Not quite.
-
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
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Buildings get expanded in complementary ways all the time.
There was nothing given about the physical size and overall height of the building. The building definitely could have been obscured.
Last edited:
"Average guests" won't notice the gravity building because they will have their heads down looking at MDE or some other app on their phone/device. It's almost as if Disney is counting on this in some way... As if they no longer want you to have your head up, looking ahead at where you're going and looking around at what's around you. You know, like people used to do in years past. That theming stuff is for the birds and old people, because it costs money (unless it's Star Wars-related, then they spend on it because the SW fans wallets will reward them handsomely for doing it).
I've said it before and I'll say it again - Most guests are sheep these days. Something that is "New" means they should love it. Disney does not want anyone to cast a critical eye towards it, because that could mean less guest spending both now and in subsequent quarters. But I'm going way off topic, so I'll digress.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - Most guests are sheep these days. Something that is "New" means they should love it. Disney does not want anyone to cast a critical eye towards it, because that could mean less guest spending both now and in subsequent quarters. But I'm going way off topic, so I'll digress.
rle4lunch
Well-Known Member
Yes, but.... Repeat visitors tend to know how to time manage their trips better (although FP+ tries its best to screw you up with what you want to do while you're there) and are, indeed, looking up.
Very true.
I'd love to know if the first time guest tends to spend more on their trip than most going on their second or third trip.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
So a few months back we learned that Scot Drake is the new head of the Marvel Portfolio inside Disney Imagineering. Forbes had an article on him back in 2016 discussing his work as the lead designer on Shanghai Disneyland's Tomorrowland:
http://fortune.com/shanghai-disney-tomorrowland-china/
http://fortune.com/shanghai-disney-tomorrowland-china/
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I’m guessing this article doesn’t cover him refusing Bob Gurr’s assistance on the Mark VII and the trains being ovens that couldn’t navigate the beam.
Figments Friend
Well-Known Member
'Guardians of the Galaxy' at Epcot...?
And in a BA building that breaks the skyline...?
I bet Mr. Sklar would have a word or two to say about that shortsighted decision -
-
And in a BA building that breaks the skyline...?
I bet Mr. Sklar would have a word or two to say about that shortsighted decision -
-
rkleinlein
Well-Known Member
You may very well be right. It's total conjecture on my part. They may not have chosen it because it's the lazy way to design and cheapest way to build. But whatever their intentions, we see the end result. The construction sure looks cheap and the design sure looks lazy. Can anyone imagine anything lazier or cheaper than a giant box with blend-in paint and one corner that's a little higher than the rest?
I also agree that most backstage buildings don't need to be themed, even if some parts remain visible. But can't you also agree that this is not a typical backstage building. This is not like Soarin. This is gigantic--maybe the biggest structure at any Disney park, maybe even one of the biggest building in the world (someone who knows more than I can speak to that)--and it's in a very prominent location clearly visibly from multiple vantage points, particularly on the approach to the entrance.
This building also comes under the same P&R executive who signed a contract to build two new ships and had a sign added at Castaway Cay proclaiming himself a "Master Shipbuilder". So, as to whether or not this thing was done on the cheap/lazy - If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck...
HiJe
Well-Known Member
I think the only answer regarding the new ugly box and destruction of the previously beautiful skyline view is to not only fix up the inside of SSE, but rebuild it completely. I'm talking 4 or 5 times the size. A huge ball the size of the moon. And make it float also! No more pylons in the ground. And put a giant planet destroying lazer inside of it. And maybe theme it to......oh............I don't know............Star Wars or something like that. DeathStar Earth?
DeathCOT.
HiJe
Well-Known Member
I support this name 100%.
Aren’t they spending money on the attraction? So to describe it as cheap and lazy on designing the exterior is a rather “waste” of money. I always remarked that Epcot itself is not themed as a traditional park. I was told the Future World theme was actually Technology Innovation. If sticking to the theme, the box design is unimportant. Only the interior attraction is important. Otherwise, give the park a new theme and everything follows.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
I get what you're saying. But I'd still love to see a design for this bldg given its location that you wouldn't hate.
Now, I'm not a designer or architect, so I'm sure it's just a failure of my imagination... anyone want to take a crack at it?? I've been asking for a while now...
How about this? I'd forgive the Blend-in-Blue if the building were this size.
There are designs within WDI for a themed version of this show building. I don't know what they are, but just knowing that it makes it all the more lame that they decided to go with the unthemed one. It's not like it never crossed their mind that something as big as this is should be themed.
OG Runner
Well-Known Member
As long as there are lasers!
Future World is unthemed. The concept is the theme.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
Epcot is not "themed" in the traditional way, meaning the Future World Pavilions were not designed to reflect pre-existing architecture or natural forms the way that Frontierland needs to reference specific sorts of forms to serve its theme in the eyes of the audience who are already familiar with that world and how it should look.
Future World was a place defined unto itself, created by people who were brave enough to create their own, working vision of the future. In other words, Spaceship Earth is a Themed Building, but it's not themed to anything that already existed. From concept to execution, it was new and cutting edge, something that did not and could not exist anywhere else. THAT was the Innovation. That was part of the difference between Tomorrowland and Future World - where Tomorrowland dressed its buildings like things from the future, Future World walked the walk and created structures that were ahead of their time. If Innovation was the theme, it was because they were actually Innovating, and using the each pavilion to tell the story of innovation.
Each pavilion in Future World shared this approach. That's why they were all designed in 360. Not because the guests would see them from every side - for many pavilions guests never would - but because this vision dictated a method that was considered and resolved, modeling the way the designers hoped the world of the Future would be created. Where The Magic Kingdom decked out its buildings in the service of illusion, EPCOT Center conjured the theme it was meant to represent. Future World wasn't some imaginary ideal brought to life through sleight of hand, they did the hard work and realized the place as a primary source for its own concept.
THAT is the difference between Epcot and a Traditional Park, not that the buildings can be "whatever" and the style is unimportant. It was more important than ever. Future World as a land didn't pretend to transport you to the future, it reached into the future and pulled it forward. There was nothing else like it because each building pushed the envelope of what could be done while they were building it. And if the box wasn't important, they would have had dozens of them from day one. Instead they nearly sunk the company with the amount of money they spent innovating to create these beautiful buildings without intrusion. Probably because, to them, it was worth it.
At Magic Kingdom, a box like this would break the illusion. In Epcot it breaks a reality.
rkleinlein
Well-Known Member
Of course nobody said that the "ugly box" is equal to visual appeal to Spaceship Earth. The point is that aesthetic quality is not merely subjective opinion, and in many cases the differences between good and bad are quite clear (Spaceship Earth and an ugly box), unlike personal preferences (Rembrandt and Michelangelo) which are a matter of individual opinion.
But we may be speaking at cross-purposes and we (everyone here) may agree on more than we realize. If you do think the building is ugly, as your own description quoted above seems to indicate, then we are in complete agreement.
There is, in fact, a shared consensus on this: you, me, and everybody else who thinks the building is ugly--will far outnumber those who claim otherwise. (Show a pic of the building to 100 people and ask them if they find it attractive or ugly and see what kind of consensus emerges. Ask 100 architects, designers, and artists--people who know a lot about design and aesthetics--and the consensus will be even stronger.)
I may be wrong, but I think what we and others are disagreeing about is not whether or not the building is ugly, but whether or not it's ugliness is significant enough to matter.
I think for some of us it matters a lot while for others it matters less or not at all. I wonder if people are confusing personal significance, which is individual and subjective, with quality, which is determined by consensus and is more objective.