It’s the largest box you’ll ever see for an indoor cutting edge roller coaster. No one is walking through it like a pavilion, but they already have the Energy building that’s upgraded for the attraction. Form follows function. Why would it be any less? In the future, the reality should should not have ruin it for you. Amazing that a building will break the reality that it’s something quite amazing in a building.
-
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
Notes from Neverland
Well-Known Member
The positive side of me thinks it will be a fun new attraction.
The more cynical side thinks they intentionally made a "go-away" unthemed building for the ability to make a relatively quick theming change years down the road should they so desire.
The more cynical side thinks they intentionally made a "go-away" unthemed building for the ability to make a relatively quick theming change years down the road should they so desire.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Plus in the future if the sky isn’t blue anymore a quick coat of paint and it’s back to being invisible
Seriously, I’ll take the big blue/green cube over Guardians of the Tower of Terror like CA got.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
The reality was that you were in a place of innovative design and intention. Clearly that's not the case anymore, but they certainly don't seem to have a better idea in mind. Or if they do, this new building does not demonstrate it.
“Form follows function—that has been misunderstood. Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
A bird's wing is not so shaped because it looks cool, it is so shaped to achieve flight and is beautiful as a result of this harmony of shape and service.
The modernist argument in architecture was that a building should be designed to suit its purpose, not the other way around. Often this is taken to suggest that buildings be designed without ornament, but this doesn't really bear out - Louis Sullivan's most famous works all feature stunning ornament in cast iron while still speaking to this mantra. The argument was against excessive ornament.
The building in Future World whose architecture most suits characterization as having excessive ornament would be Mission: Space, because its planets are a facade on a squared warehouse, not truly related to the building's form, but even then they get a pass because they do enough to tell you about the experience inside and then don't push further in detail. Excessive still isn't the word.
Each early Future World Pavilion was a stunning example of "Form Ever Follows Function" -- the buildings didn't just house rides and showplaces, they spoke to the nature of the pavilion's subject, drawing you in and suggesting what could be found inside through innovative, custom-tailored designs without excessive ornament.
The Guardians building is by NO means an example of form following function -- unless we want to concede that the sole function of it is to put a roof over the Roller Coaster inside, because the building does not suggest any sort of spiritual union with the experience inside. If that's the case then it's demonstrably clear how this building has no business being in Future World no matter what's inside, be it Guardians or even something more thematically appropriate, because a building like this does not follow the form of what's inside, the way the entire rest of Future World does. If you didn't know what the building was for its design wouldn't give you any clues.
ObscurityPoint
Well-Known Member
While I'm still somewhat disappointed at seeing the Guardians invade Epcot, I don't think it's the worst thing that could happen to the park by any means. I'm a huge Marvel fan, so naturally I wouldn't mind seeing Marvel rides incorporated into the parks. I am also a huge Epcot fan, but I've come to accept over the years that Epcot was never a very good park to begin with (in terms of Future World). I mean come on, there are people who think a Michael Jackson film made in the 1980s about a ragtag team of space aliens and their captain who defends the universe while dancing to their upbeat jams belongs in a modern Future World while the same concept applied to a new, state of the art roller coaster doesn't. The only difference here is that people are already familiar with the characters of the Guardians and will probably cause them to stick around in the long run.
Now hear me out, I get the argument that IPs in Epcot, especially Future World, suck. But I don't want a revival of the dated, educational 1980s Epcot Center or a park full of cheap overlays of animated films. The only thing I want for Epcot, (if and when Disney goes through with the major overhaul of Future World), is a full park with an incredible, new atmosphere. Whether or not the Guardians are a part of that plan, I don't really care. Looking at the concept art, Epcot's new Future World has the potential to be beautiful if Disney goes through with the idea to replace the abandoned spaces and dying, empty attractions it has with new structures, lights, fountains- anything really. I'm already starting to ramble, but what I'm saying is that Disney now needs to focus on what Epcot as a park can be, not what it was.
Also, I gotta add that when comparing the outside of the ride to the monstrosity that is Mission: Breakout's exterior, it's much more clean and the design of it blends into a reimagined Future World nicely. Makes me wonder what the story of the ride will be. I doubt it'll have anything to do with the Collector and his fortress, since Disneyland already covered that, but maybe the queue will somehow tie in to a brief plot about energy. It's a stretch, but with Rocket stealing batteries in Volume 2, as well as the main villain being a powerful, energy-driven living planet, it gets me wondering if the ride will pay a sort of tribute to Universe of Energy in that sense.
Who knows what they've got planned?
Now hear me out, I get the argument that IPs in Epcot, especially Future World, suck. But I don't want a revival of the dated, educational 1980s Epcot Center or a park full of cheap overlays of animated films. The only thing I want for Epcot, (if and when Disney goes through with the major overhaul of Future World), is a full park with an incredible, new atmosphere. Whether or not the Guardians are a part of that plan, I don't really care. Looking at the concept art, Epcot's new Future World has the potential to be beautiful if Disney goes through with the idea to replace the abandoned spaces and dying, empty attractions it has with new structures, lights, fountains- anything really. I'm already starting to ramble, but what I'm saying is that Disney now needs to focus on what Epcot as a park can be, not what it was.
Also, I gotta add that when comparing the outside of the ride to the monstrosity that is Mission: Breakout's exterior, it's much more clean and the design of it blends into a reimagined Future World nicely. Makes me wonder what the story of the ride will be. I doubt it'll have anything to do with the Collector and his fortress, since Disneyland already covered that, but maybe the queue will somehow tie in to a brief plot about energy. It's a stretch, but with Rocket stealing batteries in Volume 2, as well as the main villain being a powerful, energy-driven living planet, it gets me wondering if the ride will pay a sort of tribute to Universe of Energy in that sense.
Who knows what they've got planned?
SaveDinosaur
Well-Known Member
If the production of the movie stays like this for more 2 years, what is Disney going to do? How is Disney going to proceed with Dave Bautista after the things he said?
ObscurityPoint
Well-Known Member
Sure, Splash is fully themed from guest views as well as all of the MK attractions due to its location of being secluded by trees and the rest of the parks. I'm just saying is that Epcot gets the short end of the stick when it comes to being having an open layout surrounded by literally everything. You can spot the backside of Everest at AK, and let's not pretend that DHS tries to hide their show buildings, everything there besides ToT is a big tan box. I guess what I'm saying is that there's no way for them to hide an entire building for a ride like that from the public eye when you're in a park as wide and open as Epcot.
ObscurityPoint
Well-Known Member
I'm guessing either they already filmed the scenes for the ride during Avengers filming, and it'll be based on the first and second movie, or they're going to wait until Guardians 3 filming starts to see if he actually goes through with what he said. But I'm not sure, we'll discover Drax's fate in the movies when Avengers: Endgame comes out.
rkleinlein
Well-Known Member
So well said.
I didn’t know each unique building in Epcot is supposed to follow a theme because they largely don’t. Spaceship Earth doesn’t look like Earth, more like a golf ball on a tee. So trying to win points on this argument is digging a deeper hole. The Magic Kingdom has more justification of having a theme, but each major attraction is fronted by a facade with a warehouse in the back. They’re just more carefully hidden. DHS doesn’t even bother with hidding warehouses. That’s the way Hollywood studio soundstages look.
Guardians is a roller coaster in square box building. That’s the form following the function, but you’re not supposed to see it in a regular theme park. Since Epcot isn’t a traditional theme park, the berm doesn’t exist. They would normally try harder to hide it. I think it’s part of the show.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
. . . Yikes, dude.
If you don't understand how Spaceship Earth functions as an architecturally abstracted Earth, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you. Maybe Judi Dench will.
You clearly aren't familiar with the design legacy of EPCOT Center -- which is fine, but don't pretend The Seas, The Land, Imagination, the Motion Building, etc. don't all follow bold design premises relating to their subjects when they categorically and historically do.
There's plenty of writing out there about them, if you're interested. Feel free to Google it.
DisneyDodo
Well-Known Member
This building is absolutely a massive one, there's no denying that. And I don't think a single person, not even Bob Iger himself, would claim that the giant blue structure improves FW's aesthetic. However, the building is obviously ginormous for a reason - it's not like they decided to build a huge building because they were too lazy and cheap to build a smaller one. It must be that whatever Disney is hoping to accomplish with this ride could not have been done in a smaller building. Therefore, this decision, like most, comes down to tradeoffs; they either sacrifice the sight-lines for the sake of the attraction experience, or vice versa. They went with the former. Now it's all about trying to minimize the damage to the best of their abilities, and they've obviously determined that go-away-blue was the best way to do that.
The main point I'm trying to make is that the fact the building itself is objectively a negative doesn't guarantee that Disney's decisions were objectively wrong.
solidyne
Well-Known Member
Then we can expect the coaster inside the box to be reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllyyyyyyyyyy good, right?
Troll Level 1000.... (I hope..) because, honestly.. dude... I mean..... wow.
MickeyMinnieMom
Well-Known Member
I’m not.
Pretty Darned Objective
- Examining it, it’s a huge, clearly unimaginative, unattractive box.
- It is less noticeable with the go-away panels than without, which is an improvement over the how the frame alone looked.
- If it could feasibly have been made smaller and still housed a cool e-ticket, that would have been preferable.
- No one thing would make everyone happy
Subjective:
- Some people notice that box on a horizon more than others.
- Some people are more bothered than others by said box to whatever extent they notice it.
- Some would prefer a “PROPERLY” themed building to a go-away box, while some think it makes sense for the UoE building to be the only on stage “pavilion” for this, thus appropriate to “go-away” the other building.
- Some people would not be happy with this NO MATTER WHAT because they feel GotG has no business in Epcot.
Unknown / Unclear
- Some (like me) think that it would have been very difficult to 1) fit GotG theme AND 2) fit in Epcot skyline. Perhaps others think this was totally feasible. I’ve not seen any suggestion that can fit the bill IMO, nor can I imagine one. But I am no Imagineer and leave room for the possibility that it could have been done. Whether that would have been better than “go-away” with only the UoE building themed for on stage is subjective (see above).
From now on, I think I’ll just refer to this post if asked another question on this topic.
Let me list the design features of each.
The Seas - wavy curves.
The Land - greenhouse.
Imagination - glass pyramids.
Energy - solar panels.
Horizons - space ship.
World of Motion - cylinder.
Spaceship Earth- sphere.
Really bold.
Let’s boldly go further than anyone can stand.
Guardians - cube.
GotG is more than the bland cube. It's also the reworked Energy building.
EPCOTCenterLover
Well-Known Member
You’ve got to be kidding.
Of course, but no one remembers this.
