News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[Rteetz]

For many years now, I've visited WDW during January to run the races of Marathon Weekend with a group of friends.

One of my favorite moments of the weekend is during the final miles of the half marathon. While traversing a series of three (not-so-fun) overpasses into the Epcot parking lot, Spaceship Earth becomes visible on the horizon, standing out above the tree line as a beacon to runners letting them know that the finish line is nearby after several hours of exhausting physical activity. And at the pace I run, I typically happen upon this scene right as the sun comes over the horizon.

This, to me, is about as magical as anything that Disney does. More than a character greeting or a fireworks show, seeing a symbol of hope and perseverance to draw you in during a particularly difficult moment epitomizes the attention to detail, going the extra mile, and thoughtful touches that made Disney the industry leader. In so many ways, the design of that structure is similar to running an endurance race: its form was chosen not because it was easy, but because it was difficult; its completion became a symbol of hope and possibility; and it's just darn cool! And knowing that it wasn't really intended to be seen by the general public at this time of day makes the moment even more special, an extra reward for making it through the race.

The hills. The anticipation of the finish line beyond. The sphere. The sunrise. It all works together in harmony to create such a unique, intimate, and inspiring moment, and one that doesn't happen anywhere else.

It's such a great moment, that I have photos of it from nearly every year I've run (including some years with disappointingly heavy cloud cover). Here's one from back in 2013, just as the sun crests and the morning fog lifts, with silhouetted runners traversing the horizon up the final hill on their way toward Spaceship Earth
View attachment 346379

And a closer look from just last year, with the monorail gliding by as the sun pokes through the trees and SSE sitting in a stately manner beyond, drawing runners in.
View attachment 346360

And now we have this year's version. There's still the majestic sunrise, sleek monorail, and grand Spaceship Earth. But we also have this dorky box that was plopped down right next to it, without a care in the world about how it interrupts this otherwise-dignified scene. Like a mustache on the Mona Lisa, it makes no attempt to justify itself or harmonize with its surroundings: it's just there. And so it will be for years to come.
View attachment 346372

What a perfect representation of what Disney once represented, and who they are now.

I’m with you on this one. I always liked running up to Epcot like that with the sun rising

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

I’m with you on this one. I always liked running up to Epcot like that with the sun rising

“Liked”... so that’s over now because of that building?

In all seriousness, I’ve made that approach several times as well... always a cool moment when you see that you’re approaching the park. This shorter box off to the left doesn’t dampen that for me. But it certainly isn’t “go-away” paneled from that angle or at that time...

 

[Rteetz]

“Liked”... so that’s over now because of that building?

In all seriousness, I’ve made that approach several times as well... always a cool moment when you see that you’re approaching the park. This shorter box off to the left doesn’t dampen that for me. But it certainly isn’t “go-away” paneled from that angle or at that time...

It’s still nice but the building is incredibly noticeable and takes away from that awe moment a bit.

 

[MisterPenguin]

It’s still nice but the building is incredibly noticeable and takes away from that awe moment a bit.

It'll become more meaningful once you fall in love with Rocket Racoon.

 

[FerretAfros]

“Liked”... so that’s over now because of that building?

In all seriousness, I’ve made that approach several times as well... always a cool moment when you see that you’re approaching the park. This shorter box off to the left doesn’t dampen that for me. But it certainly isn’t “go-away” paneled from that angle or at that time...

Not to be overly dramatic, but that one building has a massive impact: it blocks the sun at the moment SSE first comes into view, as you crest the second hill. It's no longer the graceful geosphere proudly rising above the trees while the sun welcomes a new day that gets noticed, it's this this awkward box.

This experience has always felt greater than the sum of its parts to me. None of it was ever intended to be experienced at this hour or in such a specific set of circumstances, but it all worked in harmony to create something beautiful and memorable. Adaptivity to allow unintended uses is one of the hallmarks of good design, and this is a perfect example of that. And none of this is even within the park itself, it's just the fairly-utilitarian arrival sequence through the roadways and parking lot.

But now the sunrise, the most universal symbol of hope and possibility for the future, is blocked by a thoughtless, oversized warehouse.

It's still nice to watch the sunrise, and the anticipation of reaching the finish line is always welcome. But that special "lightning in a bottle" experience, where so many disparate factors work together to something unique and memorable, just isn't there any more.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Not to be overly dramatic,
...
But now the sunrise, the most universal symbol of hope and possibility for the future, is blocked by a thoughtless, oversized warehouse.

You and I are obviously very different on this front. And that's ok! I've gotten REALLY bothered when they've cut MK hours in Aug, I occasionally blow my stack over how embarrassingly horrific Disney IT is, and am peeved by the possibility of them eliminating the convenience of plastic bags at some point for what I believe is warm fuzzy PR (if they really cared, they'd tackle other low-hanging fruit like their excessive packaging).

Having seen this building from multiple angles, I DO NOT love it. If there was a more aesthetically pleasing, feasible option I would have preferred it, and I would think it was too bad they didn't go that route (even though I can't picture what would fit with both 1) GotG theme and 2) Epcot skyline -- and no one has suggested anything that would yet). But I am just not bothered by what I've seen. I get that some are. That a small number is SUPER upset about it. For some reason, some on these boards hate it when someone says "this is subjective". But this is subjective. And I'm glad, frankly, that it doesn't bother me like it bothers some.

 

[larryz]

The track is known but the show scenes and sets are not finalized. It’s really nothing unusual for attractions. Utilization of a fast-track project delivery is very much the norm.

I have a little trouble believing that they would commit the money they're spending on this project without having the entire project laid out and finally approved, down to the last 2x4 and nail.

 

[larryz]

For many years now, I've visited WDW during January to run the races of Marathon Weekend with a group of friends.

One of my favorite moments of the weekend is during the final miles of the half marathon. While traversing a series of three (not-so-fun) overpasses into the Epcot parking lot, Spaceship Earth becomes visible on the horizon, standing out above the tree line as a beacon to runners letting them know that the finish line is nearby after several hours of exhausting physical activity. And at the pace I run, I typically happen upon this scene right as the sun comes over the horizon.

This, to me, is about as magical as anything that Disney does. More than a character greeting or a fireworks show, seeing a symbol of hope and perseverance to draw you in during a particularly difficult moment epitomizes the attention to detail, going the extra mile, and thoughtful touches that made Disney the industry leader. In so many ways, the design of that structure is similar to running an endurance race: its form was chosen not because it was easy, but because it was difficult; its completion became a symbol of hope and possibility; and it's just darn cool! And knowing that it wasn't really intended to be seen by the general public at this time of day makes the moment even more special, an extra reward for making it through the race.

The hills. The anticipation of the finish line beyond. The sphere. The sunrise. It all works together in harmony to create such a unique, intimate, and inspiring moment, and one that doesn't happen anywhere else.

It's such a great moment, that I have photos of it from nearly every year I've run (including some years with disappointingly heavy cloud cover). Here's one from back in 2013, just as the sun crests and the morning fog lifts, with silhouetted runners traversing the horizon up the final hill on their way toward Spaceship Earth
View attachment 346379

And a closer look from just last year, with the monorail gliding by as the sun pokes through the trees and SSE sitting in a stately manner beyond, drawing runners in.
View attachment 346360

And now we have this year's version. There's still the majestic sunrise, sleek monorail, and grand Spaceship Earth. But we also have this dorky box that was plopped down right next to it, without a care in the world about how it interrupts this otherwise-dignified scene. Like a mustache on the Mona Lisa, it makes no attempt to justify itself or harmonize with its surroundings: it's just there. And so it will be for years to come.
View attachment 346372

What a perfect representation of what Disney once represented, and who they are now.

Well, now you can blame your run performance on the vast disappointment you feel when you see the new ride.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I have a little trouble believing that they would commit the money they're spending on this project without having the entire project laid out and finally approved, down to the last 2x4 and nail.

https://network.aia.org/HigherLogic...d48-6fff-4a2f-ae26-cef8a77d4f6d&forceDialog=0

From Disney, see Slide 6. Feasibility is when funding gets committed. Having complete construction documents before deciding is wasting huge sums of money. The phases of design and fast-track project delivery are both concepts that can be researched outside of what I state.

 

[Bostb71]

Well, now you can blame your run performance on the vast disappointment you feel when you see the new ride.

It added at least a minute and a half to my pace...

 

[OG Runner]

https://network.aia.org/HigherLogic...d48-6fff-4a2f-ae26-cef8a77d4f6d&forceDialog=0

From Disney, see Slide 6. Feasibility is when funding gets committed. Having complete construction documents before deciding is wasting huge sums of money. The phases of design and fast-track project delivery are both concepts that can be researched outside of what I state.

You have to love it when somebody can back their argument with charts & graphs.

 

[rkleinlein]

(even though I can't picture what would fit with both 1) GotG theme and 2) Epcot skyline -- and no one has suggested anything that would yet)

I posted three images to which you, yourself, responded. At least one other person posted an image.

And just because nobody here has taken the time to design the perfect building and post it here doesn't mean there are no better alternatives than a big box warehouse on steroids. I would be shocked if there weren't better designs by the Disney team that got scrapped by the bean counters because they were too expensive. My guess is that this design was chosen not because it wasn't really that noticeable after all, and not because it wouldn't compete with Spaceship Earth, but because it was cheap.

For some reason, some on these boards hate it when someone says "this is subjective". But this is subjective.

The reason people get bothered when someone says "this is subjective" is because it positions their own individual opinion above a shared consensus. It dismisses all great art, music, literature, and architecture as being merely "subjective" or "a matter of personal opinion." Which is bogus.

You might like a painting by Thomas Kindade better than one by Rembrandt, but to say Rembrandt is the better artist is not a subjective opinion. It's a fact.

Yes, sometimes there is disagreement, but in most cases--especially clear cut cases like this one--a critical consensus emerges. To try to defend an ugly box warehouse by implying that looks don't matter "because it's subjective" is disingenuous. The vast majority of people are going to agree that this building is ugly. There's nothing subjective about it.

I'm glad, frankly, that it doesn't bother me like it bothers some.

The only thing that's subjective is whether or not individuals are bothered by an ugly design. I'm glad you're not bothered by it, but please don't imply that others are overreacting because they are bothered by it or dismiss their critique as mere opinion.

 

[larryz]

https://network.aia.org/HigherLogic...d48-6fff-4a2f-ae26-cef8a77d4f6d&forceDialog=0

From Disney, see Slide 6. Feasibility is when funding gets committed. Having complete construction documents before deciding is wasting huge sums of money. The phases of design and fast-track project delivery are both concepts that can be researched outside of what I state.

Well, I understand Iger's attitude* now.

* IBFW.

 

[OG Runner]

I posted three images to which you, yourself, responded. At least one other person posted an image.

And just because nobody here has taken the time to design the perfect building and post it here doesn't mean there are no better alternatives than a big box warehouse on steroids. I would be shocked if there weren't better designs by the Disney team that got scrapped by the bean counters because they were too expensive. My guess is that this design was chosen not because it wasn't really that noticeable after all, and not because it wouldn't compete with Spaceship Earth, but because it was cheap.


The reason people get bothered when someone says "this is subjective" is because it positions their own individual opinion above a shared consensus. It dismisses all great art, music, literature, and architecture as being merely "subjective" or "a matter of personal opinion." Which is bogus.

You might like a painting by Thomas Kindade better than one by Rembrandt, but to say Rembrandt is the better artist is not a subjective opinion. It's a fact.

Yes, sometimes there is disagreement, but in most cases--especially clear cut cases like this one--a critical consensus emerges. To try to defend an ugly box warehouse by implying that looks don't matter "because it's subjective" is disingenuous. The vast majority of people are going to agree that this building is ugly. There's nothing subjective about it.


The only thing that's subjective is whether or not individuals are bothered by an ugly design. I'm glad you're not bothered by it, but please don't imply that others are overreacting because they are bothered by it or dismiss their critique as mere opinion.

So as much as you have argued it, you have proven the point that it is subjective. To even use a variation on one of your arguments,
what would determine who is a greater artist between Michelangelo and Rembrandt? It depends who you ask and how they would
support their view. All visual art is subjective as to it's acceptance.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

It added at least a minute and a half to my pace...

I'm using this next time I fail to train optimally.

I posted three images to which you, yourself, responded. At least one other person posted an image.

Did I miss those most unhappy with the ugly box coalescing around one of them? I recall one that made no sense with GotG, and a GotG one that would look horrid (IMO) in the Epcot skyline. I've seen nothing that I think satisfies both 1) fit with GotG theme AND 2) fit with Epcot skyline. But I might have missed it -- and yes, it's also SUBJECTIVE.

And just because nobody here has taken the time to design the perfect building and post it here doesn't mean there are no better alternatives than a big box warehouse on steroids.

Yes. And I said exactly this. Multiple times. And said that if such a thing existed, I would have preferred it and would have wished they went with that even if more costly.

The reason people get bothered when someone says "this is subjective" is because it positions their own individual opinion above a shared consensus.

Nope. First, there's no "shared consensus" on this. Second, when someone says "this is subjective", it's probably because they're discussing something that is a matter of opinion -- it says nothing to some sort of relative validity ranking of each opinion.

The only thing that's subjective is whether or not individuals are bothered by an ugly design.

Yup. This, and how much they personally actually NOTICE the go-away building from different points around Epcot. Not everyone hones in on such things on a horizon -- people's perceptions are different. And I've said these things many times as well. Sounds like we agree an awful lot more than you seem to think we do!

So as much as you have argued it, you have proven the point that it is subjective. To even use a variation on one of your arguments,
what would determine who is a greater artist between Michelangelo and Rembrandt? It depends who you ask and how they would
support their view. All visual art is subjective as to it's acceptance.

Agreed.

 

[rkleinlein]

So as much as you have argued it, you have proven the point that it is subjective. To even use a variation on one of your arguments,
what would determine who is a greater artist between Michelangelo and Rembrandt? It depends who you ask and how they would
support their view. All visual art is subjective as to it's acceptance.

You are conflating good vs. bad with great vs. greater. Nobody who really knows anything about art would get into an argument about whether Michelangelo or Rembrandt was greater (except perhaps as a pedantic academic exercise). Everyone agrees they're both great even if for different reasons.

I may personally prefer the work of Rembrandt to that of Michelangelo (and I do) but I also realize that my (subjective) preference has no bearing on the overall (objective) consensus on the quality of the work of either artist.

If I went one step further to the "all visual art is subjective" black hole of critical relativity which so many here seem to believe, I would be able to say, "I like Rembrandt but Michelangelo is crap." To think that way is not only incorrect, it is arrogant.

Your last statement, "All visual art is subjective AS TO IT'S ACCEPTANCE," (emphasis mine) is actually spot on. You are free to think, for example, that a painting by Thomas Kindade is as good or better than a painting by Rembrandt. But that is not the same thing as all visual art being subjective with respect to its innate qualities. Your SUBJECTIVE opinion is not the same thing as OBJECTIVE critical consensus.

And, as I said, there are disagreements, (for instance, if you are comparing two things of unparalleled high quality, like Michelangelo and Rembrandt), but in most cases--especially clear cut cases like Rembrandt vs. Thomas Kindade or Spaceship Earth vs. a mammoth box warehouse--a clear critical consensus determines the answer. It's not subjective. At all.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Spaceship Earth vs. a mammoth box warehouse--a clear critical consensus determines the answer. It's not subjective. At all.

Not sure who you’re arguing with on this one. Has anyone said this ugly box is equal in visual appeal to SSE? That’s not where the subjectivity comes in — which has been repeated A LOT in this thread.

 

[OG Runner]

You are conflating good vs. bad with great vs. greater. Nobody who really knows anything about art would get into an argument about whether Michelangelo or Rembrandt was greater (except perhaps as a pedantic academic exercise). Everyone agrees they're both great even if for different reasons.

I may personally prefer the work of Rembrandt to that of Michelangelo (and I do) but I also realize that my (subjective) preference has no bearing on the overall (objective) consensus on the quality of the work of either artist.

If I went one step further to the "all visual art is subjective" black hole of critical relativity which so many here seem to believe, I would be able to say, "I like Rembrandt but Michelangelo is crap." To think that way is not only incorrect, it is arrogant.

Your last statement, "All visual art is subjective AS TO IT'S ACCEPTANCE," (emphasis mine) is actually spot on. You are free to think, for example, that a painting by Thomas Kindade is as good or better than a painting by Rembrandt. But that is not the same thing as all visual art being subjective with respect to its innate qualities. Your SUBJECTIVE opinion is not the same thing as OBJECTIVE critical consensus.

And, as I said, there are disagreements, (for instance, if you are comparing two things of unparalleled high quality, like Michelangelo and Rembrandt), but in most cases--especially clear cut cases like Rembrandt vs. Thomas Kindade or Spaceship Earth vs. a mammoth box warehouse--a clear critical consensus determines the answer. It's not subjective. At all.

And that is your subjective opinion on the subject.

 

[DisneyDodo]

And just because nobody here has taken the time to design the perfect building and post it here doesn't mean there are no better alternatives than a big box warehouse on steroids. I would be shocked if there weren't better designs by the Disney team that got scrapped by the bean counters because they were too expensive. My guess is that this design was chosen not because it wasn't really that noticeable after all, and not because it wouldn't compete with Spaceship Earth, but because it was cheap.

The budget for this project is half a billion dollars (not that Disney ever even sticks to its budgets). This will be the most expensive theme park attraction ever built. I find it very hard to believe that they decided to pinch pennies when it came to the exterior of this attraction.

To the contrary, I actually think Disney was very methodical with how they went about this. While the EEA attraction was considered outdated and unpopular, the building it was housed in is still futuristic looking and very well fits the aesthetic of FW. Therefore, Disney decided to keep the exterior of the building intact and use THAT as the official house for the GotG/energy pavilion (or whatever it will be called). The fact that the majority of the ride happens to be located outside this building doesn’t change the fact that the UoE building is meant to be the face of the pavilion. That is the only building guests will enter from the outside and the main signage for the ride will presumably be in front of the entrance to THAT building.

FW doesn't just feature a bunch of themed arbitrary "buildings." It features themed pavilions. Each of these themed structures is meant to be some sort of abstract representation of what is "inside" (not physically) them. That's why the Soarin' building is completely unthemed - the attraction is part of the already themed Land pavilion. Calling attention to the GotG gravity building would only serve to detract from the concept of a unified pavilion represented by the UoE building. Making the gravity building invisible is not physically possible, so they went with the color that would most closely approximate invisibility. I do expect that most casual Disney fans will be under the impression that the ride actually takes place in the energy building, but even if they are aware that it takes place somewhere else, it doesn't mean Disney has to highlight that fact.

You are of course more than welcome to disagree with, or even despise, the approach Disney took to the exterior design of this pavilion. As you point out, it was certainly not the only possible strategy. However, I think suggestions that this design was chosen either out of pure laziness or because it is the cheapest option are unfounded, and probably incorrect.

 

[TOCPE82]

The issue with your argument is that the entire point of displaying it the way it is (with the green/blue colors) is to make it so that the "guests won't notice it". So, if that is what is happening, then the designers at WDI have been successful in their goal. It is silly to argue that people not noticing it is a problem or a negative outcome when it is exactly what Disney is aiming for. It is not akin to building attractions aimed at kids at all.

The issue becomes whether the method of obscuring the show building is effective or not -- which it is for some guests and not for others. The debate comes from how much of a percentage of visitors fall into each group.

I would agree with you. Time will tell if this method is going to be effective once all is set and done....