round-hole situation.
While both Tron films have some serious story problems, they do an excellent job of world-building. This is the same reason a franchise like Avatar can be the basis for a compelling theme park experience, despite being largely forgotten from the public consciousness. As much as Disney wants us to believe otherwise, it's not familiar characters and "something goes horribly wrong" storylines that create memorable attractions; it's enticing locales and situations with an open-ended narrative. Although Tron as a franchise is essentially dead, it lives on in the public mind as a striking yet inviting design style, which is a perfect fit for a theme park
And even though the visuals of Tron: Legacy are quite modern (or were in 2010), they are heavily informed by the lines and angles of late-60's/early-70's futurism. Coincidentally, that just happens to be the same root design as the rest of the land. Both styles are distinct, yet instantly compatible.
On the flipside, the most disappointing attractions are the ones that try too hard to insert a linear storyline in a way that just doesn't work for the medium of a themed environment. This can be seen both with IP-based attractions (Dinosaur, Little Mermaid) as well as original storylines (Journey Into Your Imagination with Figment, Superstar Limo). They're not necessarily terrible concepts, but the end result always fails to live up to expectations. Unfortunately, by their very nature these types of attractions tend to be IP-based, serving to highlight the square-peg/round-hole situation.
While both Tron films have some serious story problems, they do an excellent job of world-building. This is the same reason a franchise like Avatar can be the basis for a compelling theme park experience, despite being largely forgotten from the public consciousness. As much as Disney wants us to believe otherwise, it's not familiar characters and "something goes horribly wrong" storylines that create memorable attractions; it's enticing locales and situations with an open-ended narrative. Although Tron as a franchise is essentially dead, it lives on in the public mind as a striking yet inviting design style, which is a perfect fit for a theme park
And even though the visuals of Tron: Legacy are quite modern (or were in 2010), they are heavily informed by the lines and angles of late-60's/early-70's futurism. Coincidentally, that just happens to be the same root design as the rest of the land. Both styles are distinct, yet instantly compatible.
While they save some money on the creative/concept level, that's a negligible amount of the completed project. Everything on the technical side will need to be redesigned and reevaluated to ensure it meets local codes and requirements, and is appropriate for the new site. Design on a typical construction project is about 10% of the final cost, the overwhelming amount of which is technical and varies by jurisdiction and site; assuming WDI's notorious overhead and inefficiency double the design cost, that's still a rather small portion of a huge multi-million-dollar project. The "savings" comes from eliminating the risk of a potential flop; they know what the end result will be, and can anticipate its popularity accordingly
montyz81
Well-Known Member
I wished Tomorrowland hadn't flopped. It is in my top 5 favorite movies of all time. I think the message, like the movie articulates, was something people didn't want to hear.
geekza
Well-Known Member
I really enjoyed it as well and didn't think it was nearly as overtly political as some Internet outrage would have you believe. I went into it knowing nothing about it except for who directed it and who starred in it and, aside from the last section that felt kind of half-baked and rushed, thought it was pretty cool.
montyz81
Well-Known Member
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but Soarin??
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
It barely made profit and considering Disney wanted it to fuel a franchise, it definitely showed that the interest wasn't there. The original is so dang corny and the remake was just a Matrix wannabe with glow sticks. It has a cool visual look, but the movies are pretty bad by today's standards and the audience simply didn't show up.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Yes because you can absolutely see what they intend to do with the exterior at this point of construction already.....
Based on information out there and just the shape, it will be no more than a box. Please share info if you have it. If they put titanium type panels like the Frank Gehry Disney Theatre in Los Angeles or some other type of futuristic paneling I would be happy. If it is simply a painted stucco then its a fail.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Shape is irrelevant at this point because current construction does not indicate finale outcome. There is no “information out there” regarding which exterior treatment they have chosen.
geekza
Well-Known Member
It was profitable enough that a sequel was most definitely happening until Tomorrowland bombed.
Coaster Lover
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
The construction technique seems to indicate exactly why this indoor coaster is being built building first (as opposed to building the coaster first and then enclosing it as is typical with most indoor coasters). They are supporting the walls using temporary struts which are anchored to the main ride foundation. I have to assume that we'll see roof supports up in this corner shortly which will make this corner completely self supporting. At that point, they can remove the temporary struts and (I'd imagine) you'll see them start building the actual coaster before the building is completely enclosed. I guess we'll see..
FerretAfros
Well-Known Member
While we don't know the exact material or color, it's quite clear from the foundation and steel structure thus far that this will be nothing more than a box. Based on the framing we can tell that the siding will be a lightweight material (if I were a betting man, I'd put money on insulated metal panels) without any meaningful shape/depth/protrusions to add architectural interest or theme.
They can pick whatever color they want. They can paint a giant mural on the side. They can attempt to landscape the perimeter to make it disappear (at that height, good luck!). But none of that changes that it is a very utilitarian structure on a very large scale. It's a box that will look like a box, and will tower over almost everything in the park.
The most dimensional treatment we can expect is some inoffensive contrasting trim and accent panels, like what DL is getting on the back (parking garage-facing) side of their Star Wars project. It may be the best-looking warehouse in the industrial part of Anaheim, but it's a long way from being "good architecture", let alone the iconic futurism we've come to expect in Future World.
With the GOTG build roughly twice as tall, it may be better to go for something bland, to keep the eye from focusing on it. And when your best plan is to hope that people don't notice the elephant in the room, you haven't done a good job as a designer. If only the existing empty buildings in Future World were big enough to hold compelling attractions of their own...
I’ve seen a proposal for it to be themed. If it happens or not I don’t know. Personally I hope it won’t, but a blank box won’t cut it either.
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
Sequel was considered but passed upon when the studio didn't want to risk another flop. It wasn't a strong enough IP to risk it.
aladdin2007
Well-Known Member
this, because we really dont want to see the guardians tower treatment from california here, it would be a garish mess of an eyesore. At the same time an ugly gray box is not the answer either, I think they have created a problem for themselves, as this was a bad placement decision to begin with, but thats just how I feel. Hopefully a middle ground option will be chosen to somehow blend it in yet not be a horrid looking design choice. Not holding my breath though since they are on a ugly high towers building kick all over property
.