EPCOT Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[gobstoper27]

The two Guardians films are great.

BOTH Epcot AND Guardians deserve better than this.

Epcot really isn't one of my favorite parks, so this really doesn't bother me as it seems to affect most. I usually don't handle change well but in this case I'm all for it. Who knows maybe Disney will hit it out of the park!!

 

[The_Jobu]

It seems illogical for people to claim they "love", Epcot, but also encourage the IP onslaught that we are witnessing. Which aspects of Epcot do they love? Its concept? World Showcase? Future World? All are being dismantled in favor of creating an additional Fantasyland. What will be left of Epcot to "love" after WS is nothing more than IP based attractions and FW has no concept beyond Peter Quill visited as a child?

Will the attractions be amazing? Most likely. Will Epcot be recognizably different in nature from MK? Nope. I "love" Yacht Club. It is my favorite resort. Animal Kingdom Lodge is a very close second. Would I want Disney to add some Yacht Club style theme into AKL? Would that make it better? Absolutely not. I enjoy the distinction each resort offers. I also enjoy(ed) the parks having their own distinct identity. I suppose that enjoying wondrous variety is lost on some people.

Those that you mention don't love EPCOT, they love Disneyworld and are happy there is a ride coming with reference to a movie they like.

Quite the difference.

 

[The_Jobu]

Epcot really isn't one of my favorite parks, so this really doesn't bother me as it seems to affect most. I usually don't handle change well but in this case I'm all for it. Who knows maybe Disney will hit it out of the park!!

Out of the park would be great!

...like maybe all the way out, to DHS or universal.

 

[Kamikaze]

But there is a difference between adding more Marvel to a park vs adding more Disney. They're not completely interchangeable.

No, there isn't. Marvel is a Disney property. When they add Marvel, they are adding Disney. If you're going to say its 'not interchangable', then who gets to decide whats Disney and what isn't? Does Pixar count?

If Disney owns it, its Disney. Period.

 

[Kamikaze]

The two Guardians films are great.

BOTH Epcot AND Guardians deserve better than this.

Better than what? We have absolutely zero details on what the attraction is.

 

[The_Jobu]

No, there isn't. Marvel is a Disney property. When they add Marvel, they are adding Disney. If you're going to say its 'not interchangable', then who gets to decide whats Disney and what isn't? Does Pixar count?

If Disney owns it, its Disney. Period.

But it's not interchangeable unless you're talking strictly about business which we're not .

It's really not complicated. They are different franchises in different worlds for the purpose of conversation.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Better than what? We have absolutely zero details on what the attraction is.

Unless I am mistaken, we do have artwork indicating it is going to be at least partly forced into the existing structure, right? Guardians (and Marvel) deserve attractions designed from the ground up to tell their story, not to be contorted to fit existing spaces and save money.

This goes for Frozen, too.

 

[Bob Harlem]

Unless I am mistaken, we do have artwork indicating it is going to be at least partly forced into the existing structure, right? Guardians (and Marvel) deserve attractions designed from the ground up to tell their story, not to be contorted to fit existing spaces and save money.

This goes for Frozen, too.

Executive Fiat, get Marvel in the parks somehow, hell or high water. That alone makes me think whatever form the Guardians take in this attraction, it'll be beyond convoluted and contrived (Frozen didn't have to deal with the legal restrictions Marvel has).

 

[Casper Gutman]

Executive Fiat, get Marvel in the parks somehow, hell or high water. That alone makes me think whatever form the Guardians take in this attraction, it'll be beyond convoluted.

Oh, I know - IPs govern the modern entertainment world, and they are the present and future of Disney's parks.

What's absurd is how cheap they are being about multi-billion dollar IPs. Guardians, Frozen - those could produce iconic rides. Disney is entirely devoted to IPs, but not so entirely devoted its willing to build a new building.

 

[Incomudro]

The wailing and gnashing of teeth, and clutching of pearls is impressive. We don't even know anything about the ride yet. We know where it's going (roughly) and have a piece of concept art. Nothing more. The cadre of "EPCOT CAN NEVER CHANGE" (some of whom are too young to even remember original epcot, btw), exist on every board. They continually wail and howl about the 'purity" of their park, the "mission" and "education", etc. Any chance we can wait and find out what the attraction will actually be _about_ before we decide it has completely abandoned any purpose the park had, and is merely shoe horning whiz bang super thrill ride into a space that held a mouldering, outdated, finger wagging lecture? Nah.. of course not. That wouldn't be any fun for the gloom and doomers.

Maybe they can have a pepper's ghost leprechaun leaping around a room full of tape reels and extolling the virtues of a "Supercomputer".

It's unbelievable.
Epcot will never be what Epcot was.
Even Epcot wan't what Epcot was supposed to be.
Futureworld will continue to get more tech oriented attractions, some of them ip based.
I have no problem with this, and in fact embrace it.

 

[The_Jobu]

Oh, I know - IPs govern the modern entertainment world, and they are the present and future of Disney's parks.

What's absurd is how cheap they are being about multi-billion dollar IPs. Guardians, Frozen - those could produce iconic rides. Disney is entirely devoted to IPs, but not so entirely devoted its willing to build a new building.

It's an odd laziness as well. If they just wanted to shove a Guardians launch coaster somewhere why not just rebrand the RnRC? It's tailor made, just need to pick some 70s songs for the soundtrack.

 

[wdisney9000]

The wailing and gnashing of teeth, and clutching of pearls is impressive. We don't even know anything about the ride yet. We know where it's going (roughly) and have a piece of concept art. Nothing more. The cadre of "EPCOT CAN NEVER CHANGE" (some of whom are too young to even remember original epcot, btw), exist on every board. They continually wail and howl about the 'purity" of their park, the "mission" and "education", etc. Any chance we can wait and find out what the attraction will actually be _about_ before we decide it has completely abandoned any purpose the park had, and is merely shoe horning whiz bang super thrill ride into a space that held a mouldering, outdated, finger wagging lecture? Nah.. of course not. That wouldn't be any fun for the gloom and doomers.

Maybe they can have a pepper's ghost leprechaun leaping around a room full of tape reels and extolling the virtues of a "Supercomputer".

Your entire response is where the disconnect occurs in these conversations. I am not moaning for Epcot to never change or keep outdated attractions. I (and many other "doom and gloomers"), are all for change and updating the park. But more of the same (i.e fantasy based attractions) is not change when that concept already exists. My "moaning" is simply born out of the continual blurring of the lines in distinction between parks. Why not make all the resorts just like Polynesian since it is loved by many, just slap a different character on the entrance sign and call it "theme". . Make all the dining options and locations just like Chef Mickeys since everybody loves it, just give them different movie and character references. That is better, isnt it?

The tired rebuttal of claiming people are upset about Epcot loosing its "purity" is old. It is not even a proper response anymore, it is just a defense.

 

[Incomudro]

Their Philosophy is not the same! Six Flags believes that the excitement and entertainment comes from the ride itself. That's why they will sink 20 - 30 million into a coaster by B&M or a of the shelf model from Vekoma, sprinkle a few cardboard cutouts around the area and name it after a Superhero. Disney on the other hand builds their experiences with every minor detail in mind on how it effects the experience. You honestly can't tell me that the philosophy of this

Is the same philosophy as this

Its all about the extra mile... no, 15 miles that Disney goes to entertain.



And I don't understand how you don't understand my understanding of him not understanding of the difference of understanding the understatement...

Precisely.
Which is why we have some posters here who don't seem to get it, and will say things like "it's the same ride system..."
Disney is not about the ride system, and it's not about the most extreme thrill.

 

[Kamikaze]

Unless I am mistaken, we do have artwork indicating it is going to be at least partly forced into the existing structure, right? Guardians (and Marvel) deserve attractions designed from the ground up to tell their story, not to be contorted to fit existing spaces and save money.

This goes for Frozen, too.

No. The current structure will be mostly queue space.

 

[LorangeJuice]

Exactly. The whole IP thing is a stupid argument. EVERYTHING, I mean, EVERYTHING, that is created, used, merchandized, etc, is an IP. To include, Haunted Mansion, IASW, Country Bears, etc.. All of it! Just because it's acquired by another company doesn't make it lazy, or dumbed down, or whatever other negative connotation people can attach to it. Now, however, what is DONE with the IP after acquisition is the important factor.

I think we're on the same page here, so just let me elaborate a bit. Those IPs you listed were all properly themed and placed in the proper park. Neglecting FW & WS (yes, there should have been more countries and attractions added to WS (e.g., Rhine River Cruise, Mt. Fuji coaster; just not IP misfits)) for decades and literally leaving pavilions to rot then acquiring IP because Universal and shoving it in an area you neglected for decades is LAZY! It's lazy from a thematic standpoint and from an investment standpoint. You can't say Disney was risk averse when it came to EPCOT because virtually NOTHING was being done absent a corporate sponsor for DECADES! EEA would be old enough to drink at F&W this year! Letting things go completely stale to the point most of the park is a joke and losing decades of building a larger fan base IS a risk.

And yes, it is dumbed down when it comes to EPCOT. EPCOT Center didn't touch me because it was about IP, it touched be because it was about experiences. My first experience with a computer, a touch screen, video chatting, a simulator, IMAX, heck, my first voting experience was on Horizons! I did all of this in EPCOT before 1985. That was a BIG deal back then. I always wanted to go back for new experiences. The inspiration is what made me want to become an engineer. Just because that technology came to fruition doesn't mean you pack up the tents and let IP save you. That would be LAZY!

 

[The_Jobu]

Precisely.
Which is why we have some posters here who don't seem to get it, and will say things like "it's the same ride system..."
Disney is not about the ride system, and it's not about the most extreme thrill.

Just so. They used to be about coherent theming.
"Hey remember that movie you like!" is Universal's gig.

 

[rle4lunch]

I think we're on the same page here, so just let me elaborate a bit. Those IPs you listed were all properly themed and placed in the proper park. Neglecting FW & WS (yes, there should have been more countries and attractions added to WS (e.g., Rhine River Cruise, Mt. Fuji coaster; just not IP misfits)) for decades and literally leaving pavilions to rot then acquiring IP because Universal and shoving it in an area you neglected for decades is LAZY! It's lazy from a thematic standpoint and from an investment standpoint. You can't say Disney was risk averse when it came to EPCOT because virtually NOTHING was being done absent a corporate sponsor for DECADES! EEA would be old enough to drink at F&W this year! Letting things go completely stale to the point most of the park is a joke and losing decades of building a larger fan base IS a risk.

And yes, it is dumbed down when it comes to EPCOT. EPCOT Center didn't touch me because it was about IP, it touched be because it was about experiences. My first experience with a computer, a touch screen, video chatting, a simulator, IMAX, heck, my first voting experience was on Horizons! I did all of this in EPCOT before 1985. That was a BIG deal back then. I always wanted to go back for new experiences. The inspiration is what made me want to become an engineer. Just because that technology came to fruition doesn't mean you pack up the tents and let IP save you. That would be LAZY!

No, I get what you're saying, I really do. My first experiences at EPCOT in 1982 (I was 6 y/o) and 1984 and again in 1986, were all mindblowing. So much so that I would have dreams for months after going about what I did there. Then when I knew we were headed back, the dreams would kick in again.

I'm not defending EPCOT, or WDW proper for the laziness in their halfa$$ed approach to barely maintaining rides and bilking every dollar out of them just for 'nostalgia's' sake, for that, they are more than guilty.

That said, at this point, any creative direction they go with keeping Epcot as more than a half day park, I will gladly take. I could care less if it's a well know IP, just as long as they do it correctly. Their track-record with the minimal updates and/or new rides they've been producing the last decade is actually pretty good though.

 

[Kamikaze]

But it's not interchangeable unless you're talking strictly about business which we're not .

It's really not complicated. They are different franchises in different worlds for the purpose of conversation.

You're right - its not complicated. You (and many others) are choosing to make it so.

Is Marvel a division of The Walt Disney Company, yes or no? (Yes)

Is there any difference whether its in one division or not? (No)

If you want to make the 'Epcot b about da learnin' argument, then try that. But since we don't know anything about the attraction, its hard one to make. But to somehow argue that a Marvel property isn't 'Disney' is flat out incorrect.

 

[THE Monorail Lime]

I wish I could have the baby dinosaur

 

[The_Jobu]

You're right - its not complicated. You (and many others) are choosing to make it so.

Is Marvel a division of The Walt Disney Company, yes or no? (Yes)

Is there any difference whether its in one division or not? (No)

If you want to make the 'Epcot b about da learnin' argument, then try that. But since we don't know anything about the attraction, its hard one to make. But to somehow argue that a Marvel property isn't 'Disney' is flat out incorrect.

No one's saying Marvel isn't owned by Disney, yet you keep clinging to that. They are owned by Disney but they are a seperate franchise when having discussions. There's a reason they are not rebranded as Disney comics.

And attempting to make a point that people want to learn would talk like that is just lazy. Step up if you're going to discuss something or at least have your attempts at insults make sense. Nerds looking to learn wouldn't talk like that, them thar ppl dat likes dem rides like I saw at the moviez do.
There. See how cheap that was?